In this blog post, we will look at the differences between creationism and evolution based on Charles Darwin’s theory and how evolution can explain the origin of life in the most reasonable way.

 

The Beginning of Evolution

Until the early 19th century, the world was the work of God, and humans were considered the best creation of God. However, in 1835, an event occurred that shook up this God-centered worldview. Charles Darwin’s trip to the Galapagos Islands marked the beginning of a revolution in the scientific world. Darwin realized the possibility of species change while observing that the same species of birds existed in different forms on different islands. In 1859, the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species marked the beginning of the conflict between creationism and evolution. Even today, creationism and evolution continue to generate debate over the question of “which is correct?”

 

Creationism and Evolution: Basic Concepts

Creationism claims that God designed humans and the world with a specific purpose, while evolution explains that living things evolved through changes accumulated over a long period of time without purpose. Richard Dawkins introduces the position of creationists in The Blind Watchmaker. Creationists believe that just as a watchmaker is needed for a complicated watch, a designer is needed for living things. They say that living things are too perfectly designed to have been created by chance. On the other hand, evolutionists, including Dawkins, argue that humans have been shaped by the evolutionary process and have proven this through research. Some creationists acknowledge the fact of evolution, but claim that God created the beginning of this evolution. However, evolutionists have proven through experiments that life could have arisen on the primitive Earth, and the claims of creationists have been met with scientific refutations. Even now, the debate between creationism and evolution continues, but research is providing evidence that favors evolution, and the arguments that creationists can make are gradually becoming less and less convincing.

 

The Development of Evolution and Modern Debates

Early evolutionary theory relied mainly on hypotheses due to a lack of evidence, but through continuous research, evidence has emerged one after another to counter the arguments of creationists. Of course, due to the nature of evolution, it is difficult to prove all hypotheses 100% true, but evolution currently has sufficient logical validity. I, too, place more faith in the theory of evolution than in the theory of creation. Just as we can witness the process of evolution in agriculture in a short period of time, the possibility of evolution occurring over the 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history is even greater. As time goes by, more observations will be made, and the theory of evolution will become more solid.

 

Differences in various hypotheses and positions within the theory of evolution

There are various hypotheses within the theory of evolution. The most authoritative hypothesis is Darwin’s gradual theory of natural selection. Darwin argued that living things evolve gradually, and that evolution occurs through natural selection if an organ with incomplete functions is advantageous for survival. Each change is so simple that it occurs by chance when compared to the previous one, and these changes accumulate to produce enormous results. Darwin’s theory explains that the products selected in one generation become the starting point for the next generation, and this process continues from generation to generation.
Richard Dawkins adds to Darwin’s theory of natural selection the claim that genes are the key to evolution. He argues that natural selection is directed towards genes that are beneficial for replication. In contrast, Stephen Jay Gould argues that evolution is not achieved through gradual, small changes, but through leaps and bounds, and I agree with his opinion. Gould saw that there were periods of rapid change and stagnation in the evolutionary process. For example, he argues that the early wings would not have been able to fly, so there must have been a rapid development. He also cites the fossil record as evidence that there are many examples of rapid change rather than gradual change.
In response, Dawkins denies the existence of rapid change, saying that Punctuated Equilibrium is ultimately a form of gradual change. For example, even a 5% eye is advantageous for survival because it performs a minimum of functions, so it has evolved through natural selection. From the perspective of Punctuated Equilibrium, the existence of organisms with only a lens or only an eye can be seen as evidence of rapid evolution rather than gradual evolution of the eye.

 

My thoughts on Punctuated Equilibrium

I believe that the Punctuated Equilibrium theory is a more reasonable hypothesis and has less room for theoretical debate. However, the leap I am making is not from 0% to 1%, but from 0% to 33%, 66%, and 100%, which are large changes. Taking the evolution of eyes as an example, it is questionable whether 1% of eyes can perform 1% of the functions. Dawkins explained gradual evolution based on organisms with only a lens or only an eye, but I think this point actually supports the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. It is more reasonable to believe that the process of creating a lens that had no function and then adding another function to it occurred rapidly. This suggests that the frequency of small and rapid evolution that we can observe in a short period of time is different, and thus the degree of observability is also different.

 

Darwinism and Gould’s theory of evolution

Just because I support Gould’s theory of Punctuated Equilibrium does not mean that I agree with all of his theories. While Darwin and Dawkins believe that individuals that are more advantageous to survival evolve through natural selection, Gould argues that evolution is not about survival, but simply about change and adaptation. For example, Gould explains that the reason why kiwi birds lay large eggs for their size is that they evolved from large birds and their body size decreased, while the size of their eggs changed more slowly, leading them to lay large eggs. In the case of giraffes, it is argued that they have not elongated their necks to eat high leaves, but that it is the result of adapting to the changed length of their necks. However, I believe that natural selection, which changes in a direction that is beneficial to survival, is more valid than evolution that adapts to the environment.
For example, the extinction of dinosaurs is a typical example of natural selection, as they could not adapt to the environment at the time. In addition to dinosaurs, species that were suitable for the environment have survived and exist to this day. Evolution is more convincing as it is the result of changes that are beneficial to survival rather than the result of simple adaptation to the environment.

 

The process of evolution and future research

As such, the hypotheses about the causes and processes of evolution are still being debated. Each theory is receiving feedback from the other, deepening our understanding of evolution. I am not an expert on the theory of evolution, but I hope that this article will allow readers of similar levels to disagree or agree with various positions. Most general scientific theories have the same correct answer, but the answer to the theory of evolution may differ depending on who you ask. It would be difficult to implement the 4.5 billion-year history in the next few years, but even if the past cannot be fully implemented, there is still enough evidence to support the theory of evolution.
As evolutionists present numerous evidences of evolution, evolution is an irrefutable scientific fact.