Write a 1000 word essay putting forth the scientific arguments that are both for and against evolution. Remember you must only talk about scientific reasoning not religious! To gain credit both sides of the argument should be discussed

Nevertheless, there are many misconceptions about the theory of Evolution. One can rightly say that Evolution is only a theory and has never been proved. However an Evolutionist would affirm that the word Evolution has more than one meaning like many other words. Evolution in biological terms simply means "a change in allele frequencies over time". By this definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. One can also say that Evolution hasn't been observed and thus is not true. Yet, evolutionists argue that even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. For example a bacterium that has become resistant to all known antibiotics over a few decades (MRSA) or insects that develop a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years is evolution and thus it is a fact. OK maybe you can't see a caterpillar turning into an elephant but Evidence isn't limited to seeing something major happen before your eyes. Evolutionists also regard in making predictions in relation to what they would expect to see in the fossil records, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species etc. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

In contrast, Evolutionists do not have solid support from science when they say everything has "evolved". There are many scientific arguments against Evolution such as, there is no scientific law yet that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, it is obvious nothing could happen to cause something to appear.

Evolutionists often try to avoid this problem by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But how can you get something from nothing. It is not logical. Also there is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance.

The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection. But mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents' for example Downs Syndrome and Huntington's disease. Natural selection simply filters out unfit creatures.

Another very string scientific argument is that no scientific law of=r findings can account for non living things coming to life. Evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. Biologist T.H. Huxley and physicist John Tyndall were early supporters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals. But biology has found no law to support this idea, and is much in opposition to it.

To conclude, Evolution is just a theory by which evolutionists believe the modern inhabitants of the Earth came into existence. They also argue that in the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. Conversely, there are many scientific laws in which prove that evolution is impossible and that there is no/lack of proof. But is lack of proof a weakness? What do you believe?

Some scientific quotes against Evolution:

* Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747

* It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures

* However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

Websites used for references of this essay:

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=456

http://www.nmsr.org/wrkshp6.htm

M Rahman Dr Brown