Creation

All the so-called rewards that I am aware of are offered by creationists, who have probably offerred amounts beyond their ability to pay - in one case, ten million lira. The fact that apparently enormous "rewards" are being offered only by people with strongly held views opposed to evolution demonstrates that this is a propaganda exercise, not a genuine quest for proof. What this also demonstrates is a belief that the public will believe anything if you appear to show confidence in your beliefs.
Take for example, the "reward" offered by Kent Hovind. The principal roadblock to claiming this reward is that you have to convince him and him alone of evolution, and he has already declared all scientific evidence to be false. He has not put any money in trust, nor appointed an independent panel of scientific experts to make the decision. So, it doesn't matter whether he has a quarter of a million pounds on offer: he is in the position of always declaring himself unconvinced.

If such reward had been offered by a science foundation on the basis of an independent arbitrator and fair rules, the reward would have been claimed long ago. The absence of rewards on offer from genuine science foundations, or even from uncommitted philanthropists eager to advance scientific inquiry, demonstrates the confidence that proof of evolution is no longer required.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Answer 1

There appear to be three different offers currently on the table from different people or groups.

1. Young-earth creationist Kent Hovind has an offer of $250,000 (allegedly for around 12 years) for proof of evolution.

2. Creationist Adnan Oktar of Turkey, reported on one site as a 'rival of Richard Dawkins' has an offer of 10 trillion lira $7.5 million dollars for fossil evidence of evolution.

3. An Old-earth Creationist site has an offer of $1,000,000 for proof of Abiogenesis (life from non-life).

Relevant conditions are attached to all of these.

Answer 2

Although the first answer to this question is correct in that these groups do appear to offer rewards for proof of evolution or abiogenesis, there is no actual intent there to give the reward to anyone who offers actual evidence for the mentioned proofs. The conditions attached to these rewards, and the definitions of 'proof' and 'evidence' applied by those who offer them, and even the interpretation of the relevant explanatory models themselves, are carefully chosen so that no evidence or proof that complies with scientific tenets can ever be accepted and the rewards can never be awarded.

== == Believing in evolution of species is called being realistic. It is recognizing the facts of science. Persons who believe that evolution is true are often referred to as evolutionists.

Persons who are true believers in evolution specifically exclude anything other than a purely naturalistic explanation for the origin of the earth and universe and particularly life on earth.

Theistic evolutionists is a term given to those who try to match theism, or belief in a God or gods as the one or ones involved in an original creation, with evolution being the mechanism which has produced ongoing changes over time to the point where we are today. Sometimes this also includes a God or gods guiding or directing the process of evolution.

Evolution by Natural Selection
Charles Darwin put forward the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection in his book, The Evolution of Species, published in 1859. Following decades of research he put forward the scientific theory that all species have evolved from earlier species, back to the beginning of life on Earth. Genetic mutations occur from time to time, and randomly, in living creatures. Natural selection is what decides whether a mutation will help the species survive in a competitive environment. If, as the result of some change passed down from its parents, an individual is better able to find food, evade predators or attract sexual partners, then that individual is more likely to produce a greater number of offspring, eventually leading to improvement in its gene pool.

Creationism
There are several forms of creationism, and new variants are constantly put forward, as old variants are discarded. The chief groupings of creationists are known as "Young-Earth creationists" and "Old-Earth creationists".

Young-Earth creationists believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and that all life forms were originally created in much the same form as we see today. Most Young-Earth creationists do accept the reality of 'micro-evolution', evolution within a species, as the evidence of small changes are so obvious for all to see. The principal arguments put forward by Young-Earth creationists are intended to disprove evolution rather than to prove creationism.

