.. white was a good camouflage. When the trees were black, was a good camouflage. The moths that werent camouflaged by the trees got eaten and the surviving moths lived to reproduce moths of their own color. This is an example of a favorable trait being passed through the population.
Both evolutionists and creationists agree that this is a case of natural selection but this is still an example of microevolution. It is impossible to demonstrate macroevolution in action; the process of macroevolution takes millions of years to occur. Evolutionists claim that there are very few differences between micro- and macroevolution. They believe that there is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus. Another main creationist argument is that there are no fossils demonstrating transition between organisms. Organisms can share traits but according to creationists an ape with a human trait is still an ape.
The creationists say that if evolution were true, there should be so many intermediates that we would not be able to categorize them. As the author of “The Creation Science Web P age” says, “It should not be possible to tell where one type of animal ends and another begins. Look at the evolutionary tree of life and you will find only the leaves, with speculative branches showing few if any common intermediates”. Creationists claim that there is a clear line in the fossil record, at which point fossils can be categorized as one type of species or another. Evolutionists claim that there are fossils demonstrating transition.
A study was taken to in which creationists were shown pictures of fossilized skulls, some pre-ape and some pre-human. The creationists could not agree which fossils were apes and which were human. Although creationists are adamant that none of the skulls are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to tell which are which. Evolutionists believe that there are transitional fossils but creationists refuse to acknowledge them. Creationists believe that radiometric dating is flawed. The basic premise behind radiometric dating is that a parent isotope in a rock or any other object containing the isotope decays over time into a daughter isotope at a known rate, specified by its “half-life”.
The validity of radiometric dating depends on three assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant, what the parent to daughter ratio was when the object was “created”; and that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history. Creationists argue that the second two assumptions are incorrect. They say that the parent to daughter ratio is arbitrary and the notion that there would be no external loss or addition of parent or daughter components is very unlikely over millions of years. Evolutionists argue that they account for these”flaws” in the dating process. Creationists argue that evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics states that when an imbalance exists between two systems there exists an opportunity for developing work that would be irrevocably lost if the systems were allowed to come into equilibrium in an uncontrolled way. Creationists believe that evolution, by creating highly complex creatures from chaos, contradicts this law. Evolutionists believe that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. If thermodynamics forbids evolution, then it would also forbid babies from growing to be adults, and parents from having children. Creationists also have less scientific claims.
They say that humans, being complex beautiful creatures with the ability to think, create and love, could not have possibly been created by simple chance. Evolutionists when confronted by this argument just refer to essential facts of evolution. Creationists argue that evolution did not happen but they give very little evidence that suggest that Genesis did. The majority of their arguments deal with so called “flaws” in evolution. In some cases they provide information such as dating that has shown the earth to be seventy-six million years old.
In this example, creationists attempt to disprove evolution by saying that using this information there was not enough time for evolution to occur. If this information were true it would probably change or disprove evolution but it would also disprove Genesis. It seems that creation sciences primary goal is to disprove evolution. Even if creationists disproved evolution they would be asking people to believe them due to a lack of any other alternative. Creationists and evolutionists use the same facts but come up with completely different conclusions. Both sciences have a common goal being the explanation of the origin of man. The only difference between the two is that creation science has a motive.
Creation science tries to prove that the details in Genesis actually happened and ultimately they are trying to prove their religion. Evolution has a much more objective approach to the origin of man. Evolutionists have nothing to lose if their “theory” is proven incorrect they will take on the new theory and attempt to prove that. Creationists have everything to lose if they are proven wrong so they distort and disregard facts so that their theory is accurate. Science is unbiased. True scientists develop and or test theories with no personal stake in their experiment.
When dealing with a subject such as the origin of man it is impossible to have no personal stake in your subject. Where we come from is as fundamental of a question as any other to humans. It explains at least in part who we are and why we are here. Creation science and evolution both seek answers to this question. Evolutionists do their best to be unbiased; they put aside their religious convictions in the name of science. Creationists bring all their religious convictions into their experiments so their experiments are biased. Creation science is a respectable practice. Creationists are deeply religious people who dedicate their lives in the attempt to prove their religion.
Though commendable creation science is biased and therefore, must be considered a pseudoscience.