Creation vs Evolution?

Question

By Demas Brubacher
Bible Baptist Reminder,
Clarksville, Tennessee
February, 1975

On January 14 four of the faculty members of Clarksville Baptist College had the privilege to attend a debate with its issue: "RESOLVED THAT EVOLUTION IS A MORE SATISFACTORY SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF LIFE THAN IS CREATION."

A crowd of 2,200 crowded into the Alumni Gym on the campus of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Over half were UT students. On the side of evolution were Drs. Schweitzer and Jones of the University while on the side of creation were Drs. Morris and Gish of the Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, California. All four men are highly recognized scientists and specialists in their fields.

It was exciting to see the creationists beat the evolutionists on their own territory without using one single Bible verse. This irritated the evolutionists and in the final rebuttal, Dr. Schweitzer played foul and violated the rules of the debate by accusing them of believing creationism only because of their religious convictions. Even the audience resented this tactic.

The irritation was further observed at the end of the debate when the voice of one of the scientists from the paleontology department was heard on the floor angrily calling out to Dr. Gish that he was "falsely misrepresenting the facts." He then challenged Dr. Gish for the written proof concerning the finding of a new problem for the evolutionists, namely, a highly complex fish fossilized with simple-celled animals. Dr. Gish calmly showed the written evidence for all to see but the hot-headed professor cried it was a forgery!

It was shocking to see the unscientific attitude of the evolutionists towards the problems of "gaps" and fossil frustrations. Their answer time and time again was that they didn't "worry" about them. Never was a serious attempt made to answer any charge that evolution was unscientific.

For the serious seeker in the crowd I must say he was exposed to more truth concerning creation than about the teachings of the theory of evolution. No doubt many went away wondering about the so-called facts they have been fed of evolution

Answer 1

First, this copiously written incident proves nothing. I can find ANYTHING at ANYTIME to support my views. This doesn't in any way prove them valid. Second, just for the mental exercise in it, let's focus on "Creation." The IDEA that a CREATOR must have CREATED is absolute linear thinking. Awesomely limited. (As are our little minds, mostly.) Things beyond most people's comprehension are put in little "boxes." Beginning & end, black & white, right or wrong, & so forth. Stifling! Third, say we just scratch the word CREATION? Fourth, now, I have a thought that I doubt anyone will even "try" to accept, without extensive (credible) research. Look into ANTI-MATTER. I won't digress, but this "could" end the whole dam*** conflict, & satisfy the creationists that GENESIS can be compatible in "scientific" terms. (But what would be the fun in that? I say caustically.) If anyone cares to do their own homework, (I won't cut & paste), which I doubt, because a mind convinced against its will is of the same opinion still--wouldn't there be far greater wisdom, & peace in REALIZING we could come together on this instead of all the silly, & horrid warfare? What an optimist I am, knowing the human condition!

Answer 2

I am a Christian and have no problem with evolution. Further, I believe either you are ignorant and spouting off stuff you simply do not understand. Maybe you lack the math or you just look at a few words and think it must be true, or you are a liar and Satan is the Father of Lies. So for starters, the second law of thermodynamics applies to any closed system, but the Earth is not a closed system. Energy is constantly being added by the Sun. The passage to lower energy states is the ordering process in biology. In other words, for entropy to work as energy is added, it needs to come to local order. In the biological processes this is called evolution. The second law of thermodynamics, if you view the solar system as a closed system (which it isn't either though it could be viewed as close), means that evolution should occur. The formula for the second law is the indefinite integral of 1/T dq = -N where T is absolute temperature, -N "equivalence-value" of all uncompensated transformations involved in a cyclical process, and dq is the change in the quantity of heat. This does not in any way preclude evolution. And, I would note, there are mathematical critics to the second law. It only applies to closed systems, but the vary act of measuring opens the system making it impossible to ever view if the law actually works. Second, there are no transitional fossils because evolution says all life is in continuous transition. All fossils are transitional fossils, including your bones someday. Science has never disproved evolution. There isn't a single valid, peer reviewed, bit of research to support that idea. There is no major church that accepts your point of view and probably none outside the United States. With everyone telling you that you are wrong, globally, both Christian and otherwise, why do you insist on remaining ignorant, is your faith that weak that you cannot accept the majesty of the universe? Is your God so primitive and weak that natural law cannot happen and magic mojo must? Do you really believe all they tell you in Church, when all the other churches say such a teaching is false? Please go to college and take biology courses, physics courses and math courses and teach your co-religionists so this can go away finally. One other note, there are quite a number of cases where biologists have seen macroevolution happen, where new species spontaneously formed. There is a large number of journal articles describing the creation of new species where they did not exist before. Further, humans have genetically altered species into completely new species, you can check the US Patent Office for those.

Answer 3

Evolution is a scientific fact, as well supported by evidence as anything else in science.

