In this blog post, based on Charles Darwin’s theory, we will examine the differences between creationism and evolution, and explore how well the theory of evolution explains the origin of life.

The Beginnings of Evolutionary Theory

Until the early 19th century, the world was considered God’s creation, and humans were regarded as God’s greatest creation. However, in 1835, an event occurred that shook this God-centered worldview. Charles Darwin’s voyage to the Galápagos Islands marked the beginning of a revolution in the scientific community. Darwin realized the possibility of species change after observing that the same species of birds existed in different forms on different islands. In 1859, with the publication of Darwin’s *On the Origin of Species*, the conflict between creationism and evolutionism intensified. To this day, creationism and evolutionism continue to spark the debate: “Which is correct?”

Creationism and Evolution: Basic Concepts

Creationism asserts that God designed humans and the world with a specific purpose, whereas evolution explains that living organisms evolved through changes accumulated over long periods of time without any specific purpose. Richard Dawkins introduces the position of creationists in *The Blind Watchmaker*. Creationists believe that just as a complex watch requires a watchmaker, living organisms must have a designer. They argue that living organisms are too perfectly designed to have arisen by chance. On the other hand, evolutionists, including Dawkins, assert that modern humans were formed through the process of evolution and have proven this through research. Some creationists acknowledge the fact of evolution but claim that God initiated this evolutionary process. However, evolutionists have demonstrated through experiments that life could have originated on the primordial Earth, and creationists’ claims have faced scientific refutation. Although the debate between creationism and evolution continues today, research provides compelling evidence in favor of evolution, and the scope of what creationists can claim is gradually narrowing.

The Development of Evolutionary Theory and Contemporary Debates

Early evolutionary theory relied primarily on hypotheses due to a lack of evidence, but through continuous research, evidence capable of countering creationists’ objections has steadily emerged. Of course, given the nature of evolutionary theory, it is difficult to prove every hypothesis as 100% fact, but the theory currently possesses sufficient logical validity. I, too, place more trust in evolutionary theory than in creationism. Just as we can directly observe short-term evolutionary processes in agriculture, the likelihood of evolution occurring over the Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history is even greater. As time passes and more observations are made, the theory of evolution will become even more firmly established.

Diverse Hypotheses and Differences in Perspectives Within Evolutionary Theory

Various hypotheses exist even within evolutionary theory. The most authoritative hypothesis is Darwin’s theory of gradual natural selection. Darwin argued that organisms evolve gradually, and that even organs with incomplete functions can drive evolution through natural selection if they confer a survival advantage. Each change is simple enough to arise by chance compared to the previous one, and these changes accumulate to produce significant results. Darwin’s theory explains that the products selected in one generation become the starting point for the next, and this process continues across generations.
Richard Dawkins adds to Darwin’s theory of natural selection the claim that genes are the key to evolution. He argues that natural selection acts in a direction that favors the replication of genes. In contrast, Stephen Jay Gould argued that evolution occurs through sudden, stepwise changes rather than gradual, small changes, and I agree with his view.
Gould viewed the evolutionary process as alternating between periods of abrupt change and periods of stasis. For example, he argues that early wings likely could not have functioned for flight, so a sudden leap in development must have occurred. He also cites the fact that the fossil record contains many examples of abrupt changes rather than gradual ones as evidence.
Dawkins, however, rejects the idea of abrupt changes, arguing that the punctuated equilibrium theory is ultimately just another form of gradual change. For instance, he argues that even a 5% eye evolved through natural selection because it performed a minimal function and conferred a survival advantage. From the perspective of the punctuated equilibrium theory, it is possible to argue that the existence of organisms with only a lens or only an eye spot can be viewed as evidence of abrupt evolution rather than an explanation for the gradual evolution of the eye.

The Author’s Thoughts on the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory

The author believes that the theory of punctuated equilibrium is a more valid hypothesis and sees little room for theoretical debate. However, the author argues that the “leaps” do not occur from 0% to 1%, but rather in larger increments, such as from 0% to 33%, 66%, and 100%. Taking the evolution of the eye as an example, it is doubtful that a 1% eye could perform even 1% of its function. Dawkins explained gradual evolution using organisms with only a lens or only an optic spot, but I believe this point actually supports the theory of punctuated equilibrium. It is more reasonable to assume that the process—from having no eye function to the emergence of a lens capable of 30% function, and then adding further functions—occurred in leaps and bounds. This suggests that the frequency of small-scale evolution, which we can observe over short periods, differs from that of punctuated evolution, leading to differences in observability.

A Comparison of Darwinism and Gould’s Theory of Evolution

Just because I support Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium does not mean I agree with all the theories he proposed. While Darwin and Dawkins view evolution as the result of natural selection favoring individuals with survival advantages, Gould argues that evolution is not driven by survival advantages but rather by simple changes and the resulting adaptations. For example, when explaining why the kiwi lays eggs that are large relative to its body size, Gould argues that as this bird evolved from larger ancestors, its body size decreased, but the rate of change in egg size was slower, resulting in the laying of large eggs. In the case of the giraffe, he argues that its neck did not lengthen to reach high leaves, but rather that the length of the neck was the result of adaptation to the changed neck length. However, I believe that natural selection—which involves changes in the direction of survival advantage—is more valid than evolution driven by adaptation to the environment.
For example, the extinction of dinosaurs is attributed to their inability to adapt to the environment of that time, making it a prime example supporting natural selection. Aside from dinosaurs, species that were well-suited to their environments survived and continue to exist today. Natural selection is more persuasive because evolution is the result of changes favoring survival rather than merely a simple adaptation to the environment.

The Process of Evolution and Future Research

As such, hypotheses regarding the causes and processes of evolution remain a subject of ongoing debate. As each theory provides feedback on the others’ claims, our understanding of evolution is deepening. While I am not an expert in evolutionary theory, I hope that through this article, readers at a similar level of understanding can either agree with or challenge the various perspectives presented.
While most general scientific theories have a single, definitive answer, the answer to the theory of evolution can vary depending on whom you ask. It would be difficult to fully recreate 4.5 billion years of history within the next few years, but even if we cannot fully reconstruct the past, there remains ample evidence to support the theory of evolution.
Given that evolutionists present a vast amount of evidence for evolution, evolution is an irrefutable scientific fact.