Because the scientific evidence for the great age of the Earth has become so overwhelming, some creationists have adopted an "Old-Earth creationism" stance. Most accept that species really have evolved over the eons. They accept the age of the Earth but insist that natural selection is not the reason for evolution. One of the most recent hypotheses put forward by Old-Earth creationists is called Intelligent Design. One variant of this holds that God took part in the evolution of life throughout history, guiding the progress of evolution. Another variant holds that God, in some way, made the rules for evolution at the beginning of the Universe and that those rules inevitably and predictably resulted in life as we know it.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

The Bible contains one creation account of the creation of man. Following the usual practice of the ancients (as confirmed by other non-biblical documents), the author of Genesis includes the creation of man under the creation of the whole universe and world in the general account in Genesis 1:1 through 2:4a. The specific statement relating to the creation of man is as follows:

Genesis 1:26-28 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.This general statement contains the decision to make man (male and female) as well as the position which man is to hold in respect to the rest of creation which has just been described as having been made. Thus, although also a creation, man has a position of dominion, which of course also includes the idea of responsibility to care for the creation of which he is head. The second part of the creation account from 2:4b to 25 contains both specific details about man's creation as well as the 'context' into which man was placed. Thus, the general statement in Genesis 1 is given more 'meat' as the specific formation of man from the dust of the ground is described, as well as the fashioning of woman, in the last creative act, out of man. Although (as in the rest of the creation) there are a great many details left undescribed, which man, in exercising his dominion is still discovering today, the essence is there. Firstly that man's constituent parts are the same elements of which this earth consists. Secondly, that man did not evolve over millions of years but was, like the rest of creation a specific creation of God. Even further to this, God used a much more 'hands on' approach with man, in line with man's importance to God and man's importance in carrying out the 'dominion mandate' as the head of creation. Genesis 2:7 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. The creation of woman is also intended as a statement of her importance - the creation was incomplete, as was the man Adam, until she came along. This chapter also contains the institution of marriage and indicates that man, being both male and female, is a relational being, not just in terms of his sexuality, but interpersonal relationship where like can relate to like, something the animal world can never supply. Thus woman is 'meet' or fitting, rather than being an inferior being. Genesis 2:18-2418And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. It is also quite clear that the Bible account excludes the coming into existence of man through any process of evolution. God created man through no other process than His own personal intervention and intent. Amazingly complex order, as we also know through the laws of science today, did not come about by evolution, nor could it. It is also clear that the Bible intends to explain the place of man in the world and the relation of man to woman and them both under God as His creation.

From both perspectives the age of the earth is indeed a central issue. The two positions could not be further apart. According to those who believe in evolution the earth is around 4.54 billions years old. In contrast, those who follow the young-earth creation model see the evidence pointing to an earth which is around 6000 years old.

Time as a central issue for evolution is demonstrated in the geologic time scale of the earth and the geologic column. Biological evolution is incorporated into the whole framework with many millions of years deemed as being necessary for the vast changes from molecules to early life down to this present day. Observable evidence points to the increased likelihood of small changes accumulating over a long period, even though we cannot observe them in our own lifetime.

Creationists in contrast point to an increasing acknowledgment of rapid geologic processes in mainstream science and the clear demonstration that it is the right conditions rather than time which causes certain processes to take place. Creationists also insist that all the evidence does not require an old earth but can be accomodated into the time-scale of 6000 years when correctly interpreted.

Summary: Put simply, both sides regard time as a central issue both in terms of their separate schemes of earth and biological history but in terms of contrast between the two positions.

According to Wikipedia, Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities.

Initially, Creationism developed as a response by a minority of Christians to the Theory of Evolution. Its advocates attempted to have Creationism taught, in US schools, in science classes as a valid alternative to evolution. The courts blocked this attempt, on the grounds that Creationism is a topic of religion and to teach it in science classes would breach the separation of church and state.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Not only do young earth creation scientists have plenty of evidence, much of the evidence they have comes from accepted mainstream science. Thus if it is contended (although totally without any examples) that creation scientists do not have proofs, then one is simply ignoring mainstream science, much of which is produced by scientists who believe in evolution. Mainstream science (in terms of the evidence not the personal beliefs of evolutionists against the evidence) does not support evolutionary beliefs no matter how many times it is stated 'evolution is a proven fact.' Saying this and it actually being so are two totally different things.

The evidence which YEC's have is both positive and negative. Positive, in the sense that the evidence points positively to a creator. Negative, in that there is plenty of evidence which refutes the errors of evolution. It is also comprehensive as well in that it covers every conceivable area of scientific endeavor, including evidence relating to the age of the earth and universe, since the age issue is a key difference in ideology between the two positions.

