Evolution or Creation Theory

or

Man and surface culture

The latter would seem to be the title of a work devoted to agricultural produces. Just that here it does not speak of "crops" but of "culture." 

The reference is obviously to the superficiality that often characterises the approach of human sensibility towards things which regard the world, which is, as said, superficial. 

This superficiality does not often allow us to fully see the aspects that surround us or, at least, relegates us to the simple role of men who are satisfied by what we learn or what we are told. 

But science, just like faith, cannot grow (inside and outside of us) if it does not continually doubt in order to verify, mature, and assimilate better. 

Returning therefore to the main title, we immediately have to report a serious scientific gap that has distinguished itself, above all in the last century, not so much as the result of a free and unconditioned Enlightenment, but, it seems to us, as the result of an exaggerated trust in the theory of evolution which in some respects has led to the extreme consequences of being scientifically (and mathematically) impossible.

In order to enter into the heart of the matter, not everyone perhaps knows that the debate between supporters of the theories of creation and of evolution, (which marked the beginning of the scientific model) has never been resolved and which, above all today, thanks to ever greater scientific knowledge and discoveries, is more open than ever. 

Above all, the debate between scientific affirmations and theories is wide open. 

In fact the discussion on the origins of life is not science in a narrow sense. This is due to the fact that the origins cannot be submitted to experimental verifications. When life began, or when the different types of organisms started to exist, scientific observatories did not exist. Besides these events no longer happen in the present world. Therefore, from a scientific point of view, the solution to the problem of the origins is impossible. The philosophical point of view of modern biologists with regards to the origins can be reduced to two: the doctrine of evolution and the doctrine of creation. The first affirm that life and its various forms have gradually appeared because of natural processes over long periods of time. The second believe that life in its principal forms instantly had its origin through the creative actions of the Creator himself. 

Both the evolutionists and the creationists agree on the facts of present-day biology. The disagreement concerns the interpretation of the origins and the meanings of these facts. 

Scientists use models to explain natural phenomena. Every proposed model is appraised according to its efficiency: how are the available data inserted in the model proposed for explaining a specific phenomenon? 

In this way, even the two principal points of view which regard the origins can be summarized in an "evolutionist model" and a "creationist model". The model that better suits the available data will also be the most efficient and reasonable. 

At this point it is useful to remember that some researchers have proposed a model that can be found half way between those mentioned above, accepting both the theories of evolution and creation. This position can be better understood after an evaluation of the two basic models. In any case, many scientists, both evolutionists and creationists, refuse this idea. 

The coherent evolutionist affirms that if enough evolutionary processes exist to explain the data that we observe in nature - and he believes that they do exist - it is not then necessary to resort to creative processes. The creationist believes that it is necessary to postulate creative actions to explain the data coming from nature, and holds, therefore, that evolution is not necessary. 

The two models are not compatible, if not at a very superficial level, since they diametrically represent two opposite points of view on the origins.  

1. The evolutionist model 

According to the evolutionist model, the observable natural processes are enough to explain the origins of the universe and all the transformations necessary to produce the immense variety and present complexity. Despite occasional regressions or limited failures, the general effect of the evolutionary processes has been that of diversification and of an increase in complexity stemming from primordial simplicity. 

According to this model, in fact, all living things are allied by common descent (genealogical roots) and are slowly transformed. Therefore it is possible to make certain predictions that can serve for judging the validity of the model:  

- We should be able to observe innumerable similarities among living beings, going from the simplest species to the most complex, without there being discontinuity. 

- The processes that have given origin to all the beings should, if observed in the present, produce new beings and an ever increasing complexity of species.  

- If it were possible to decipher the history of the Earth, one should be able to observe that the variety and the complexity of living beings increasing through time.  

Observing the data at our disposition we notice that the predictions mentioned above are verified only in part. Comparing different organisms we observe that there are indeed a lot of similarities between them: for example in the anatomy, in the embryonic development, in the biochemistry, in the genetics, etcetera. 

The data at our disposal do not show a continuity of similarities without interruptions between different species. There are - it is true - conjectures to explain the existence of the numerous discontinuities, but these can not be scientifically experimented, therefore they do not offer a reasonable explanation for this evident lack in the evolutionist model. 

The study of various biological processes confirms the forecast that many changes currently happen also in living organisms. It is, for example, possible to produce new living species through the mechanisms of hybridization (cross species), through induced mutations and through selection. These phenomena can happen in natural or artificial ways.  

Again, however, the evidence at our disposal is not completely convincing, since these changes are not transformations which tend to increase the level of organization, as forecasts would suggest. They can be divided into two groups:  

- variations which are relatively limited and simply lead to new variations of existing species;  

- mutations which derive from casual changes in the DNA of the germinal cells, with consequent diminution of the organization of the individual, and never with the result of new physical characteristics.  

These two phenomena can be better used for sustaining the principle of conservation and decay rather than that of the formation of new species and the increase in complexity, as the evolutionist model proposes. 

Many evolutionist scientists affirm that through the study of  the small variations an understanding of the dynamics of  greater transformations can be reached,  even if the observations made up until today do not sustain this theory .  

