Schoolwork: Evolution vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design essay

Da-yam, another painfully slow day. Wish I could update my blog more often dammit ... not to mention school's a pain. :'(

At least I got something to do for now until that tease-of-a-bell rings at last. My next exam is an oral essay, the subject of which I chose to be the superiority of Evolution over Creationism and Intelligent Design. I've only written the plan, but seeing as readers probably aren't keen on deciphering my weird-ass codes and abbreviations and formats, I'll stretch it out into full sentences for y'all. (You're welcome.)

So here it is, translated from the original French and made into complete sentences.

---

Oral Production
'Evolution vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design'

Introduction

One of most recognized and famous men in history is undoubtedly Charles Darwin, the Victorian-era scientist who authored the revolutionary book, On the Origin of Species, which basically is the bedrock and framework for all of modern biology.

First, let's examine just what is the Theory of Evolution, and what is Creation Myth and Intelligent Design.

The Darwinian Theory of Evolution basically states that all species of animals (and plants) have common ancestors from which they've changed over time, or evolved. ^[1]

Creationism, and it's off-shoot Intelligent Design, are religious myths (not 'theories', as a theory requires a modicum of evidence – more on that later) that explain that the Earth, and by extension Life and the Universe, were created by God, or some other deity(s). The main form of Creationism, dubbed 'Young Earth Creationism', additionally dates this creation back roughly 10,000 years BC. ^[2][3]

Naturally, as it basically disproves and disclaims God's creation and, by extension, God himself (though not necessarily), Religious folk and believers and whatnot immediately decried the theory. This conflict exists to this day, and in fact only seems to be gaining more and more steam throughout both social and political circles around the world, although the most heat is by far found in America. It's a conflict that most of the general population hardly even seem to be aware of, and have little interest for, yet for those who are interested in it, it's a metaphorical flame-war between Evolutionists and Creationists, one side guided by Science and facts, the other by beliefs, faith and dogma.

The point of this oral essay is to try and elucidate why exactly Creationism fails in respect to Evolution, and although I only have 6 minutes to describe what is basically a thousands-year-old war (which only heated up following Darwin's book), the mountains of evidence in favor of Evolution compared to the absolute lack of evidence for Creationism seems to tip the scales firmly in one direction.

1st argument: Evidence for Evolution

Let's get one thing straight: there is no concrete and absolute 'proof' for anything, and Evolution is no exception. There is no way to categorically prove Evolution (nor Creationism), but the endless evidence for it, compared to the zero evidence for Creationism, seems to point in one direction alone. After all, if over 95% of scientists on Earth believe in Evolution over Creationism ^[4], then somehow, it must have some credibility to it, no?

Let's examine the principal evidence for Evolution. There are four main lines of evidence to be studied: fossils, homologies, the distribution of species across time and space, and evidence by example. ^[5]

• Firstly, the fossil record clearly shows that life itself is very old, far older than 10,000 years, and furthermore, has vastly changed and mutated – ie., evolved – over time. Extremely accurate and reliable dating methods (such as carbon-dating) have proven this time and time again.

• Secondly, the similarities, or homologies, between animal and floral species are astoundingly apparent to anyone who looks for them. All species of life on Earth are interrelated one way or another. The only explanation for this, other than they were all created by God to be similar in one way or another for some arbitrary reason, is that they all share similar roots: common ancestral species, like branches of a tree.

• Thirdly, the distribution of animal and floral species across time and space is undeniably clear and indicative of Evolutionary processes. Studying geology and ancient forms of life incontrovertibly demonstrates that life has existed for a very long time and that it has changed considerably over time and terrestrial geological eras. Also, the spread and distribution of species, along with their disparate similarities and relations, shows ancient stages of evolutionary and biological development.

• Fourthly, evidence by example is a final and absolute method of proving Evolution and Natural Selection red-handed. Scientists are able to reproduce evolutionary results in laboratories and study centers by artificially controlling stimuli and scenarios, which manipulates species of life (mostly bacterial or viral, as well as floral) into evolving in one way or another. A common and well-known example, is how they demonstrate bacteria evolving, through Natural Selection, to becoming stronger and more resistant to antibiotics, as the weaker strains die out but the stronger strains remain. With their rival strains eliminated, the stronger strains subsequently multiply and take over. Weaker has been eliminated and has been replaced by stronger. Natural Selection's textbook definition.

