Originally Answered: Evolution vs Creation (Latest Evolution Claims?)?
This question is actually kind of tricky. It's not because there's ambiguity in the science, or that evolution is on shaky ground. In fact, the opposite is true, and evolution is one of the most solidly supported theories in all of science. The problem is that there is so much misinformation out there. Part of that is due to the fact that evolution is a complicated idea, based on even more complicated biology, yet we expect high schoolers to be able to understand and evaluate it on their own. The rest of the misinformation out there comes from various creationist groups, which constantly put out misunderstood ideas and incorrect claims, mixed with deliberate lies.
So the first step is to make sure that you know what evolution actually is. This site is a great resource, and has straightforward and unbiased explanations:
I'm putting this out there because I can tell from your question that you don't know what evolution actually says. It sounds like you're using the creationist version, which they have intentionally made wrong. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with God. It disagrees with a *literal* reading of Genesis... but then again, if you're being strictly literal, the two accounts of creation in Genesis contradict each other, and both are contradicted by most of what we know about science. Evolution says absolutely nothing about God, one way or the other. It's simply an explanation of how existing life changes over time. Nothing more, and nothing less. It doesn't comment about an afterlife or morality, it doesn't explain where the universe came from, and it doesn't even explain where life came from. It's how life changes, and it follows the basic laws of the universe. If you believe that God created those laws, then you can believe that God is behind evolution.
The topic of your essay is also key here. It's about belief. You're free to believe whatever you want. If you believe in creation, and you want to reject evolution, then that's fine. Science isn't the be-all and end-all of human existence. Science supports evolution, though, 100%. This is where creationism runs into trouble. It's fine to believe in creation, and to reject any part of science that you want, but it's not ok to say that science supports creation, or that it doesn't support evolution. When creationists state their beliefs, there's no problem, but when they start to try and support their beliefs with science, they're either misinformed or dishonest. People are entitled to their own beliefs, not their own facts.
So which is more believable? It depends on your beliefs. I place a very high value on observation and testable claims, so I accept evolution as the best explanation for how life changes over time. If your faith is more important, then your beliefs might override science... and that's the whole point of faith, right? To me, it seems incredibly hypocritical when creationists talk about the importance faith, and then turn around and distort science and make up lies to support their beliefs.
Science unequivocally supports evolution, but you're free to believe whatever you want. Just make sure that, if you're talking about evolution, you're using the *real* version of evolution, and not the intentionally-wrong one fabricated by creationists to trick people. The real version has absolutely nothing to do with God, and can exist in a naturally-formed universe as well as a created one.
Wow. OK. Where to begin. Lets start with the termite claim. Termites have a symbiotic relationship with their gut microbes. So do humans. Most large organisms can't properly digest and process food without them. Just because we're inseparable now doesn't mean that we were always that way. The ancestors of termites wouldn't have died out because they were able to eat different foods that didn't require those gut microbes. Over time, they developed a symbiotic relationship - the microbes adapted to the termites' guts, and the termites' diet diet shifted to primarily cellulose (since they were one of the few species that could break it down, and there was plenty of it around). Likewise, the evolutionary ancestors of other animals didn't require gut microbes - we co-evolved into a symbiotic relationship to the point where we can't survive without them.
I have absolutely no idea what you're claiming with the sunlight. Sure, according to creation, the sun came a day after plants... but do you really think that science tells us that sunlight came millions of years after plants? The sun formed 4.6 billion years ago, and the earth came together about 100,000 years after that. The first actual life didn't arise until about 3.8 billion years ago, and photosynthesis didn't really take off until about 2.8 billion years ago. That's 1.8 billion years between the formation of the sun and the earth, and the beginning of life that could actually harness the sun's energy.
This is actually pretty typical of creationist arguments - they rely on ignorance, and fall apart easily with just a little bit of basic knowledge. If you're learning this from your teacher, then your teacher is pushing ignorance on you. I'm not talking about belief here, or different ways of looking at the same data. You have absolute freedom of religion, but the "facts" that you're presenting are demonstrably wrong.