Hey guys! I've been observing the debate progress, and figured at this point I would give, as ccgr put it, my 0.02 at this point. About 2 years ago now, I did just what ArchAngel had put forth as a suggestion for the whole Creation/Evolution debate and our stance thereof. Research. It was a hard battle for me because of the evidence put forth from the scientific community, and also because of my understanding of theology, which is one of my favorite areas of learning. You see, (primarily towards ChickenSoup), the C/E debate is not only important towards the gospel, it's fundamental. Like, foundations of faith. Here's why:
According to Scripture, God created the world. But the qualifications don't end there. Genesis also states that when God created the world, man was already present at the end of the 6 days (Gen 1:26-28). It goes further, and this is where it gets really important. It also states that nothing died (Gen 1:29, Romans 5:12)(diets were only plants for all creation, so nothing could have died, because there weren't even detrivores to clear out remains. Obviously, this does not pertain to plants because it is also stated that plants were intended as the source of food (Gen 1:29), not so much a living thing such as a human, dog, bird or fish).Being that nothing died, millions of years of death and survival only of the adapted wouldn't work for the beginning. But man was already there, without death. So what that means is this:
Either Evolution is correct, or Creation (Genesis) is correct.
Now Deepfreeze said that this is irrelevant to the Gospel. It's not. It's very important, because in the beginning there was no sin, therefore no death, because sin is the ultimate cause of death (Romans 5:12). That would mean that without Genesis and Creation there would be no need for Jesus (whom I call Yeshua, proper Hebrew pronunciation) to have died on the cross, because Yeshua's death was the payment for all sin. But without Genesis, sin doesn't exist. All or nothing.
Okay, now that that's explained I'll go back to my story. I struggled with this for a long time because of the fundamentality towards my faith. I asked around, and began to recognize the lack of understanding on both sides. Not just the Creationists, Evolutionists didn't understand the Gospel and therefore couldn't apply it. So I did what was best. I dug really deep into Evolution and Evolutionism (As a belief that affects your world view, Evolutionism is a correct term, and Creation is correct for the study of Creation) and also into mitosis, meiosis, survival of the fittest, and the millions of years model. What I found was this:
1. The explanation of survival of the fittest being the cause of Evolution doesn't work. Survival of the fittest actually dwindles genetic diversity, therefore making it severely irrational that all life in its abundantly diverse nature could have arose from the changes of one source (And yes, I know some alleles turn on and off through generations, therefore old traits could return, but they would still die off from not being adapt to the environment).
2. Mutations being the cause of evolution doesn't work. This is because in most instances, the mutation would make the new "type" either sterile or at least unable to reproduce with others around it unless something with the same mutation arose at the same time. Obviously if it were small enough of a change the species could still mate, but its offspring would be sterile, ending the chain.
3. Meiosis + Evolution = No Go. Just think about it. How does an organism "evolve" from only depending upon itself to depending on another type to reproduce. This would entail that both male and female types would mutate and develop at the same time, would be around each other, would be the same species, would actually work and fit together, and would have to all change within only a few if but one generation(s). These changes are too unlikely and radically different in a short amount of time to be logical.
4. "Evidence"- I also looked at many evidences of evolution, such as fossil records and observed changes, and found that in the case of fossils it could have easily been an extinct species or a deformed one. And there isn't just one missing link. There's a ton. Too many to not make assumptions. As for observed instances, they all either created a sterile generation afterwards or were errors in meiosis such as doubling of alleles, which would make the species itself sterile.
5. Likelihood - The likeliness of the conditions of our planet in the solar system to its makeup to the chances of evolution actually occurring are so unlikely that no person would be willing to bet on it if it were the lottery. No one.
6. Origins - The origin of the beginning replicating cell (Replicating RNA isn't logical, you need the whole cell's functions to make it work, so it would have to be a cell) is not just unlikely, it's impossible. Never in any case have we ever observed life come from non life. It would have had to have come from a living source (Such as an eternal living God
) Plus, a cell, even a prokaryote, is far too complicated to arrange in nature with all of the proper placement and materials by chance.
7. "Nature doesn't jump" - If the existence of the universe were placed on a clock, all of the progressions of life straight from origin would occur in the last 5 seconds if it were 60 seconds. Darwin himself said, "Nature doesn't jump". That seems like a pretty fast jump to me, and many scientists are beginning to think the same.
The deeper I dug, the more holes that I found. And I get that this is only my research done and someone could easily put it forth as being irrelevant, but I wasn't going to just take someone's word on either side and just accept it. This is what I found on my own, and after looking at it I decided on my own that Creation was a more logical conclusion. Not because of religion, but because of science itself. And one could easily claim that Creation isn't science. Wrong. In fact, there are several different groups of well rounded scientists do research how Creation works and how ecosystems would have differed before the Fall of Man through sin. This leads me into another thing. The reason everything started dying and eating each other is because of the Curse of Sin. Sin is a destructive force, and when it entered the World it also changed other creatures. This included but was not limited to diets, which for some changed to being carnivorous, thus changing the food web. And because of the Curse of Sin Yeshua came into the world and died on a cross as payment for our sins, because the price of sin is death.
Now, as for this in schools I will say this. Due to the controversy, I don't think either should be taught in school. And I see no reason why this would be a problem. The study of evolution does not pertain to any part of science except for the study of evolution (another reason I question it, since all other science interlocks). Therefore, there should be no educational setbacks. In fact, education could move forward by having more time to look at other, more advanced aspects of Biology.
So that's my piece for the day. Cheers!