Compared to this intimidating amount of evidence, which borders on 'proof', how does evidence for Creationism stack up? The answer is simple: it doesn't. There simply is no evidence whatsoever in support of Creationism, no matter where or how you look at it. If there is no proof or evidence, then it simply cannot be true, nor can it be a 'theory' in name. Hence, Creation Myth. ^[6]

In fact, most of the arguments in favor of Creationism against Evolution belong in the fallacy known as 'Irreductible Complexity', which basically states that if something is too complex to be understood, then it forcibly has to have been created. This is just plain dumb and ignorant. Just because something is not explained, does not make it unexplainable. We just haven't found the answer there. Working along the lines that there's always an answer and we just have to find it, just give Science and scientists time and it'll be found sooner or later. New discoveries happen every single day.

2nd argument: Creationism and Evolution as equals/alternatives

Creationism cannot be allowed to be taught in Science classes in schools as an 'alternative' to Evolution, simply because a) it's not an alternative to Evolution, and b) it's not scientific.

Evolution is a scientific theory that has been validated and all but proven, with a near-universal support from the scientific community and that disposes of mountains of evidence. Creationism, on the other hand, is not scientific. It's theological and religious. They can therefore never be taught as 'equals' or 'alternative', for they simply aren't. We might as well teach students that apples are 'equals' or 'alternatives' to pine cones. It would make just as much sense.

Creationism should certainly allowed to be taught in theology or religion classrooms. Just not scientific ones.

3rd argument: Social Darwinism

'Social Darwinism' is a faulty and odious extrapolation from Darwin's Natural Selection, which says that if it's the 'survival of the fittest' in the animal world and that the strong will win while the weak will perish, it should also be applied to human civilizations and societies: favor the strong, crush or kill the weak. This is entirely false, and to put it bluntly, absolutely stupid. Natural Selection and Evolution were never meant or intended to apply to human civilizations or societies. They specifically apply only to animal species and their battle for survival in Nature/ ^[7] 'Social Darwinism' is no more than yet another half-brained attempt by anti-Evolutionist advocates to try and discredit or tarnish the Theory of Evolution and Darwin himself, and is simply shameful.

Counter-Argument and its refutation: Abiogenesis

One of the most heavily-relied-upon and often-repeated 'arguments' used by Creationists and anti-Evolutionists to try and discredit Evolution, is that seeing as Evolution does not and cannot explain how or why life appeared on Earth, it cannot be a valid theory in its context. This is illogical and is the result of plain ignorance. Evolution has nothing to do with explaining the origin of Life on Earth, or Abiogenesis. If one would care to read the title of Darwin's book more carefully, it's called 'On the Origin of Species', not 'On the Origin of Life'. Evolution's purpose is to explain how and why species of animals and plants all share such similarities, fossil records, etc. ^[8] Saying it doesn't explain the origin of life in itself is equal to saying the mathematical equation '1+1' does not explain the result of '1x5'. They are simply not the same thing at all.

Conclusion

To conclude this essay, only Evolution can be allowed to reign, at least in scientific classes in schools, and not Creationism, which has been repeatedly discredited and disproven time and time again yet holds on like an obstinate parasite on society's beliefs. Evolution has long-ago been 'proven', or as close to proven as it can be, whereas there is simply no evidence at all for Creationism or Intelligent Design. Maybe some day, the law of knowledge and proof will overthrow the current law of false beliefs and illogical faith.

---

FOOTNOTES
^{[1] Definition of 'Evolution' in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
[2] Definition of 'Creationism' in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
[3] Definition of 'Intelligent Design' in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
[4] Scientists supporting Evolution over Creationism/Intelligent Design: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
[5] Evidence for Evolution (source: Berkeley University, California): http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
[6] Evidence (or lack thereof) for Creationism: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence18.htm
[7] 'Social Darwinism': http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_1.html
[8] Evolution on the origin of life on Earth (abiogenesis): http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html}

---

Phew, longer than I expected, coming from such a short plan ... Well, any comments, either to praise my learned-off-the-back-of-Wikipedia brilliance or to damn me to Hell for my anti-Creationism, would be welcome. :P

And now back to scanning the news scroller for anything remotely interesting ... Oy.