Summary:

    In the article Creation Evidence, written by an anomynous author, asserts that creationism is the most logical choice to explain the origin of our species.  He goes about this by proving that Evolution is not a logical theory, and doesn’t have much acceptable evidence.  The author explains that there are so many laws governing our universe, there would absolutely have to be a Law-maker.  Also, there is no natural mechanism that could bring the universe into existence and continue to develop it by random process.  The author also brings into the light the following evidence:

1.     There are no transition fossils to be found as of yet that show the gradual change from single-cellled organism to human.  These transition forms, according to Darwin, would be innumerable, as would be the number of fossils found in the earth.  It’s not possible that we just wouldn’t find them.
2.     The natural selection process is not a plausible mechanism for development.  “Natural selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity.”(Anonymous Author)  No mutations have been observed that were beneficial.
3.     Evolutionsist have consistently changed the age of Earth, from 2 billion years in 1905, to 3.5 billion years in 1970, to 4.6 billion years in 1990.  How can they explain the logic in Earth aging 2.6 billion years in only 85 years?
4.     Distinct time constraints- moon drift rates, rotation speed of the earth, magnetic field decay rates, erosion rates, rates of chemical influx into the ocean, and ocean salinity- make it impossible for Earth to be more than several thousand years old at most.
5.     The Big Bang Theory, the evolutionist explanation of how life and the universe began, “does not explain… uneven distribution of matter,”(Anonymous Author) nor does it explain where the matter came from to start with.

Commentary:

    I agree with what the author is saying.  Actually, even analyzing the piece with an evolutionist thinking,  there are no questions that come to mind.  I would appreciate more evidence just to make the argument stronger(though it’s not needed.)  However, the author poses a powerful argument and takes into account the evolutionist side of things

Evaluation:

    It is hard to evaluate the author’s credentials because he remains anonymous.  I can say, though, that because the author is writing for a “.org” website, the information is very reliable.  These types of sites have strong restrictions to make sure information is true.  Also, it is admirable that the author uses quotes from The Origin of Species, the basis of the evolution theory.  Also, he mentions the Big Bang Theory, and if he were to misquote information, you can be sure the article would not have been allowed to be posted by advocators of the theory.  With all of the evidence given, it’s obvious that the author is using logos throughout the article.  There is also a hint of ethos, because he uses quotes from Charles Darwin and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, both of whom are well known men.  Overall, this is the strongest editorial I’ve found that argues the creation theory. 

Source:

Anonymous. “Creation Evidence.” All About Creation. 26 Nov. 2007 <http://www.allaboutcreation.org/creation-evidence.htm>.

    In an article titled Discussions On Creationism vs. Evolution [Reply #1], which I found on a forum site asking peoples opinions on creation or evolution, the author, under the screen name DP, tries to convince people that evolution is scientific fact and creationism is a small-minded theory.

    DP states that the reason there are differences between animals is because we have adapted to different environments.  The reasons he gives for creationism being a fallible theory are that it’s based on presuppositions, or knowing the answer, and working the evidence to prove that answer, and written in the Bible by authors who would not have been able to understand the world as much as we do.  He suggests that the Bible was just to teach morality and is simply “a metaphor.”(DP)  He says that if you are already convinced of what the answers to a problem are, then “you will only see what you want to.”

    However, I disagree with DP.  In his attempt to convince me of the vast amount of evidence to support evolution, he seems to forget to show any of it.  He seems to think there is no evidence for creationism, when in reality there is just as much, or more, evidence that pushes towards it.  He believes that presuppositions are completely unscientific, but, from what I can tell, what a presupposition truly is, is a hypotheses and that is one of the first steps in the scientific method.  Also, DP discrdits observations when these, also, are the basis of science.  With any first grade analysis, one can see that evolution is based solely on a presupposition and observations as well.  Another thing I can’t seem to grasp is why the author is trying to convince people of something being scientific fact when he can’t “go into too much much science” because he is “terrible at it.”(DP)  Would you have a chef try to explain how to fix a car?  That’s pretty much the same situation we have here.

    This author’s argument is completely incredible, in the true sense of the word(without the ability to be credited of something.)  There is no evidence given and no analysis was placed into the development of his opinion.  The article is quite a “right-because-I’m-right”  type of argument.  His sad attempt at using logos has placed this article, in my opinion, right beside the word “fallacies” in the dictionary.

DP. “Existential Questions.” Wordpress.Com. 12 July 2007. 1 Nov. 2007 <http://existentialquestions.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/discussions-on-creation-vs-evolution-reply-1/>.

 While scouring the internet for an editorial about creation vs. evolution, I happened about this quote from somenone who, in my mind, is a very intelligent man:

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s [thought processes]. But if their thoughts—i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident would be able to give correct account of all the other accidents.”

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), 52–53.

Time to pick some wonderfully, wonderfully fun research topics…

1) Creation vs. Evolution

2)Euthenasia/ Right to Die

3)Animal Experiments

Okay, there you have it.  I’d really like my number one choice if possible.

I am a phoenix

burning with passion.

The light outside

is simply a result of the fire within me.

Anger and Hurt

create an inferno that consumes me,

leaving me in silent defeat-

a pile of cold, lifeless ashes.

But life returns

and I rise from my ashes, on fire once more.

I will soar higher than ever.

Victory. Achievement. Freedom.