Some Evidence for the Young-Earth Creationist Position:

Since this is a big issue it is difficult to summarize in a small section. However here are some of the key arguments:

Laws of Science (with no known exception) such as the Law of biogenesis (life only comes from life) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the law of entropy) do not support evolution.

The fossil record does not demonstrate the millions of intermediate forms but instead 'stasis'. That is organisms stay the same over alleged multi millions of years of evolutionary time, even including into species that are still living today.

Genetics also shows that there are definite limits to change. No known mechamism exists to create new genetic information for one organism to change into something else. Mutations demonstrate a 'downhill' path and natural selection works on existing genetic information and cannot add new genetic instructions. This all points to the existence of an all-wise creator who not only created the information but the means by which the information could be understood and translated into characteristics of an organism.

Biochemistry demonstrates the impossibility of life, even the simplest form of life coming from non-living chemicals. Life is a creation not an accident.

Summary:

These arguments although highly simplified are all scientifically tenable.

Rebuttal of previous points

• "Evolution contradicts the second law" - this is complete nonsense. The second law says that in closed systems, entropy increases. First and foremost, biological systems and our planet are not closed at all. Huge amounts of energy go in and out every second. Even assuming that the solar system is a closed system, this says nothing about a subsystem of it; the local decrease in entropy in your body is more than made up by the later increase as energy is released and by the mere functioning of the sun. Even besides all that, evolution is just one aspect of life; this argument can only say that either no life is possible, or that all life must be allowed. It says nothing about one specific mechanism of life.
• The "law of biogenesis" - is not a law as so faithfully stated. The Miller-Urey experiment shows that it is perfectly possible to develop self-replicating molecules from complex organic molecules from simple organic molecules from simple compounds and elements, perfectly within the environment known to have existed during and around the time of life's first appearances.
• "Fossils records show stasis, not evolution" - as amatter of fact, they show both. The original hypothesis of gradual but minute change has been replaced by the "punctuated equilibirium" theory, which specifically states that organisms remain quite similar for huge periods of time, then are affected by some circumstance which forces natural selection on a massive scale and in a comparatively short period of time (e.g. a few million years after a stable period of 20 million years).
• Mutations - are the obvious mechanism of new information formation, which is denied to exist. Information is altered from what it originally was during the phases of replication and of "zipping up". As quite plainly stated in many science textbooks, mutations are "often harmless, sometimes lethal, but also sometimes beneificial". All of these imply the key word "different" - different from what the would have, should have and could have been.
• "God did it" - is a completely and inherently unscientific claim, which simply demonstrates how the position of creationists is based on religious (and often political) motives, not scientific ones.

Summary: These arguments are false. Their supporters make stuff up to appear correct.

One thought:

Michael Phelps makes swimming look SIMPLE, but what he does is NOT simple.

In the same way, Life is more complex than it appears.

Take a tree...looks simple enough.

One can look at a tree and think, sure, that happened by accident. One day a cell appeared, reproduced and grew a tree. Simple.

But a CELL is NOT simple. The unfathomable complexity involved in the forming of tree cells, the inexplicable reproducing of those cells, and then the efficient functioning of BILLIONS and BILLIONS of these microscopic cells as they systematically form all the functioning parts of a tree...bark..wood...leaves...root system....and maintain themselves, is beyond accidental.

Going even deeper, the ATOMS forming those cells hold power beyond our imagination, intricate in design, invisible to our eyes, yet forming the basis of everything on earth.

Now once these atoms miraculously formed a tree cell, and the tree cells miraculously formed a tree, this tree now becomes self sustaining, reproducing itself over and over and over to form forests which clean our air, shade our land and do it with such beauty and grace that we can look at it and THINK.... it's SIMPLE.

The Bible says 'In the beginning, God created......'

Nothing will explain and prove creation better than studying the Bible and proving it to yourself. Take the time and do it. It's simple.

Another Answer:

Because this discussions could get very lengthy and sprout argument after argument...I will just give you what helped me reject claims that were forced fed me during my school and college years.

