As one might imagine, different answers to this question come from different "authorities." Obviously, creationists and evolutionists disagree, but major schools of thought vie among evolutionists.

Darwin's book Origin of Species, published in 1859, proposed the concept of evolution by purely naturalistic causes, especially natural selection. His idea was that the small variations observed within a population of plants or animals would lead to large changes, given a fortuitous environmental change which favored the variant's opportunity for survival and reproduction.

Picture this scene: A young, pregnant girl is taken into the counseling room at an abortion clinic. Understandably frightened, confused, and vulnerable, she only knows she didn't mean to get pregnant, and wishes she wasn't. She also knows that an abortion would put an end to her pregnancy. But this is a baby we're talking about!

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity.

As more and more scientists adopt the creation model, there ought to be an increasing emphasis on examining data from a creationist viewpoint and a decreasing emphasis on searching out failures of the evolution model to make true or testable predictions.