Creation Vs Evolution Essay Research Paper Henry

Creation Vs. Evolution Essay, Research Paper

Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. The Scientific Case for Creation. Creation-Life Publishers, Inc. ? 1977.The Creation vs. Evolution argument has raged on since Darwin foremost proposed the evolutionary theoretical account. Often times this argument is pulled from the kingdom of scientific fact and observation into that of personal religion and life style. The Scientific Case for Creation, by Dr. Henry M. Morris, is a book that attempts to turn to the issues from a strictly scientific point of position. In fact the writer provinces in his preface that he is & # 8220 ; go forthing the theological and Biblical deductions of both development and creative activity to other studies. & # 8221 ; Dr. Morris is a advocate of the creative activity theoretical account and screens three chief statements in his book: the scientific impossibleness of development, the inaccuracy of the dodo record and geologic column, and the comparatively immature age of the Earth. Sing this book was written in the Seventies, I found its statements really sound and convincingDr. Morris does a good occupation of insulating and placing the chief countries of importance in this contention. First, the evolutionary theoretical account claims that the existence started in a really random province and increased in complexness and organisation over clip. For this to hold occurred through natural procedures, the existence would hold to be about 30 billion old ages old and the Earth about 5 billion. The creative activity theoretical account assumes the Earth was created in a perfect province, hence doesn & # 8217 ; t need as long a history. A important point here is that development sees the universe as increasing in grades of order whereas creative activity sees the universe as diminishing in grades of order. Besides Dr. Morris points out that neither theoretical account can be proven, creative activity because it was before recorded history, and development because it occurs at such a slow rate as to be unobservable.For development to be valid at that place would hold to be an & # 8220 ; advanced and incorporating force & # 8221 ; in the existence which could develop order from entropy. To day of the month no such rule or force has been identified. Creation, conversely, relies on the rule that

the universe is winding down and that a “conservative and disintegrative” principle is at work. These ideas have been proven and are known as the first and second laws of thermodynamics. This argument is probably one of the most convincing arguments against evolution. The laws of thermodynamics are so firmly entrenched in science that evolution must be reconciled to it not vice versa.Dr. Morris addresses the geologic column as unreliable because it reflects the chaos of a worldwide deluge. He believes the flood recorded in Exodus is what caused the striations of the geologic column and not deposition. As a result he believes the fossil records are unreliable as an indicator of the passage of time. Personally I had never considered the Flood as responsible for the geologic column, however the Dr. Morris makes a very sound case. Considering the author has a doctorate and minored in geology, I?ll give him the benefit of the doubt.In regards to radiometric dating, Morris contends that there are many studies that offer vastly different numbers for the age of the earth, and scientists pick the ones that offer the closest date to their theories. He offers as proof 70 different types of dating that put the earth?s age from 10,000 ? 500,000,000 years. His final argument is a mathematical computation of the odds of random elements arranging themselves in a pattern to spark life. It comes out to be 1: 10280. The grounds of this argument are unassailable. They are in fact somewhat liberal and don?t take into account this process having to be repeated many times to foster further evolution of organisms.The arguments proffered by Dr. Morris were well supported and well presented. For a book written based on science in the Seventies I found it to be very engaging as well as current. The doctor?s credentials are extensive and his research exhaustive. This book offers premises that cannot be ignored by a rational scientific mind. Personally I had all but given up on the young earth theory but this book offered some interesting points that made me seriously re-evaluate that particular view.