Главная > Реферат >Остальные работы
In every civilization throughout history, man has searched for the explanation to his existence. In ancient society?s people created origin myths. Every civilization had a unique myth. Some myths involved gods and others involved nature. Sometime around one thousand B.C. the longest standing creation myth was popularized. This creation myth is still in practice today, almost three thousand years later. The myth I am referring to is the Genesis recollection in the bible. In the early 1800?s scientists carried out many experiments in the attempt to give scientific proof to the Genesis account. In 1859 when Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species theory, the Genesis ?myth? was no longer regarded as scientifically plausible. Darwin?s theory went against everything in Genesis and gave a more logical explanation to human existence than the account in Genesis. Religion and science were separated and were now fighting for people?s beliefs.
Evolution, or Darwinism, offers a reasonable and highly logical explanation whereas the religious groups offer another logical explanation though in this explanation you have to presume certain assumptions taken from Genesis. Most creationists believe that the earth was created somewhere between five to ten thousand years ago. Their arguments involve primarily attacking evolution. Evolutionists dispute all of the creationist claims and have explanations to most if not all of them. Creationism is a creditable pursuit but due to the fact that it is primarily based in religion it should not be considered a science as many people deem it to be.
There are two kinds of creationists, pure creationists, which I will be talking about in this essay, and theistic evolutionists. Pure creationists believe that the bible is a literal depiction of the creation of the universe; they believe God created the universe during six 24-hour days, the earth is young, and the global flood was a real event. Theistic evolutionists believe that the days of creation are long periods of time in which evolution occurred. They consider themselves creationists because they believe God started the process and intervened along the way. This view incorporates evolution and religion. Theistic evolutions can be religious as well as scientific. It is this compromise that gives people a believable view of creation while not dismissing God?s role in creation. Pure creationists do not except theistic evolutionists as creationists. They believe that if you don?t believe that the bible is literal then you are not a real creationist.
Creationism is rooted in the bible, but is not entirely unscientific. Modern creationists deal mainly in finding and presenting scientific fact that will work against evolution or give proof to Genesis. Creation scientists attempt to disprove evolution in any way possible. Some of their main arguments include their claim that natural selection, the backbone of evolution, does not occur outside of the category ?kind?; The claim that there are no fossils indicating transition, meaning that all life was created in its full form, by god; flaws in radiometric dating and several other disputable errors in evolutionary thought. The creationists believe that science is the act of pursuing scientific facts. They believe that their motives in searching for these facts are irrelevant. They use the scientific method drawing hypothesis from the bible. In many respects I agree with this view of science. I agree with the idea of pursing scientific facts but I disagree that all scientific motives should be equal. Science should be unbiased and when using a religious hypothesis you will draw a religious conclusion. The main flaw in creationist thought is that they set conditions that will prove creationism but they do not stipulate conditions that will disprove creationism. The results of creationist experiments will either count for creation or not count at all. In a true scientific experiment the results of an experiment can falsify the hypothesis, this is not the case with creationist experiments.
Since Darwin separated creation science from the rest of science in 1859 there has been strong opposition to creation science. Religious belief in creationism is the one factor that keeps evolution from being considered an absolute fact. If Genesis was not a fundamental part of two or more widely practiced religions then people would look at the origin of man as a scientific concern. Evolutionists do not take creationism seriously. The science community regards creation science as a pseudoscience. Creationism despite any ?proof? working for it is still based in religion and thus cannot be considered a science. Any experiment in creation science will be conducted to prove the events described in the bible. Evolutionists believe that science is the study of the physical or material universe using the scientific method. In creation science the conclusions are already drawn and experiments are merely finding certain terms that will give the desired result ignoring all the facts that will dispute the conclusion. I agree with the evolutionist view of science, creation science could be considered a biased science and therefore a pseudoscience.
The main creationist arguments do not attempt to justify Genesis, instead, they attempt to falsify evolution. The majority of all creationist arguments deal with ?errors? in evolution. Their primary argument is that natural selection does not exist outside of the category of living things, kind. Kind is one level above species in the categories of living things. According to evolution, natural selection does effect outside of kind and is responsible for all of evolution. When natural selection occurs outside the category of kind it is called macroevolution, when natural selection occurs inside of the category of kind it is called microevolution.
Creationists use examples such as dog breeding and the English peppered moth to show that microevolution occurs but that macroevolution does not. Dog breeding is done by combining different species of dogs to produce a new species of dogs. Though a new species of dogs is created it is not possible to make a new ?kind? from breeding a cat with a dog, this is an example of microevolution. Looking at the peppered moth study in England 95% of moths were white and the other 5% were black. When pollution turned the trees the moths lived on black, the population of moths was 95% black and five percent white. A moth?s color camouflages it. When the trees were white, white was a good camouflage. When the trees were black, was a good camouflage. The moth?s that weren?t camouflaged by the trees got eaten and the surviving moths lived to reproduce moths of their own color. This is an example of a favorable trait being passed through the population. Both evolutionists and creationists agree that this is a case of natural selection but this is still an example of microevolution. It is impossible to demonstrate macroevolution in action; the process of macroevolution takes millions of years to occur.
