This article examines the concepts and controversies between creationism and evolution, analyzing the scientific evidence and hypotheses presented by evolutionary theory. It compares different views of the evolutionary process, including Darwin’s theory of gradualism and Dawkins’ gene-centered theory, with a focus on Gould’s theory of discontinuous equilibrium. I support Gould’s interrupted equilibrium theory, which emphasizes that evolution occurs in leaps and bounds and plateaus. I conclude that the theory is more plausible because it favors survival.
Until the early 19th century, the world was considered to be the work of God, and humans were considered to be his best creation. In 1835, however, an event occurred that shook this theocentric worldview. Charles Darwin traveled to the Galapagos Islands and started a revolution in science. He observed different variations of the same species of bird on different islands and realized that species can change. In 1859, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published, and the battle between creationism and evolution began in earnest. To this day, the debate between creationism and evolution continues to this day: which is right?
Creationism and evolution: basic concepts
Creationism claims that God designed humans and the world with a specific purpose, while evolutionary theory explains that living things evolved through the accumulation of aimless changes over time. Richard Dawkins introduces the creationist position in The Blind Watchmaker. Creationists believe that just as a complex watch needs a watchmaker, living things must have a designer. They believe that living things are too perfectly designed to have been created by chance. On the other hand, evolutionists, including Dawkins, argue that humans as we know them today were formed through evolutionary processes, and research has proven this. Some creationists recognize the fact of evolution, but claim that it was created by God. However, evolutionists have demonstrated through experimentation that life could have arisen on a primordial Earth, and creationist claims have been met with scientific refutation. Today, the debate between creationism and evolution continues, but research has given evolution the upper hand and creationists have fewer and fewer arguments.
The development of evolutionary theory and the modern debate
Early evolutionary theories relied primarily on hypotheses due to a lack of evidence, but with continued research, evidence has emerged to counter creationist objections. Of course, due to the nature of evolutionary theory, it is difficult to prove every hypothesis to be 100% true, but evolutionary theory currently has enough logical validity. I’m more inclined to believe in evolution than creationism. Just as we can witness short-term evolutionary processes in agriculture, it is even more likely that evolution has occurred over the 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history. As time goes on, more observations will be made and the theory of evolution will become more solidified.
Different hypotheses and disagreements within evolutionary theory
There are many different hypotheses within evolutionary theory. The most authoritative is Darwin’s theory of gradual natural selection. Darwin argued that organisms evolve gradually, and that natural selection favors survival even if an organ is not fully functional. Each change is simple enough to be a chance occurrence compared to the last, and the accumulation of these changes produces huge results. Darwin’s theory explains that the products of selection in one generation become the starting point for the next, and this process continues through generations.
Richard Dawkins adds to Darwin’s theory of natural selection by arguing that genes are the key to evolution. He argues that natural selection favors genes that replicate. Stephen Jay Gould, on the other hand, argues that evolution occurs through leaps and bounds rather than small, incremental changes, and I agree with him. Gould sees evolution as alternating between leaps and bounds and plateaus. For example, he argues that early wings would not have been capable of flight, so there must have been a leap forward. He also argues that the fossil record shows many examples of leaps rather than incremental changes.
Dawkins responds that the theory of punctuated equilibrium is also a form of gradual change, and rejects leaps and bounds. For example, even 5% of our eyes are minimally functional and evolved by natural selection because they were advantageous for survival. It could be argued that the existence of creatures with only a lens or only an eyeball is evidence of leapfrog evolution rather than an explanation for the gradual evolution of the eye.
My thoughts on punctuated equilibrium
I believe that punctuated equilibrium is a more plausible hypothesis and is less theoretically controversial. However, the leaps I argue for are not from 0% to 1%, but rather from 0% to large increments such as 33%, 66%, or 100%. Using the evolution of the eye as an example, it is doubtful that a 1% eye could perform 1% of the functions of a 1% eye. Dawkins uses creatures with only a lens or only an eyeball as an example of gradual evolution, but I think this actually supports the interrupted equilibrium theory. It’s more reasonable to think that there would have been a leap from no eye function to a 30% functional lens, and then another, and another, and another. This is due to the different frequency of small evolutionary steps and leaps that we can observe in a short period of time, and thus the different observability.
Comparing Darwinism and Gould’s theory of evolution
Just because I support Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium doesn’t mean I agree with all of his theories. While Darwin and Dawkins believe that individuals that are favored for survival evolve through natural selection, Gould argues that evolution is not about survival, but about simple change and adaptation. For example, when explaining why kiwi birds lay large eggs for their size, Gould explains that they evolved from large birds and became smaller, while their egg size changed more slowly, resulting in larger eggs. In the case of giraffes, he argues that they didn’t lengthen their necks to eat taller leaves, but rather adapted to the changed length of their necks. However, I think it’s more plausible that natural selection is responsible for changes that favor survival, rather than evolution adapting to the environment.
For example, the extinction of the dinosaurs is a prime example of natural selection because they were not adapted to their environment. Other species that were better suited to their environment survived and continue to exist today. Natural selection is more convincing because evolution is the result of changes that favor survival rather than simple adaptation to the environment.
Evolutionary processes and future research
As you can see, theories about the causes and processes of evolution continue to be debated. Each theory feeds back on the other’s claims, deepening our understanding of evolution. I am not an expert in evolutionary theory, but I hope that this article will allow readers on a similar level to me to disagree or agree with the various positions. While most scientific theories have the same answer, evolutionary theory can have different answers depending on who you ask. While it would be difficult to recreate 4.5 billion years of history in the next few years, there is enough evidence to support evolutionary theory even if we can’t fully recreate the past.
Evolution is an irrefutable scientific fact, as evolutionists provide tons of evidence for it.