Either there was once a giant rock that always was floating in nothing that became unstable and exploded creating galaxies/planets/stars etc... and on one of these pieces there was some gloup/ooze that mutated over the periods of millions and millions or billions of years and then fast forward and here we are....OR:

We are here by design from a Designer. The design works...we breath in O2 and plants breath it out....we breath out co2 and plants breath it in. Design necessitates a designer. Can you name one aspect in all our existence that has a complex design without a designer? Also see: 2nd law of Thermodynamics-matter moves from a state of being to being to decomposition through heat transfer (more complicated than this...just cliffs notes here)

There have been quite a number of these made over the years. They can be classified into a number of broad categories, although it must be pointed out at the outset that most people who made these comments were evolutionists and remained evolutionists. It is well said that questioning things is part of science. This must also include acknowledging problems with existing theories where they do not match scientific reality:

Regarding the Fossil Record:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould (then Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p.127.

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

Gould, ibid. 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p.24.

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.(emphasis added) The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record."

David B. Kitts, PhD (zoology), (School of Geology and Geophysics, Department of the History of Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman Oklahoma, USA) 'Paleontology and evolutionary theory'. Evolution. vol.28, September 1974, p.467

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistc. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does(emphasis in the original) show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. Also the major extinctions such as those of the dinoaaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling."

Dr David M. Raup (Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago), 'Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology'. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin,vol.50(1), January 1979,p.25.

Regarding Evolution Generally -Has it helped the progress of Science.?

"Darwin's book - On the Origin of Species - I find quite unsatisfactory: it says nothing about the origin of species; it is written very tentatively, with a special chapter on "Difficulties on theory"; and it includes a great deal of discussion on why evidence for natural selection does not exist in the fossil record"...

"As a scientist I am not happy with these ideas. But I find it distasteful for scientists to reject a theory because it does not fit with their preconceived ideas."

H. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), 'Origin of species', in 'Letters', New Scientist, 14 May 1981, p.452.

Note: In this case the preconceived ideas get the nod ahead of what the facts of science show.

'There was little doubt that the star intellectual turn of last week's British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting at Salford was Dr. John Durant, a youthful lecturer from University College Swansea. Giving the Darwin lecture to one of the biggest audiences of the week, Durant put forward an audacious theory - that Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social progress.'...

Durant concludes that the secular myths of evolution have had "a damaging effect on scientific research", leading to "distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science".'

Dr John Durant (University College Swansea, Wales) as quoted in 'How Evolution became a scientific myth', New Scientist, 11 September 1980, p765.

'Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.'

Prof. Loius Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in The Advocate, Thursday 8 March 1984, p.17.

Regarding Mutations as a Mechanism for Evolution

'Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living things evolve.

This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable:first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. The human soecies provides a great many examples of this, e.g., the color of the eyes, the shape of the auricle, dermatoglyphics, the color and texture of the hair, the pigmentation of the skin. Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution.' (Emphasis added)

Pierre-Paul Grasse (University of Paris and past-President, French Academie des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977,p.88

Regarding the Origin of Genetic Material

'The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress.'

Dr. Leslie Orgel (biochemist at the Salk Institute, California), Darwinism at the very beginning of life'. New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p.151.

'The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.'....

'We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imagination so far has not been very helpful.'

Richard E. Dickerson, Ph.D (physical chemistry)(Professor, California Institute of Technology), 'Chemical evolution and the origin of life'. Scientific American, vol.239(3), September 1978, pp.77 and 78

Regarding Dating and Dating Methods

'The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such "confirmation" may be short-lived as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences.

And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.'

Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC, 'Secular catastrophism'. Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p.21.

'All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history. A method that appears to have much greater reliability for determining absolute ages of rocks is that of radiometricdating.'....

'It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different(sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists....".

William D. Stansfield, Ph.D.(animal breeding)(Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University)in The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, 1977,pp.82 and 84.

'In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or to low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geologic time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon. '

A. Hayatsu(Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), 'K-Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia'. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979,p.974.

'Thus, if one believes that the derived ages in particular instances are in gross disagreement with established facts of field geology, he must conjure up geological processes that could cause anomalous or altered argon contents of the minerals.'

Prof. J. F. Evernden (Department of Geology, University of California, Berkeley, USA) and Dr. John R. Richards (Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra),'Potassium-argon ages in eastern Australia'. Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, vol. 9(1), 1962,p.3.

