Resumo de Is The Theory Of Evolution Right Or Not?

Is evolution correct?
These days as rapid advances are being made in the fields of science and education, a section of people hold the view that this world and everything in it came into being on their own thus rejecting the role of God. We are not great scientists to refute the theory of evolution which proposes that man originated as the result of gradual evolution of living organisms from one another. However we shall explain a few more incongruities in this theory that makes it unacceptable to intelligent people. In the first place, it is not possible for us who believe in the existence of God to accept the theory of evolution. When there is a Supreme Being , it is far easier to believe that all these things were created by Him rather than presuming that, all these came into being accidentally, which anyway is plain foolishness.
Let us examine this further.
Assuming that somehow life originated on earth and taking the case of a single celled organism which is at the lowest level of evolutionary scale, these organisms are said to have evolved into a different but more adaptable state over a period of time. However we find such organisms existing even today. Which scientific principle could then have operated on these organisms that made a selected few pass through the evolutionary process while leaving the rest at their original state? If all the forms of living organisms are continuously evolving, none of the organisms that preceded the human evolution could be found today. From these one celled organisms, upto frogs, evolution occurs within water. However after a certain stage, worms, insects etc. come out of water and begin to live on land. When the organisms before and after them on the evolutionary scale live on water, the reason for them alone choosing to live on land is known to none. Did evolution occur after these came to land? Not at all.
Therefore asserting that nature operates on the basis of these contradictory principles is nothing but insult to nature itself. The final stage of evolution within water is said to be the frog. Because their earlier forms viz. tadpoles, has tails and as they grow up the tails become shorter and shorter, it is argued that the predecessors of frogs had tails. If that is so, how did some of their successors on the evolutionary scale come to possess tails? And how, for the man who is said to have evolved still later, tails are absent? What is that magic displayed by nature in creating some beings with legs and some others without legs at different stages of evolutionary process? The theory of evolution claims that after frogs had come to live on land, from them birds and beasts evolved.
Among the reptilian species, some have legs and some do not. The birds that are supposed to have come from them have two legs and beasts have four. What is the uniqueness of these creatures that they could bring forth, from time to time, some creatures with legs and some without legs and numerous other creatures with different number of legs? What is that principle that directs some frogs to progress on the evolutionary scale and some other frogs to remain as frogs? When some animals and birds with more advanced features than frogs continue to live in water, does not some creatures with less advanced features than frogs and at the evolutionary level of fish, live on land? How is it possible? Whether such phenomena goes against the evolutionary theory or just exceptions ? How can they explain these improbabilities?
Why nature chose to give the trunk as a separate organ for that purpose but made it's neck shorter. What principle of nature is it that helped a camel to have a bag (hump) to store water and a kangaroo to have a bag for carrying its babies? What is the reason that for a snake, eyes are to be used both to hear and see? How marvelous are the creations of feathers of a peacock and the quills of a porcupine! Why did nature gift the snake with fangs, scorpion and honeybee with stings?

Cetainly it is more plausible to believe that depending on the purposes, each of these creatures were created with appropriate organs to suit the circumstances in which they live. Therefore it becomes clear that there is no place for evolution here.
We can go on adding more and more such examples. Therefore it appears that certainly these kind of organisms could not have appeared earlier. If they had appeared later, then the evolutionary theory becomes wrong. What explanations do the scientists offer for these? Hence we understand that these creatures did not evolve into what they are in tune with the changing circumstances and opportunities but were created with specific purposes and capabilities.
.
. It is not made up of any solid matter. Likewise it is impossible to determine the nature of 'mind' by scientific means. But we see the working of 'mind' and 'will' through our experience.
Similarly, it is impossible for anyone to point out clearly the nature and origin of 'conscience' inspite of our awareness of wrongdoing when an evil act is done. If man had originated from monkeys how can we reasonably expect such things from him?

Resumos Relacionados