Human Beings essay

The debate on whether the origin of Human Beings hangs from the finger of the Creator or rather from the branch of a tree has entered its third century. Throughout this period, defenders of both sides of this highly controversial issue have tried to recruit others to their undisputable truths. The length of this debate can only be attributed to a clouding of the issue, by means of emotion, hidden agendas and a polarization of opinions through dogma from both sides, which allowed for no common ground whatsoever, making the question of whether the human being descends from Adam or from apes remain unanswered.

The search for the missing link, as extended as it turned out to be, clearly hides somewhere within its epic proportions some very interesting perspectives. It is almost impossible not to ask oneself why science has so far failed to offer us a clear and verifiable answer to the question of how humans came to be. Faced with this silence, we almost inevitably hark back to our collective cradles and go straight on to quote one of the many creation stories that vary according to our cultural background. Of course these traditions sound somewhat too easy, too unscientific and too human in their dimensions, much unlike what we expect science to be.

The truth of the matter is that the scientific community has decided, unilaterally, that a theory of human evolution has to be backed and that enviable resources have to be allocated to the finding of a human form that, as yet and as shall be shown here, remains the product of human fancy. Evolutionists claim, and is certainly undeniable that in recent natural history, specimens have been proven to adapt to their environment in order to benefit from relative advantages that they might exploit and which may aid them to survive.

It is also easy to imagine that, if a sea animal can migrate inland using fins in way of legs and carnivorous plants evolve intricate traps to store water and drown insects which then nourish them together with the water, as has been recorded by naturalists, then why on earth can there not be proteins that evolve into DNA, RNA and muscle fibers. Nature is truly amazing and there can be many conclusions to be drawn or theories to produce about its origin and development.

The main issue from a scientific point of view, however, is that logical conclusions and appearances are not verifiable facts, which can be tested and double tested with the same results and with no, or next to no margin of error. If the matter is to be discussed scientifically, it only follows that arguments for both sides should offer solid scientific evidence. When referring to the origin of the world, Hoyle states that “belief in the chemical evolution of the first cell from lifeless chemicals is equivalent to believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and form a Boeing 747. ” (Hoyle, 1981)

That has to do with how apparent creation is. Design is apparent, insofar as the complexity, richness and variety of our world make it difficult to believe it could be a mere accident. But even assuming the existence of that Boeing, born from junk, there is no explanation as to how it may have evolved. Both the DNA and the cell show such complexity it is difficult to consider their chances of evolution. Not only is it complex, it is irreducibly so. This means that cells could have no another function unless its structure was complete and intact. (Behe, 1996, p. 39) And such cells would be left out of their respective organisms and die.

What is more, according to and consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, what is observed in Nature is its deterioration, rather than evolution. Natural selection itself is known to be a conservative process, rather than a means of developing complexity from simplicity. But even if we ignore the unlikelihood of this spontaneous generation, and assume that human life somehow “descended” or evolved from one original cell, then there should be evidence of those varieties half way between the original form and the Human Being as we know it. Darwin himself wondered “…

if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ” (Darwin, 1859) The main problem is that science has taken 150 years since Darwin’s theory and no conclusive evidence has arisen. Human evolution is not supported by fossil evidence, making the missing link still missing, despite the many alleged findings, all of which ended up being discarded, as noted, among many others, by Fix (Fix, 1984).

This was the case of the Ramapithecus, originally recognized as a direct ancestor of humans, only to be later found out to be an extinct type of orang-utan, the Nebraska man, a simple fraud based on a tooth later discovered to have belonged to a pig, the Java man, whose leg bone was human but whose skull cap was later found to be from a large ape and finally, the Neanderthal, traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man, its posture now attributed to disease, and known to have been simply a variation of the human kind.

And the list goes on. Australopithecus afarensis, or “Lucy,” Homo erectus, Australopithecus africanus, Peking man and Homo habilis were all thought to be the missing link, only to be discarded later. This succession of errors begs the question why should one hold one’s breath on the hope that this fictitious animal – the missing link – might one day turn up. This is to say that one has to have faith that “science” will prevail.

It is therefore not out of place after all to talk about one’s beliefs, what one has been brought up to believe or what one hopes to carry from present into the future, what one chooses to tell their children before going to bed. And this brings us right back to creation theories. This does not mean that any legend we heard as children should automatically spur scientific research, not to mention 150 years worth of it. The veracity of the archaic sources which account for some idea of origin of the Human Race can also be put to test now in a literary rather than scientific way.

We might evaluate if the Bible was right in saying that the earth was in fact round and that there was fire at its core, and consequently this renders it marginally credible. This will certainly not prove anything in particular but will merely serve as a guide for the researcher, just as Darwin’s theory should have been. There is no doubt that there can only be one of two explanations for the origin of man, one being Evolution and the other, Creation.

Therefore, evidence to disprove one must lead unequivocally to the other, with no room for a third option. And the evidence against evolution, outlined above, is sound and scientific. Finally it becomes clear that many scientists have demanded the type of commitment and support from others better suited to followers of a religion or belief and that equally parts of society have incorporated Darwin’s Theory as folk law, teaching their children about this wonderful creation story.

This has undoubtedly hindered scientific research as a scientist that supports views does not research alternatives, which after all is his primary function. In this way science is being forced to perform as something it is not thus bringing it into disrepute. At the same time our history, culture and literature, which can and do act as a good guide of ourselves and the world around us is being locked safely and indecorously into care-homes.

To make matters worse, sound, and as for now, irrefutable scientific theories go unread as it appears to have been motivated by some belief rather than another.


Behe, M. (1996). Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press. Darwin, C. (1859). The Origin of Species. London: John Murray. Darwin, C. (1859). The Origin of Species. Fix, W. (1984). The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution. New York: Macmillan. Hoyle, F. (1981, November 12). Hoyle on Evolution. Nature , p. 105.