Regarding the rubidium/strontium (Rb/Sr) method:

'These results indicate that even total-rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age.'

Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA) and Prof. James L. Powell (Department of Geology,Oberlin College,Ohio, USA) in Strontium Isotope Geology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972, p.102.

'One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model is that crystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole rock technique can be greater than the true age by many hundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and there are well-documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age in the literature.'

Dr. C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada), Dr. D. E. James (Staff Member in geophysics and geochemistry, Carnegie Institution of Washington D.C., USA) and Dr. S. R. Hart (Professor of Geochemistry, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,USA), 'Ancient lithosphere: its role in young continental vulcanism'. Science,vol. 193, 17 September 1976, p.1093.

Regarding the Origin of Life Itself

In order for evolution to take place life had to arise spontaneously without divine intervention. Theistic evolutionists of course propose that God started it all and then used evolution. This is not what mainstream science proposes since even the idea of any kind of supernatural intervention is explicitly excluded. The following are from the mainstream scientific view.

'Prebiotic soup is easy to obtain. We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic constituents of nucleotides evolved into a self replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct this evolutionary process are extremely tentative.'

Dr. Leslie Orgel (biochemist at the Salk Institute, California), 'Darwinism at the very begining of life'. New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p.150.

'However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.*

This is not to say that some paraphysical forces were at work. We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence. The physicist has learned to avoid trying to specify when time began and when matter was created, except within the framework of frank speculation. The origin of the precursor cell appears to fall into the same category of unknowables.'

*To postulate that life arose elsewhere in the universe and was then brought to earth in some manner would be merely begging the question; we should then ask how life arose wherever it may have done so originally.

David E. Green (Institute for Enzyme Research, Iniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, USA) and Robert F. Goldberger (National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA), Molecular Insights into the Living Process, Academic Press, New York, 1967, pp. 406-407.

The microbiologist Michael J. Behe is a believer in evolution, however some of his statements question evolution. In Darwin's Black Box, he repeatedly and clearly states that he accepts the scientifically determined age of the Earth, and repeatedly and clearly states that evolution by natural selection may be correct, at least for "micro-evolution". He defines micro-evolution broadly, to include the evolution of species, but not of complex biological systems.

Behe stated that he could not see how complex microbiological systems could have resulted from gradual improvement, as proposed by Charles Darwin. He went on to argue that, although there is no proof for creation, it appears to offer a better explanation for such complex biological systems. Even if he prefers this explanation, he believes that design is difficult to prove.

Although Behe has questioned evolution, he should not be regarded as "anti-evolution". In an attempt to harmonise creationism with evolution, Behe puts forward the hypothesis that the creator may have placed the genes necessary for complex systems in the earliest primitive species (but not turned on), ready to be switched on in descendant species that finally needed those systems (Chapter 10, "Questions about Design"). Now, in the twenty-first century, scientists are in a position to use genome mapping to test this hypothesis, in ways Behe may not have anticipated in the early 1990s.

Behe stated (P230): "There is another conceivable sense in which evolution might be said to go in sudden jerks, but which is also not the sense being proposed by Eldredge and Gould, at least in most of their writings. It is conceivable that some of the apparent 'gaps' in the fossil record really do reflect sudden change in a single generation."

It is widely reported that John Durant, as a young scientist, argued that Darwinism was accepted too uncritically. In his later essay, "A Critical-Historical Perspective on the Argument about Evolution and Creation" (Evolution and Creation: A European Perspective edited by Svend Andersen and Arthur Peacocke - 1987), he continued to question the arguments put by both sides:

