Creationism Essay Research Paper Creationism is a

Creationism Essay, Research Paper

Creationism is a spiritual metaphysical theory about the beginning of the existence.

It is non a scientific theory. Technically, creationism is non needfully

connected to any peculiar faith. It merely requires a belief in a Creator.

Millions of Christians and non-Christians believe there is a Godhead of the

existence and that scientific theories such as the the theory of development do non

struggle with belief in a Creator. However, fundamentalist Christians such as

Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell, have co-opted the term & # 8216 ; creationism & # 8217 ; and it is

now hard to mention to creationism without being understood as mentioning to

fundamentalist Christians who ( a ) take the narratives in Genesis as accurate

histories of the beginning of the existence and life on Earth, and ( B ) believe that

Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of development.

Therefore, it is normally assumed that creationists are Christians who believe that

the history of the creative activity of the existence as presented in Genesis is literally

true in its basic claims about Adam and Eve, the six yearss of creative activity, and non

an fable. Creation scientific discipline is a term used by certain creationists to bespeak

that they believe that Genesis is a scientific history of the beginning of the

existence. Reading the Bible as if it were a scientific text contradicts the Big

Bang theory and the theory of development. “ Creation scientists ” say

those theories are false and that scientists who advocate such theories are

ignorant of the truth about the beginnings of the existence and life on Earth. One

of the chief leaders of creative activity scientific discipline is Duane T. Gish of the Institute for

Creation Research, who puts Forth his positions in concurrence with onslaughts on

development. Gish is the writer of Evolution, the Challenge of the Fossil Record (

San Diego, Calif. : Creation-Life Publishers, 1985 ) and Evolution, the Dodos

Say No ( San Diego, Calif. : Creation-Life Publishers, 1978 ) . Another leader of

this motion is Walt Brown of the Center for Scientific Creationism. Neither

Gish nor Brown seem to understand the difference between a fact and a theory.

They aloud proclaim that development is merely a theory and that it is false.

Scientific theories are neither true nor false. They are accounts of facts.

That species evolved from other species is considered by 99.99 % of the

scientific community to be a scientific fact. How species evolved is what a

theory of development is supposed to explicate. Darwin & # 8217 ; s theory of how development

happened is called natural choice. That theory is rather distinguishable from the

fact of development. Other scientists have different theories of development, but

merely a negligible few deny the fact of development. Gish is non making scientific discipline when

he argues against the fact of development. He has no involvement in scientific facts

or theories. His involvement is in apologetics: supporting the religion against what he

sees as onslaughts on God & # 8217 ; s Truth. All his statements are defensive ; they are

efforts to demo that the grounds does non back up the scientific fact of

development. Creationists, misidentifying the uncertain in scientific discipline for the

unscientific, see the argument among evolutionists sing how best to explicate

development as a mark of failing. Scientists, on the other manus, see uncertainness

as merely an inevitable component of scientific cognition. They regard arguments on

cardinal theoretical issues as healthy and stimulating. Science, says

evolutionary life scientist Stephen Jay Gould, is “ most merriment when it plays with

interesting thoughts, examines their deductions, and recognizes that old

information may be explained in surprisingly new ways. ” Therefore, through all

the argument over evolutionary mechanisms life scientists have non been led to doubt

that development has occurred. “ We are debating how it happened, ” says

Gould ( 1983, p.256 ) . Creation scientific discipline, on the other manus, is non scientific discipline but

pseudoscience and it is connected to a peculiar group of fundamentalist

Christians. Most Christians, fundamentalist or non, likely ne’er heard of

creative activity scientific discipline. Like creationists of all kinds, “ creative activity scientific discipline ”

puts forth its claims as perfectly certain and unchangeable. It assumes that

the universe must conform to the Bible. It assumes that the Bible needs no alteration

and can incorporate no mistake. Where creative activity scientific discipline differs from creationism in

general is in its impression that one time it has interpr

eted the Bible to intend

something, no grounds can be allowed to alter that reading. Alternatively,

the grounds must be refuted. Compare this attitude to that of the taking

European creationists of the seventeenth century who had to acknowledge finally that the

Earth is non the centre of the existence and that the Sun does non go around around

our planet. They did non hold to acknowledge that the Bible was incorrect, but they did

hold to acknowledge that human readings of the Bible were in mistake. Today & # 8217 ; s

creationists seem incapable of acknowledging that their reading of the Bible

could be incorrect. Creation scientists can & # 8217 ; t be seen as existent scientists because

they assume that their reading of the Bible can non be in mistake. They put

forth their positions as incontrovertible. Hence, when the grounds contradicts their

reading of the Bible, they assume that the grounds is false. The lone

probe they seem to make is in an attempt to turn out some scientific claim is

false. Creation scientific discipline sees no demand to prove its theories, since they have been

revealed by God. A theory that is perfectly certain can non be through empirical observation

tested, but empirical testability is the trademark of a scientific theory. Claims

of infallibility and the demand for absolute certainty characterize non science

but pseudoscience. What is most uncovering about the hawkish creationists lack

of any true scientific involvement is the manner they willing and uncritically accept

even the most absurd of claims, if those claims seem to belie

traditional scientific beliefs about development. In peculiar, any grounds that

seems to back up the impression that dinosaurs and worlds lived together is welcomed

by hawkish creationists. The theory of scientific creationism is a good illustration

of a non-scientific theory because it can non be falsified. “ I can visualize

observations and experiments that would confute any evolutionary theory I

know, ” writes Gould, “ but I can non conceive of what possible information could

lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, non

scientific discipline ” ( Gould, 1983 ) . What makes scientific creationism a pseudoscience

is that it attempts to go through itself off as scientific discipline even though it portions none of

the indispensable features of scientific theorizing. Creation scientific discipline will

stay everlastingly unchanged as a theory. It will breed no argument among

scientists about cardinal mechanisms of the existence. It generates no

empirical anticipations that can be used to prove the theory. It is taken to be

incontrovertible. It assumes a precedence that there can be no grounds that will of all time

distort it. The history of scientific discipline, nevertheless, clearly shows that scientific

theories do non stay everlastingly unchanged. The history of scientific discipline is non the

history of one absolute truth being built upon other absolute truths. Rather, it

is the history of theorizing, proving, reasoning, refinement, rejecting, replacement,

more theorizing, more testing, etc. It is the history of theories working good

for a clip, anomalousnesss happening ( i.e. , new facts being discovered that Don & # 8217 ; t tantrum

with established theories ) , and new theories being proposed and finally

partly or wholly replacing the old 1s. Of class, it is possible for

scientists to move unscientifically, to be dogmatic and dishonest. But the fact

that one finds an occasional eccentric in the history of scientific discipline ( or a individual of

unity and mastermind among pseudoscientists ) does non connote that there truly is

no difference between scientific discipline and pseudoscience. Because of the populace and

empirical nature of scientific argument, the mountebanks will be found out, mistakes

will be corrected and the honest chase of the truth is likely to predominate in

the terminal. This will non be the instance with pseudosciences such as creative activity scientific discipline,

where there is no method needed for observing mistakes ( since it can & # 8217 ; t mistake ) much

less of rectifying them. Some theories, like creationism can & # 8217 ; t be refuted, even

in rule, because everything is consistent with them, even evident

contradictions and reverses. Scientific theories allow definite anticipations to

be made from them ; they can, in rule, be refuted. Theories such as the Big

Bang theory and the steady province theory can be tested by experience and

observation. Metaphysical theories such as creationism are “ air-tight ”

if they are self-consistent. They contain no paradoxical elements. No

scientific theory is of all time airtight.