Creationists believe that each organism and each adaptation is the work of the creator, which they call God. However, they cannot prove that a creator exists, because no one has seen God. Darwinist on the other hand believe that life occurred and evolved due to natural selection, which basically means that only the strongest spices survive. Darwin’s process of natural selection that eventually leads to evolution of species relies heavily on the fact that there is first of all a variation within species. Therefore, because of the variations we then have traits that can survive climate changes or the natural selection. Individuals with these traits will contribute more offspring that will survive. The problem with this logic is that Darwin doesn’t question why these variations of the same species exist in the first place. In an effort to answer this question the Genetics, a new trend that tries to resolve the matter of creation in the name of science, integrates Darwin’s mechanism and further explains that variations arise from mutation, but mutation however arise by chance. Therefore, we can conclude then that variations do not arise because they are needed.

At this point we have three strong opinions on creation of life: 1) The creationists that rely on a divine being to create life, 2) the Darwinist that rely on natural selection that the need to survive causes the evolution, and 3) the genetics supporters that strongly advise that life is created by chance as a result of random mutations. The intention of this essay is to prove that all these three theories are partly right and partly wrong.

So let’s start with Genetics trend, what is wrong with the way the Genetics explains the evolution of species? The way I understand it, I would find at least three points to argue against this theory. First, let’s suppose that this theory is right and therefore the strongest species survived but only after a mistake in the genetic code occurred. Then I would ask the following question: If mutations occur by chance then why is it that the same exact mutation occurs to not one individual of a specific specie but to many, many other individuals of that specie and not only that, but it also occurs at the same time and get this, at the same geographic location? Second argument I would like to use is the fact that population of species could increase in geometric sequence as it is believed, however, this fact only does not guarantee that one mutation arisen by chance in random individuals will become a trait that will create totally new specie. Let’s suppose that one individual that carries the mutation interbreeds with another individual that is not the carrier of the mutation then the probability that their offspring will inherit this mutation is 50-50. But you see, 50-50 is not a magic number, is not a guarantee that mutation will be carried on 50% of the time and it will not occur the other 50%. This is the illusion that statistics brings to you. When we say an event has 50% chance in occurring, this statement only shows you what to expect. It’s like throwing a coin. The chance to get head or tail is 50-50, yet that is not a guarantee that one time will get tail the next time you will get head. In fact even if you through the coin 1000 times you may never get 500 tails and 500 heads. Statistic doesn’t make things happen, it only shows the likelihood of an event that may never occur in reality. The third argument I would like to choose is that the evolution didn’t happen because of random mutations raised by chance because if that is true, then we would now have random and sudden changes in all species and at all times; random-sudden traits, random-sudden variations. But as Darwin showed it, evolution in fact happened gradually and it takes time for the nature and these new species to adjust living together.

Based on Darwin’s discoveries of fossils from many different species scientists can conclude that there is a strong possibility that species evolved from one type to another, despite the missing links between them. In fact to their fairness the fossils that Darwin collected showed how the skeletons of species had in fact some things in common, which can be used as an argument that species may have evolved from one another, but not randomly through mutations as the genetics trend suggested but through a constant and persistent change in their traits. Then this leads us to one conclusion, that evolution of species happens when one or both parents carry that trait and that trait is inherited to the offspring. Not only this, but also to prevent that random process that genetics suggests, which can lead to random causalities, then during this evolution it is somehow made sure that this specific trait, this important part for the evolution of a new species, is inherited to the offspring. Hence, nothing is random, and nothing is left to the chance. Could this be the hand of a creator? Let’s see.

In the following this story of evolution will take a twist and now I would like to look at the evolution of species from a different angle. From this new angle I can see that Darwin was right, that evolution happened because the strongest trait survived, but also as the Genetics are right, that the change in traits occurred inside the DNA first, and it was presented as a mutation. But, this does not guarantee that these mutations happen by chance, randomly due to climate change or change of diets and so on and so on. Nothing can prove that change of climate or change of diet can change the DNA of the entire population. In fact, diet change, climate change and life style change can bring only damage not evolution. Cancer is a form of mutation that occurs randomly and due to changes in diet, due to stress, or chemicals in your body and in the environment. All these factors can contribute to create a random mutation which is not controlled and it is not healthy; hence is deadly. So again you can see that the creation of human life was not a random act of nature, or a random act of climate change, not a random act of the strongest and most aggressive species survives, but it is a well-managed and controlled process that takes time, takes lots of knowledge, and takes one with a great plan, with a blue print that can see it all up to the smallest details, while the rest of us only see partial parts of this evolution process.

In the following parts of this post, part two but most likely three, I wold like to theoretically and mathematically prove the possibility that all that exists is because of a universal force, which very well we can call it a divine force or omnipotent energy. This may sound exactly what creationists say about God, however, there is a twist here too. I will try to prove in the followings posts that God in himself is not a being that resembles a human and that sits on a throne and makes some blue prints and designs and then he watches us in order to judge us later based on our performance. That would be quite a psychopathic kind of god. As Shakil, a good friend of mine once said, “The producer of a product should not blame the product for not performing accordingly, since he is the one who created the product that way.” Indeed, I see God as a perfect mechanism of the entire universe that runs on its own physical and metaphysical laws that mirror one another. All runs perfectly, yet a helper, an assistant, a scientists, if you wish to call it this way, is needed to make this plan work and bring this knowledge, the perfect blue prints from the metaphysical planes of the universe to the physical plane of our existence, human life.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s