Life is more than just random particles. Creation is a very plausible explanation for the existence of everything that is. This premise explains the existence of matter more entirely without making absurd assumptions to fit new evidence. The idea of an intelligent design by a Supreme Being in undeniable.

Because there is no way that anyone can go back to the beginning to observe how everything got here, determining what happened is not based on observation as much as deductive reasoning. Sherlock Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's master detective, explained that whatever remains when one eliminates all the impossible explanations, no matter how implausible, must be the truth. Similar to Holmes' construct, science follows a guiding principle introduced by William of Ockham. This construct, often referred to as Ockham's Razor, holds that the explanation capable of correlating the most objective data with the fewest unprovable assumptions is the most likely correct assumption. In fact, this guiding principle continues to be applied in modern branches of science with the possible exception of evolutionary science.

Perhaps one of the most fundamental issues of mankind is origins and what affect this might have on religion and science. All men at one time or another wonder why he is here, how did he get here and if there is more to life than just existence. Prior to the advent of humanism, and according to the U.S. Constitution, the notion of creator, and by default creation, was a 'self-evident'truth. Foundational to humanism was the desire to escape human accountability to a Creator. This new 'religion'needed a vehicle to propel it from the fringe to the mainstream. Modern science, still being in its infancy, was ready to be molded into that vehicle. A little over a century later, the humanist messiah arrived in the person of Charles Darwin. Although hailed by the humanists as the greatest scientist of his day, Dar-win was so inept in science he flunked out of medical school and obtained a Doctorate of Divinity instead. Ironically, Darwin did not introduce any new ideas, but rather repackaged the work of his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin.

Charles Darwin indeed deserves credit for cataloging variations within a species; however, the process of engineering desirable traits into a species through selective breeding had been around for centuries and was anything but novel. What is novel is Darwin's assertion that this ultimately resulted in the creation of a new species. Darwin, unable to provide examples of speciation through natural selection, argued the process was too slow to be ob-served and that his theory would eventually be borne out by the fossil record. This marked a scientific first of believing in what can't be seen based on a body of still undiscovered evidence. After more than a century of concerted effort, Darwin's faithful assertion of fossil evidence remains undiscovered. Despite the failure of the fossil record and the fact that much of Darwin's postulations have been soundly refuted with observable, testable and re-producible experimental evidence, modern evolutionists remain faithful to evolution and Darwin's scientific law of undiscovered evidence.

With such a great disappointment there is often denial, and with denial comes two predictable results. First, scientists began to see evidence that simply was not there. An excellent example of this would be Nebraska Man. Nebraska Man was constructed from a tooth. Anthropologists created an entire social structure around this tooth, and Nebraska Man was hailed as a significant find for several years until further digging revealed the tooth was that of an extinct pig. In the same tradition of Nebraska Man was Porpoise Man, which was constructed from the parietal bone of a porpoise. Java man was pieced together from a mixed bed of animal bones that covered a 70 foot area and recovered in a period of a year. A second and more nefarious result is that of fraud. Perhaps the most infamous fossil fraud was perpetrated by Charles Dawson in 1912. Dawson 'discovered'a nearly complete skull in a gravel pit in Piltdown. After 40 years as the evidence that closed the book on human evolution, the fraud was exposed. Piltdown was not the missing link, but rather an elaborate puzzle that put together a human skull cap with an ape jaw, aged with bichromate, and the teeth filed down to make it all fit together. One hundred years after Darwin, and many thousands of fossils catalogued, there is actually less evidence supporting Darwin's theory than when Darwin was alive. Consequently, with the failure of the fossil record, evolutionists' next approach was to make an explanation as to why the evidence is not in the fossil record.

Enter stage right, top hat and tails, Niles Etheridge and Stephen J. Gould are ready to pull a rabbit out of the hat. Etheridge and Gould presented what they called punctuated equilibrium, AKA, P.E. Etheridge and Gould proposed that nature spends long periods of time in equilibrium where little or no evolution occurs, and then punctuated with periods of rapid evolution to fill niches created by some natural disaster or other occurrence that kills off large populations, which left niches to be filled. While Darwin can be faulted for basing his theory on faith in undiscovered evidence, Etheridge and Gould built their theory on the absence of evidence. Because there must necessarily be life before living things can evolve, the failure of both Darwin and the Etheridge-Gould team to address the origin of life is a very noticeable omission.

