Creationism And Evolution



I want to respond to comments put forth in the article about Senator Crandall and SB1213.

It was stated that creationism is not a scientific theory subject to evidence like legitimate scientific theories. The truth is that evidence is neutral and it is interpreted when any theory is attempting to explain the past, as evolution and creationism do. Both have the same evidence, but it is interpreted differently. When the two theories have the same evidence they must both be accepted at equal value.

The article explained adaptation in one paragraph and in the next paragraph explains that scientists argue over the slow or quick formation of new forms of life. Adaptation has never been observed to produce a new form of life. Evolutionists simply presume that this must have happened! The vast majority of creationists know that adaptation happens since it can be observed in the present. They don’t know that new forms of life arise because this has never been observed, it has only been inferred. The mechanism for the addition of the astronomical amount of coded information that must be produced for a microbe to become a man, and all other living things, has never been found! It appears that the microbe to man theory of evolution is also based on faith in the unseen.

The biblical concept of kinds allows for the variety seen in a kind such as dogs. However, we have never observed dogs, bacteria, or any other organism becoming a new kind (form) of organism. The biblical concept of kinds of organisms is verified repeatedly and without exception by observation and should be taught.

Pete Greer

Editor’s note: Almost all researchers in the biological sciences accept the overwhelming evidence of evolution — although lively debate continues about the pace and mechanisms. Cross breeding and genetic manipulation has repeatedly confirmed the theory, not to mention the fossil and DNA evidence. Creationists have raised many interesting challenges to elements of evolution, but have not successfully challenged its basic tenants in the eyes of the vast majority of scientists. Moreover, the creationist belief that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old based on passages in the Bible conflicts with a mass scientific evidence collected by geologists, cosmologists, physicists, astronomers and researchers in many other disciplines. Creationism isn’t a scientific theory, it’s a religious belief and therefore not a relevant topic for a science class.


Pete Greer 3 years, 10 months ago

I must once again make note that cross breeding and genetic manipulation can only be sucessfull within a created kind of life. Manipulating the genetics of a kind (or form) of life has never caused a new kind to appear. This is significant, because both of these procedures involve a whole lot of intelligence which cannot be part of the evolutionary scenario. But still, even when intelligence is added to the mix, no new forms of life appear. Only variation within the original form can be achieved. Neither of these items can produce new genetic information that is absolutely necessary for the formation of the new forms. I must add that if the mechanism for the addition of new, useful information is not a basic tenant of evolution, it is only because it has not been found. This should be the foundation upon which the theory is formed but it is MIA. There is no foundation upon which to promote this theory. Because of this I maintain that the evidence for the theory is lacking, regardless of what the scientists say. In addition, this theory defies some of the most observed theories and laws in science. It has to violate the Cell Theory and The Law of Biogenesis in order to be true. The Law of Cause and Effect is not evident and we are led to believe that livings things are becoming more and more complex and efficient which means that somehow evolution must dismiss itself from the influence of the Law of Entropy. Concerning DNA, we know that all information codes come from a source of intelligence and this is without exception. DNA is the most compact information code known to man. Scientists are studying DNA to develop more compact information storage systems. Man's best technology in this area is miniscule in comparison. Evolutionists must make the irrational statement that DNA has to be the product of chance and random processes. What DNA shows is that the Creator is a lot more intelligent than man. Most scientists have a hard time accepting this logical conclusion from the study of DNA. Shouldn't logical conclusions be commonplace in a viable theory and be allowed into the school curriculum?


John Lemon 3 years, 10 months ago

Mr. Greer, It is my belief that the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Divine Creation should both be examined. The examination should take place( in public schools) when the students have developed an appropriate capacity to engage in such studies. It would apppear that Middle School and High School students have the capacity to compare and contrast theories and engage in scientific methodologies, although precursers should be explored at earlier stages. That being said, your statements and logical ramifications are so specious that refutation is useless.


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.