Evolutionists claim that there are very few differences between micro- and macroevolution. They believe that there is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus.
Another main creationist argument is that there are no fossils demonstrating transition between organisms. Organisms can share traits but according to creationists an ape with a human trait is still an ape. The creationists say that if evolution were true, there should be so many intermediates that we would not be able to categorize them. As the author of ?The Creation Science Web P age? says, ?It should not be possible to tell where one type of animal ?ends? and another ?begins?. Look at the evolutionary ?tree of life? and you will find only the leaves, with speculative branches showing few if any common intermediates?.
Creationists claim that there is a clear line in the fossil record, at which point fossils can be categorized as one type of species or another. Evolutionists claim that there are fossils demonstrating transition. A study was taken to in which creationists were shown pictures of fossilized skulls, some pre-ape and some pre-human. The creationists could not agree which fossils were apes and which were human. Although creationists are adamant that none of the skulls are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to tell which are which. Evolutionists believe that there are transitional fossils but creationists refuse to acknowledge them.
Creationists believe that radiometric dating is flawed. The basic premise behind radiometric dating is that a parent isotope in a rock or any other object containing the isotope decays over time into a daughter isotope at a known rate, specified by its “half-life”. The validity of radiometric dating depends on three assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant, what the parent to daughter ratio was when the object was “created”; and that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history. Creationists argue that the second two assumptions are incorrect. They say that the parent to daughter ratio is arbitrary and the notion that there would be no external loss or addition of parent or daughter components is very unlikely over millions of years. Evolutionists argue that they account for these ?flaws? in the dating process.
Creationists argue that evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that when an imbalance exists between two systems there exists an opportunity for developing work that would be irrevocably lost if the systems were allowed to come into equilibrium in an uncontrolled way. Creationists believe that evolution, by creating highly complex creatures from chaos, contradicts this law. Evolutionists believe that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. If thermodynamics forbids evolution, then it would also forbid babies from growing to be adults, and parents from having children.
Creationists also have less scientific claims. They say that humans, being complex beautiful creatures with the ability to think, create and love, could not have possibly been created by simple chance. Evolutionists when confronted by this argument just refer to essential facts of evolution.
Creationists argue that evolution did not happen but they give very little evidence that suggest that Genesis did. The majority of their arguments deal with so called ?flaws? in evolution. In some cases they provide information such as dating that has shown the earth to be seventy-six million years old. In this example, creationists attempt to disprove evolution by saying that using this information there was not enough time for evolution to occur. If this information were true it would probably change or disprove evolution but it would also disprove Genesis. It seems that creation science?s primary goal is to disprove evolution. Even if creationists disproved evolution they would be asking people to believe them due to a lack of any other alternative.
Creationists and evolutionists use the same facts but come up with completely different conclusions. Both sciences have a common goal being the explanation of the origin of man. The only difference between the two is that creation science has a motive. Creation science tries to prove that the details in Genesis actually happened and ultimately they are trying to prove their religion. Evolution has a much more objective approach to the origin of man. Evolutionists have nothing to lose if their ?theory? is proven incorrect they will take on the new theory and attempt to prove that. Creationists have everything to lose if they are proven wrong so they distort and disregard facts so that their theory is accurate.
Science is unbiased. True scientists develop and or test theories with no personal stake in their experiment. When dealing with a subject such as the origin of man it is impossible to have no personal stake in your subject. Where we come from is as fundamental of a question as any other to humans. It explains at least in part who we are and why we are here. Creation science and evolution both seek answers to this question. Evolutionists do their best to be unbiased; they put aside their religious convictions in the name of science. Creationists bring all their religious convictions into their experiments so their experiments are biased. Creation science is a respectable practice. Creationists are deeply religious people who dedicate their lives in the attempt to prove their religion. Though commendable creation science is biased and therefore, must be considered a pseudoscience.
- ... creation science. Like creationists of all sorts, "creation science" puts forth its claims as absolutely certain ... scientific theorizing. Creation science will remain forever unchanged as a theory ... with pseudosciences such as creation science, where there is ...
- Creation: Cloning As an Alternative God created a man, ... acquire new data for the sciences of embryology. Also, agricultural ... is the main reason why science is holding out on cloning ... author of Toward a More Natural Science states”Identical twins are the ...
- ... issues as healthy and stimulating. Creation science is not science but ... creation science. Like creationists of all sorts, “creation science” puts forth its claims as absolutely certain ... case with pseudosciences such as creation science, where there is no ...
- ... ” by evolutionists. They explain it as a fluke. Another example of a misplaced ... and Parker 38). As for those unneeded organs, science will not hold ... M. and Gary E. Parker. What is Creation Science?. El Cajon, CA: Master Books ...
- ... own science: Creation Science. Creation scientists look to prove that creation is right and science ... the true answers. The creation science argument has constantly said that ... that creation science is a “controlled accident”, using the hand of the creator as ...