Nowhere else is the schism between evolution and legitimate science more clear than in the origin of life. When science was still in its infancy, the common reasoning was that life spontaneously appeared from non-life. Because maggots would suddenly appear on rotting meat, it was reasoned that the meat produced the maggots; frogs popped out of mud, so it was reasoned the mud produced the frogs. Then In 1668, Francesco Redi set out to disprove spontaneous generation. He put meat in several jars and covered one with netting and an-other sealed completely. Flies were observed laying eggs on the meat they had access to and on the netting of the meat they could smell. Maggots formed on the netting and on the meat that could be reached, however, no maggots formed on the sealed jar. Redi concluded that meat does not produce maggots, but the eggs the flies laid produced maggots. After the perfection of the microscope, a similar experiment was performed by Lazzaro Spallanzani almost 100 years later. Spallanzani's experiment showed that the microorganisms came from the air, however, many scientists were not persuaded and supposed that air was necessary to create life from non-life. In the mid 1800's, Louis Pasteur finally disproved spontaneous generation. Pasteur did the same experiment as Spallanzani except that he allowed air into the flasks, but not the microorganisms. In fact, the refutation of spontaneous generation is hailed even today as a victory for the scientific method; this is, of course, unless you are an evolutionist trying to explain the origin of life.

Apparently oblivious to the fact that science spent over a century establishing that life only comes from life, evolutionists proposed that life on earth spontaneously appeared from the environment in a process called abiogenesis. This new and improved version of spontaneous generation was introduced in the 1900's by Aleksandr Oparin. In the 50's Stanley Miller and Harold Urey performed an experiment to try and prove abiogenesis. Miller took molecules which were thought to be the components of earth's early atmosphere. They were put into a closed system and an electrical current was run through the system and amino acids were formed. Unfortunately, the amino acids had to be immediately captured into another apparatus because the very conditions which created the amino acids also destroyed them. Another problem of this experiment is that the experiment took an enormous amount of energy; it is not believed that lightening storms as continuous or in-tense that would be required in the Miller/Urey experiments existed at the beginning of time. In reality, abiogenesis does not explain the origin of life; it only demonstrates that evolution is embraced in spite of the evidence.

Another detail not addressed by Darwin was the source of new genetic material necessary for speciation. To Darwin's credit, genetic science was only beginning to be discovered in his time. Modern evolutionists inaccurately propose the new genetic material needed to drive evolution is introduced through beneficial mutations. The truth is that mutations are rare, random and more than 99% are in some way harmful. Another proposal that used to be popular and is still taught in some schools as a fact is what is referred to as recapitulation theory. This means that during the embryo's development, it repeats the evolutionary history of its species. So a human embryo starts out with the characteristics of a fish, a frog and a pig before it looks human. However, science has shown this is utterly false. Each stage of a fetus' development is crucial to the fetus. The supposed 'gill slits'actually become the eustachian tubes, the thymus and the parathyroid glands. The supposed tail is the tail bone. None of the DNA of a fetus at any stage of development is the DNA of a fish or a frog or a pig. It seems, as a general rule, evolutionists don't seem as concerned with the evidence as they are with preserving evolution.

Evolution was born relying on undiscovered evidence. When that evidence did not appear it relied on the absence of evidence. When it was expedient, it relied on the denial of evidence and ultimately it represents a contradiction of the evidence. Creation, on the other hand predicts the evidence. Upon closer scrutiny it becomes obvious that the creation model more readily predicts the observable facts while evolution discredits science and calls for a giant leap of faith; in essence, evolution is not science but a religion requiring faith just like any other religion.

Want to comment on this Essays? Sign up to Edit Red and you will be able to comment on Essays and get access to: Upload your own stories and poems, get readers and their feedback, promote your work...