The prediction that the complexity of organisms is increased during the geological eras seems at first confirmed by fossils. Palaeontology undoubtedly offers the greatest evidence in support of evolution. However, such evidence is seriously weakened through a circular way of reasoning: the geological scale of eras is based on the hypothesis that evolution has taken place. 

The dating of geological formations is primarily determined by the "fossils index" that they contain. In order to have exact suppositions, the dating done through the use of radioactive minerals is always corrected through palaeontological criterions. In addition, there are a lot of places in which fossils coming from different geological eras are found in the same layers, just as there are sediments in which "old" fossils are found above formations containing "young" fossils.

It has been seen that the greater part of the layers containing fossils of great plants or animals must have been deposited very quickly, perhaps even catastrophically, otherwise they would not have been preserved. The study of the fossils does not necessarily show that a slow and uniform evolution has happened during the geological eras, but rather suggests that there has been a sequence of catastrophic events at a planetary level. 

It is true that some data can be interpreted according to an evolutionist picture. This interpretation is, however, not at all conclusive. Certainly everyone is free to believe through an act of faith, but in this way we have to honestly admit that it is no longer possible to call evolution "science".  

2. The creationist model

The principal postulation of this model is that in the past there has been a period in which all  things were created - that is to say, formed from nothing - through the power of the Creator. All the physical and biological entities were made perfectly, each with its specific form and function. 

The living biological forms in the present are preserved rather than  created. The actual natural processes are therefore conservative processes that serve to maintain the stability of the living forms, and are not evolutionary processes. 

This does not mean that variations or changes are not possible. On the contrary: an important postulation of the creationist model is that during the creation, the basic entities  contained an enormous potential of variability. However, the action of these mutations will always be limited to within the entities that were initially created. In the biological field, for example, new varieties can quickly appear but no new basic type. 

According to the biblical version of the creationist model, shortly after the period of the creation the universal principle of  decay was introduced. In the end there was a cataclysmic  flood in all the world that radically changed the face of the earth and the speed of many natural processes.  

The characteristics of the creationist model mentioned above are confirmed by most natural phenomena that we can observe, showing therefore the validity of the creationist model at a scientific level. We have, however, to remember that, with scientific methods, any model of the origins can  never be completely verified. 

The two basic scientific principles, which  are also those that are most firmly established, are the first and second law of thermodynamics. These two laws are applied to all scientific disciplines without exception. They can be interpreted  as predictions confirmed by the creationist model.  

The first law (conservation of mass-energy) sustains the prediction that, beginning from the moment in which the universe was created and completed, nothing more is created or destroyed: everything is preserved. 

The second law of  thermodynamics (that of increasing entropy) is essentially also a confirmation of the universal law of decay and death postulated by the biblical version of the creationist model. 

The stability of the biological species (the basic entities)  is sustained without exception by all the data observed in biology. Therefore, a population of Biston betularia butterflies can change colour because of the content of soot in the atmosphere and  natural selection, but it will still remain a population of Biston betularia butterflies. Thousands of consecutive generations of Drosophila melanogaster can be exposed to radiation and other mutational agents, producing an ample range of mutants, but they will still remain Drosophila melanogasters. 

In the creationist model ample discontinuities are also foreseen among the basic species, since every species has been created for a specific purpose, therefore it will have structures which have been purposefully planned for that purpose. On the other hand, a lot of similarities are also foreseen,  since it is to be expected that when similar functions must be performed in similar environments, even by different species, similar structures will be planned. 

With regards to palaeontology, it is known that the discontinuities among different species exist both in the fossils found and in the present biological world. There are a lot of extinct species, as there are extinct varieties (found in fossils) of species which are currently still in existence. But none of these can be considered as a transitional link between two different biological entities.  

Conclusive considerations 

There are therefore two possible models to explain the origins: the evolutionist model and the creationist model. Both have important philosophical consequences and both cannot be proven scientifically. On the other hand, both can be used as frames of reference for developing forecasts on natural phenomena. 

The creationist model offers an interpretative picture that is at least as satisfactory as the evolutionist model. The two laws of  thermodynamics, the apparent stability of the  basic “species”, the presence of discontinuity between the species and the deteriorating nature of  mutations, are all  factors which better refer to a creationist model rather than to an evolutionist one. 

In addition,  the principles of  physics, chemistry and other physical sciences are easily recognizable in a creationist frame rather than in an evolutionist one. 

Despite this, the majority of  modern biologists prefer to adopt the evolutionist point of view for the origins as an explanation for the facts of  biology. In effect, many are so confident of this position that they affirm that evolution is a scientific fact. But this affirmation has never been proven, nor can it ever be.  

There are today also a notable number of biologists and other scientists convinced that the creationist model is more reasonable and satisfactory in order to explain the origins. Many of these men and women belong to the Creation Research Society, an organization that brings together around 500 scientists who have at least a doctorate in a scientific discipline. The society devotes itself to research and the publication of  information which supports the creationist model. 

The preponderant number of evolutionists in the scientific and educational world has however conducted to a monopoly of evolutionist opinions in modern text books. For this reason, it is necessary to have a way of teaching which can simply introduce the biological facts without any preconceptions with regards to their interpretation, or a teaching in which the two contrasting models are introduced  in order to be able interpret the facts. The present article filler simply contributions (present also on Internet) of the debate on the two theories, without to enter in personal appraisals. Southernland does not have one official position on the argument.