However evolution does not support the "origin of life". Instead it merely explains the diversity of life that we see on Earth after that first life form appeared.

This debate was from 1975. In terms of scientific discoveries, that is eons ago. For example, we've sequenced DNA since then and discovered that chimps and humans share over 98% of the same DNA! Numerous other things have been found in DNA to support evolution, such as the huge amounts of "junk DNA" which argue loudly and clearly against any sort of "intelligence" in the design of our genes.

You say: "It was shocking to see the unscientific attitude of the evolutionists towards the problems of 'gaps' and fossil frustrations. Their answer time and time again was that they didn't 'worry' about them." The "don't worry about them" comment was right on the money as we have found numerous transitional fossils since then including a number involving human evolution.

I have difficulty understanding people who still believe in the creation account in the Bible in the 21st century.

Answer 4

Statistically you can show that tomatoes cause cancer. Gish if famous for representing facts by twisting their application in reality. At any point that an intermediate organism is found in the fossil record, there is created two more "gaps" in the record for god to jump into. Science can and has addressed the arguements presented at this "debate" It was challenged and defeated at the now famous dover School district court case. Legally deemed religion not science. They had the opportunity to prove their point, advertised it to be a victory and then were trounced when each statement could be addressed without diversion.

Answer 5

I have been continually surprized by the inability of Creationists to argue clearly. What you wnat to do, in evaluating theories in science, is look at the areas where different theories predict different consequences. Young Earth Creationism, is mostly disproved by things like the speed of light, size of the galaxy, multiple layers of geological structures, radiometric dating, continental drift, etc. As a theory for the structrue of living systems, it is also inconsistent with genetic diversity, separated ecosystems, etc. It is not a valid theory at all.

Evolution, on the other hand, IS a fairly well supported theory, and is consistent with all the other fields of science that creationism is not. Speciation and micro-evolution have been documented in the last several hundred years, and macro-evolution is just the operation of micro-evolution over millenia. One stunning confirmed prediction of evolution was that the tree of life as discovered by geneticists would correspond with the tree as built from body stuctures. The >99% convergence of the two was enough to convert Michael Denton (author of "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis") from creationism to evolution.

Now, if you want to debate the evidence for Creationism, there is a site on yahoo forums for this, called CREATIONISM. It was created to give Creationists a forum to present their ideas, to see if there really is a coherent theory there. I invite you to post on it. Since you consider the evidence for it to be so strong, you should have do difficutly routing the evolutionists there.

Answer 6

Evolution has nothing to do with the start of life, it refers to CHANGES in EXISTING life. That isn't, however, evidence of creation. Nor is lack of evidence of abiogenesis. (There's no dearth of evidence of evolution - there are tens of thousands of examples of evolution every second.) Let's first see the objective evidence that a creator objectively exists. There can't have been a creation without a creator and, since we can't go back in time to see the evidence of the creation (the creator actually creating), the best we can do is observe the creator.

So how about it, creationists? Any objective evidence of the objective existence of any creator? Or just more of the same old "the Bible says that God exists and the Bible wouldn't lie because the Bible says it tells the truth" illogic?

Answer 7

wtf are you talking about? Creationism is pure hogwash and laughable. Gaps my butt. If you think the cratering on the moon didn't happen billions of years ago, or if you think the earth came way later, the I humbly submit you know nothing of the tangible evidence to the contrary. "Creationists beat the evolutionists" . . . what does that even MEAN? Did they don boxing gloves? Give me a break. At least attempt to study a little bit of the vast body of knowledge that comprises what we know about our solar system, our sun, and the universe. I hate to be the one to break the news to you but the earth is not flat either. And audience resentment notwithstanding, the only reason creationism is even a topic, absurd as it may seem, is because of religious "convictions." That is also a no-brainer, so perhaps even you might understand that. In a world of fools like you and I, and I use the term "I" merely as a figure of speech, it is better to look before you leap to ridiculous conclusions.

Answer 8

Very interesting report. Lost the question. As my accountant used to say sometimes "Let's not confuse the issue with the facts". One definition of a fact is something believed. Belief is not always capable of proof, or disproof. It tends to find evidence wherever it looks. After all, the world is flat, isn't it? At least it is where I live. But I certainly find evolution more convincing than some supernatural creation - and I'm content to live and die with that.

Answer 9

I am a creationist but it would probably be better to ask a more specific question here not just give a commentary even though I have little doubt about it. Your commentary would be better used to answer a related topic and you can probably find one if you look. It would make a good article but is not really an engaging question because to really answer your fragment question it would only require either "creation" or "evolution" as an answer from someone.

Answer 10

I attended a similar debate at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois about the same time frame.

Same two guys debated on the side of Creation.

Two local professors took the side of Evolution.

With just about the same results.

However the crowd in Evanston, Illinois was 90% non Christian.

Pastor Art