"I have suggested that much of the argument about evolution and creation arises from the belief that, since these two things are opposed to one another, we must choose between them. This belief is simply false. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not atheistic but rather secular, and there is no necessity for it to be in conflict with, or indeed to make any sort of contact with, the theological doctrine of creation.It remains true that we have come a long way from the days when philosophical, religious and scientific discussions of origins were dominated by the theory of special creation. Today, it is at least possible to distinguish between conventional Darwinian evolutionary biology and that larger evolutionary world-view constructing enterprise that is represented by men like Huxley and Teilhard. For the plain fact is that those who accept the essentially secular terms of Darwinism are free to select amongst a variety of alternative world-views according to their own particular philosophical or religious preferences. In exercising this freedom, of course, people are not making a scientific choice. For Darwinism as such rests upon no distinctive metaphysical or religious propositions; and it offers no distinctive support to any particular world-view, be it pro-Christian, anti-Christian or merely neutral. Rightly conceived, theological questions must be decided on theological grounds, and not upon the territory of the paleontologist or the population geneticist. "

Loren Eiseley, Ph.D

'With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own:namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.'

Loren Eiseley, PhD.(anthropology), 'The secret of life' in The Immense Journey, Random House, New York, 1957,p.199.

Dr. David Pilbeam

'I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data.'

Dr. David Pilbeam (Physical Anthropologist, Yale University, USA), 'Rearranging our family tree'. Human Nature,June 1978, p.45

1. Abiogenesis

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis - also known as spontaneous generation - is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. This is also referred to as the "primordial soup" theory of evolution. On earth evidence is clear life began in water, such as some warm shallow sea or deep ocean thermal vent, as a result of the combination of chemicals from the atmosphere and the production of amino acids. These molecules in turn formed proteins, and a gradual cascade of ever more complex self-replicating molecules until cells formed. Ultimately all species trace their origin back to two or three original forms. Abiogenesis should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment and similar experiments simulating conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. How these organic molecules first arose and formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

We have seen fairly complex biochemicals spontaneously form in simple simulations of earthly prebiotic conditions, such as in the Urey/Miller experiments yielding amino acids. Amino acids form in a wide variety of conditions. While many of the steps from inorganic matter to self-replicating life forms remain a mystery to us, much of the unfolding story after the development of multicellular organisms (metazoans) is found in earth's geologic fossil record and in comparisons of DNA genetic sequences. Abiogenesis (life from non life) is not actually a working theory yet, but when a workable mechanism is proposed it will be incorporated into the theory of evolution.

We know life arose very early in earth's history--within about the first billion years of its formation. Multicellular life, however, required another three billion years to form. The earliest multicellular forms (metazoans) were all marine organisms--creatures dwelling in earth's vast seas. Jawed vertebrates had evolved in these primordial oceans before the first amphibious vertebrates made their way onto land--even before the first terrestrial plants and insects.

2. Special Creation

According to this concept, all the different forms of life that occur today on planet Earth have been created by a God, gods, or extraterrestrial beings. This idea is found in the ancient scriptures of almost every culture. According to Hindu belief, Lord Brahma, the God of Creation, made the living world in accordance to his wish. According to the Christian, Jewish and Islamic belief, God created this universe, plants, animals and human beings in about six natural days. Others interpret the "six days" of Genesis as six epochs. The Sikh tradition says that all forms of life including human beings came into being with a single word of God.

Special creationists believe that the species have not undergone any significant change since they were introduced. Creationists generally accept a simplistic interpretation of The Bible's explanation that God created a number of basic groups of animals and plants as described in the first part of Genesis. They believe that while God created each group with the possibility of a good deal of variation, they were brought forth according to their own kind. By definition, the faith-based notion of Special Creation is purely a religious concept, acceptable only on the basis of faith. It has no scientific basis.

3. Biogenesis

The belief that living things come only from other living things (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). It may also refer to biochemical processes of production in living organisms. The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material. Pasteur's (and others') empirical results were summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life", also known as the "law of biogenesis". Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream"). It should be noted that the "spontaneous generation" Pasteur opposed referred to any modern, fully formed organism arising, NOT the original generation of life. In Pasteur's day it was commonly believed, for example, that flies spontaneously arose from piles of cattle dung, and necessarily because some fly laid its eggs there. Egyptians believed that mud of the Nile River spontaneously gave rise to many forms of life. The idea of spontaneous generation was popular almost until seventeenth century. Many scientists like Descartes, Galileo and Helmont supported this idea.

