Evolution vs. Creation

I'm sure it will be quite interesting as my first debate on this site. First off, I would like to call attention to the way I accepted this debate. I agreed to argue from the con perspective, meaning I am arguing for Divine Design. Now, my opponent claims that evolution is a scientific fact and has been proven time and time again. I agree. But if you will look back to Round 1, I stated that I would argue against Macro-Evolution. It is a very well hidden secret that there are 2 parts to evolution, Macro and Micro. Micro-Evolution is a common occurrence and we see it all the time in living organisms. It is nothing more than a slight change of current genetic information to adapt to changing conditions. This is the same thing that was observed in the Galapagos Islands with regards to Darwin's finches. Certain finches developed different shaped beaks over time that helped them adapt to the types of food available. Micro-Evolution is 100% accepted by Creation Scientists. I personally see it as an example of God's brilliance in creating all life forms with more genetic information than they use at any given time. This allows them to adapt to various environmental changes in order to survive. Macro-evolution is what is currently being taught today as the explanation for the origins of humanity. For those Finches to Macro evolve, they would need to evolve into a completely different species. For this to happen, the evolving animal would have to produce offspring with new, additional genetic information. That has never been observed in the history of mankind. In all of the testing being done in all the laboratories and zoos by scientists worldwide, there has never once been an example of even one animal giving birth to an offspring with new, additional genetic information. Only a shuffling or a duplication of existing genetic information. So if the evolutionists are right, we are forced to believe that for billions of years, life has evolved from amoebas in the oceans all the way up through the food chain, growing and increasing in complexity and design, adding new genetic information generation after generation in millions of species for millions of years, but suddenly today, it stops. Now that we have the modern technology, laboratories, and scientists with cameras rolling so we can see it for ourselves, it just suddenly (and coincidentally) doesn't happen anymore. It really does take more faith to believe in evolution than Creation. 100% of all proof of evolution occurring is nothing more than certain features on animals making slight changes in shape or size, but staying the very same kind of animal. Some dolphins may develop longer or shorter fins, but they have never grown wings and then evolved into a bird. Darwin once wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. " We now know that there are many organs, systems and processes in life that fit that description. One of those is the cell. In Darwin's day the cell was a "black box"- a mysterious little part of life that no one could see into. but now we have the ability to see into a cell, and we see that life at the molecular level is immeasurably more complex than Darwin ever dreamed. In fact, it is irreducibly complex. Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, wrote that an irreducibly complex system is "composed of several well matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of these parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. " Another problem that plagues the plausibility of macro-evolution is fact that transitional forms could not survive. for example, consider the Darwinist assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles over a long period of time. This would necessitate a transition from scales to feathers. How could a creature survive that no longer has scales but does not quite have feathers? Feathers are irreducibly complex. A creature with the structure of half a feather has no ability to fly. It would also be easy prey on land, in water, and from the air. And as a halfway house between reptiles and birds, it probably wouldn't be adept at finding food for itself either. So the problem for my opponent is twofold: first, there is no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds; and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway. Darwinists often say that evidence of common descent lies in the fact that all living things contain DNA. For example, Richard Dawkins states, "The reason we know for certain we are all related, including bacteria, is the universality of the genetic code and other biochemical fundamentals. " Darwinists believe the DNA similarity between apes and humans strongly implies an ancestral relationship. But is this evidence for common ancestry, or for a common creator? Food for thought. This leads me to my next topic, arguing for a Divine Design. I am going to take a risk and assume that my opponent acknowledges the scientifically proven fact that the Universe had a beginning, so I will not waste space in proving this. Since the universe had a beginning, we can logically assume that it had a cause. The argument goes like this: 1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause. 2. The universe had a beginning. 3. Therefore the universe had a cause. If there is one thing we have observed about the universe, it is that nothing happens without a cause. The Law of Causality says as much. When a man is driving down the street, a car never appears in front of his car out of nowhere, with no driver or cause. There is always a driver or something that causes that car to appear. Even the great skeptic David Hume could not deny the law of causality. He wrote, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause. " So we know premise 1 and 2 are both true. But what does that say about God's existence? The man who now sits in Edwin Hubble's chair at the Mount Wilson observatory has a few things to say about that. His name is Robert Jastrow, and his book "God and the Astronomers" made a heavy impression on those investigating the implications of the big bang, namely those asking the question "Does the Big Bang point to God? " Jastrow writes, "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origins of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy. " The evidence for the Big Bang and its consistency with the biblical account in Genesis led Jastrow to observe in an interview, "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I, or anyone, would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact. " In conclusion, my opponent must come to grips with the implications of the Big Bang evidence. The evidence shows that time, space, and matter were created at the Big Bang, so the most probable scientific conclusion is that the universe was caused by something OUTSIDE of time, space, and matter. "If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing? " Is a question we all have to answer. In light of the debate I have given, we are left with only two options: either NO ONE created something from nothing, or SOMEONE created something out of nothing. Which view is the more reasonable of the two? Works Cited Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (New York: Penguin, 1958) Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Touchstone, 1996) David Hume, In J. Y. T. Greig, Ed. , The Letters of David Hume, 2 Volumes. (New York: Garland, 1983) Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Norton, 1978)