Creation vs. Evolution: Who Wins?

Creation vs. Evolution: Round One

To an evolutionary biologist, evolution is an observable phenomenon. To a layperson, it’s much less so, and this is often used as an argument against evolution. Because if you can’t observe it happening, it’s not really happening, right? However, what the creationist doesn’t necessarily understand is the actual definition of evolution, which is simply a change in a species’ gene pool over time. That’s all it is—and that is in fact an extremely common event.

Creation vs. Evolution: Round Two

Another argument which supposedly counts against evolution is the absence of transitional fossils—those which show evidence of changes in a species over time, and which are “intermediate” forms of life which show characteristics of both modern and ancient species. And again, this argument exists because of a difference in the way the term is understood and what it actually means. To an evolutionary biologist there are simply thousands of examples of evolution in action in the fossil record—but to someone without the training, the evidence isn’t apparent. A fossil which might look 100% bird to a layperson is actually a mixture of bird and reptile to someone who knows what they’re looking for, making it a transitional fossil which shows evidence of evolution.

Creation vs. Evolution: Round Three

One particularly popular argument in the creation vs. evolution debate is that evolution is simply impossible, because it relies entirely on random chance. The argument is that the chance of evolution having produced humans, and in fact any living organisms, is just too small, and therefore it’s not possible for evolution to have occurred at all. However, the fact is that evolution did not occur purely by chance—and this is a commonly accepted concept for evolutionary biologists.

The factor of chance—represented by genetic mutations which produce species variation—is extremely important, but it’s not the only factor involved. Evolution also relies on the concept of the “survival of the fittest.” Chance, coupled with competition of species for available resources, is the key. When genetic variation occurs, those organisms with a mutation which provides a competitive advantage are more likely to survive and pass on their genetic material to offspring. Over time, the accumulation of beneficial mutations will eventually result in a new species.

The winner? Clearly, there isn’t one. To the average scientist or atheist the evidence for evolution is very strong—too strong to refute.

However, if you believe in creationism, you take it on faith and you believe it because it’s an integral part of your religion—that isn’t something from which scientific arguments can detract. And the thing is, there’s no doubt that so-called ‘creation science’ can actually explain things very handily. It does this, however, because creationism does not need to prove itself to be true—it only needs to prove that evolution is untrue, which is much easier to do.

There’s plenty of evidence to support evolution, and it’s good solid evidence, but that doesn’t matter to someone who chooses to disbelieve it based on faith. But to someone who believes in evolution, the evidence is more than enough to support the belief. The creation vs. evolution debate is basically one without a winner, which in turn means it is one without end.