4. Theory of Chemical Evolution

This theory is also known as Materialistic Theory or Physico-chemical Theory. According this theory, the origin of life on earth is the result of a slow and gradual process of chemical evolution that probably occurred about 3.8 billion years ago. This theory was proposed independently by two scientists - A.I.Oparin, a Russian scientist in 1923 and J.B.S Haldane, an English scientist, in 1928.

5. Theory of Catastrophism

This theory on the origin of life is simply a modification of the theory of Special Creation. It states that there have been several creations of life by God, each preceded by a catastrophe resulting from some kind of geological disturbance. According to this theory, since each catastrophe completely destroyed the existing life, each new creation consisted of life form different from that of previous ones. French scientists Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) and Orbigney (1802 to 1837) were the main supporters of this theory.

6. Inorganic Incubation

Proposed by Professor William Martin, of Düsseldorf University, and Professor Michael Russell, of the Scottish Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow, this theory states that Instead of the building blocks of life forming first, and then forming a cell-like structure, the researchers say the cell came first and was later filled with living molecules. They say that the first cells were not living cells but inorganic ones made of iron sulfide and were formed not at the Earth's surface but in total darkness at the bottom of the oceans. The theory postulates that life is a chemical consequence of convection currents through the Earth's crust and, in principle, could happen on any wet, rocky planet.

7. Endosymbiotic Theory

This theory, espoused by Lynn Margulis, suggests that multiple forms of bacteria entered into symbiotic relationship to form the eukaryotic cell. The horizontal transfer of genetic material between bacteria promotes such symbiotic relationships, and thus many separate organisms may have contributed to building what has been recognized as the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) of modern organisms. James Lovelock's Gaia theory, proposes that such bacterial symbiosis establishes the environment as a system produced by and supportive of life. His arguments strongly weaken the case for life having evolved elsewhere in the solar system.

8. Panspermia - Cells From Outer Space

Some scientists believe that the simplest life-forms, whole cells (especially microbial cells), have been transported to the Earth from extraterrestrial sources. In this way, a process called panspermia (means seeds everywhere) might have initiated life on Earth. Most mainstream scientists have not supported panspermia, but early challenges have been thwarted in recent years due to discoveries such as terrestrial microbes that survive in extreme environments and incredibly aged yet viable microorganisms found in ancient rocks. In addition, water (essential for life) has been discovered on other planets and moons, and organic chemicals have been found on meteorites and in interstellar debris.

9. Cosmogony

Cosmogony is any theory concerning the coming into existence or origin of the universe, or about how reality came to be. In the specialized context of space science and astronomy, the term refers to theories of creation of the Solar System. For example, Greek mythology and some religions of the Ancient Near East refer to chaos, the formless or void state of primordial matter preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos in creation myths. Cosmogony can be distinguished from cosmology, which studies the universe at large and throughout its existence, yet does not inquire directly into the source of life or its origins.

10. Marine Theory

The Marine Theory suggests that life may have begun at the submarine hydrothermal vents; their rocky nooks could then have concentrated these molecules together and provided mineral catalysts for critical reactions. Even now, these vents are rich in chemical and thermal energy that sustains vibrant ecosystems.

11. Electric Spark Theory

Electric sparks can generate amino acids and sugars from an atmosphere loaded with water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, as was shown in the famous Miller-Urey experiment reported in 1953, suggesting that lightning might have helped create the key building blocks of life on Earth in its early days. Over millions of years, larger and more complex molecules could form. Although subsequent research indicates the early atmosphere of Earth may have been poor in free hydrogen, scientists have suggested that volcanic clouds in the early atmosphere might have held methane, ammonia and hydrogen and lightning near eruption events would likely have been as common as it is now. Amino acids are also known to form spontaneously near deep ocean thermal vents, and in numerous other environments rich in organic material and energy.

12. Tribal and Mythological

Though not strictly scientific from our modern definition, ancient lore can be considered as the 'scientific' belief of its day, as it attempted to explain what was observed. From the tribes of ancient times to the mythologies of more modern cultures, there are countless stories of how life began. Some are based in pagan, or polytheistic, beliefs, while others are based on creation resulting from a single deity, or monotheism. This collection of myths, legend and tribal knowledge handed down over generations is the collective expression of how we humans attempt to explain our world and our place in it.