It's funny how some discussions polarize people, and none more so than the ongoing debate between Creationists and Evolutionists over evolution vs creation. These are two opposing viewpoints and yet in some ways they are similar.
Creationists believe that the world as we know it was created by God. That He made all things according to a definite plan and that everything we see in this world today exists only by God's word of power. The world as we know it is incredibly complex and yet everything is interdependent. Despite the complexity there is balance, order and purpose to everything we see around us, which suggests careful planning, control and execution.
On the other side though we have the Evolutionists who believe that life developed through random chemical interactions. Life was sparked by an event that brought together all the right components at the right time in the right place. Life commenced as single cell amoeba, which adapted, changed and evolved over many millennia into the multitude of living organisms, creatures and plant life that exist today.
Thus Creationists believe that the universe as we know it was part of a definite and well-formulated plan whereas Evolutionists believe this all came about by chance, and everything that has occurred since, including the big bang, was totally random. So let's consider these two positions and see how they stack up.
The issue that Evolutionists have with creation is about the inability of anyone to prove the existence of God. Evolutionists believe in a scientific approach and that unless something can be empirically measured or perceived with the five senses, then it does not exist. So because you cannot measure, see, touch, smell, hear or taste God then he cannot exist and thus Creationism is likewise a fallacy.
Now there are many things that you cannot perceive through the senses that we know exist, for example thoughts, emotions or feelings. These things cannot be perceived by the senses or measured empirically, but we know they exist for we can see the results of them in actions and behaviours. If we apply a scientific approach to these things then we could logically argue they do not exist and pooh-pooh anyone who believed that they do.
But let's also apply the scientific approach to what Evolutionists believe. Is their position credible from an empirical standpoint?
The essence of Evolution is that every form of life developed from a single cell amoeba which over countless generations developed into cats, dogs, fish, lizards, insects, man and so on. The flaw in this has always been the inability to find the so-called "missing link." That is, the crossover species that saw apes become men.
However the concept of the missing link goes well beyond just the transformation of apes into men. For every species of animal, reptile, insect or fish there had to be a crossover species. Popular teaching of evolution theory says that at some point fish crawled from the sea and became amphibians, which then became lizards, which then became small animals, which then became larger quadrupeds, which then stood up to become two legged bipeds and eventually became man. Similar evolutionary chains must also exist for every other species on the planet today.
For every species that exists there needs to be a crossover species to get from one to the next. There needs to be a link where there is half-fish and half-lizard, or half-cow and half-horse, half-dog and half-something else, and so on. We are not looking for one missing link, but many thousands or millions of missing links that connect each evolutionary stage of every species. There should be a continual chain that can be traced progressively from a single cell amoeba to all of the complex life forms today.
But what does science say about this? If evolution were scientific fact then it should be able to be proved conclusively. And yet the archaeological record shows nothing. Not one single missing link has ever been found between any two species, and yet for life to exist, as we know it today, there should be millions of links in the archaeological record. The world should be littered with so many links that it would be impossible to argue, but there are none.
Furthermore, we know from DNA that the intermixing of species cannot occur. You cannot mix the DNA of a horse and a man to create a centaur. And when there are mutations in species many do not have the ability to procreate but die off in their own generation.
So if you can't prove evolution by science then it does not exist, using the logic Evolutionists apply to God. Even Charles Darwin had the good sense to call it a "Theory" of Evolution rather than a fact, and had he known about DNA he might not have postulated his theory in the first place. And yet evolution is taught today as if it were an undeniable and absolute truth, without any substantiating science to back it up.
So let's look at science and see what it tells us. Scientists have spent many centuries studying the universe and the natural world to unravel its secrets. In their studies of physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, mathematics and all other arms of the sciences they find perfect order and balance. They do not find chance or randomness in the natural world but things that are so ordered and controlled as to appear to be the work of a pure intelligence.
So if anything we see that science actually strengthens the position of the Creationists who believe that God created the world according to a divine plan. They believe he created every species of plant and animal life according to its kind, which is being backed up by the scientific discoveries in DNA. And science has never been able to validate the existence of any of the millions of necessary crossover species in the archaeological record to validate evolution.
Furthermore, as shown above, we know that some things exist even though we can't measure them empirically or perceive them with our senses, because we see the effects that they have through action or behaviour. Creationists see the world around them as the actions and behaviours of God, providing proof of the fact that God exists because the entire universe is the work of his hands.
But Evolutionists have no scientific evidence to support their position, as there is no proof that evolution occurred. There is no science to back it up and so it must always be a "theory" which begs the question: why is it taught as fact?
Which brings me back to the original point of this discussion. It's funny how some discussions polarize people and none more so than this debate, and yet in some ways there are such similarities. Creationists rely on faith as their mainstay, to the chagrin and occasionally the contempt of the Evolutionists, even though the scientific record backs up much of what Creationists believe. Evolutionists on the other hand have nothing in the scientific record to back up the position that they cling to adamantly, which I guess means they must accept it on the basis of...faith! Hmm...
I hope that you found something here to help you or add to your own knowledge. If you have any questions, then please feel free to contact me.