РефератыИностранный языкCrCreationism Essay Research Paper Creationism is a

Creationism Essay Research Paper Creationism is a

Creationism Essay, Research Paper


Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory about the origin of the universe.


It is not a scientific theory. Technically, creationism is not necessarily


connected to any particular religion. It simply requires a belief in a Creator.


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


universe and that scientific theories such as the the theory of evolution do not


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


Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell, have co-opted the term ‘creationism’ and it is


now difficult to refer to creationism without being understood as referring to


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


accounts of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, and (b) believe that


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


Thus, it is commonly assumed that creationists are Christians who believe that


the account of the creation of the universe as presented in Genesis is literally


true in its basic claims about Adam and Eve, the six days of creation, and not


an allegory. Creation science is a term used by certain creationists to indicate


that they believe that Genesis is a scientific account of the origin of the


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


Bang theory and the theory of evolution. "Creation scientists" say


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


ignorant of the truth about the origins of the universe and life on Earth. One


of the main leaders of creation science is Duane T. Gish of the Institute for


Creation Research, who puts forth his views in conjunction with attacks on


evolution. Gish is the author of Evolution, the Challenge of the Fossil Record (


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


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


this movement 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 loudly proclaim that evolution is just a theory and that it is false.


Scientific theories are neither true nor false. They are explanations 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 evolution is supposed to explain. Darwin’s theory of how evolution


happened is called natural selection. That theory is quite distinct from the


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


only a negligible few deny the fact of evolution. Gish is not doing science when


he argues against the fact of evolution. He has no interest in scientific facts


or theories. His interest is in apologetics: defending the faith against what he


sees as attacks on God’s Truth. All his arguments are defensive; they are


attempts to show that the evidence does not support the scientific fact of


evolution. Creationists, mistaking the uncertain in science for the


unscientific, see the debate among evolutionists regarding how best to explain


evolution as a sign of weakness. Scientists, on the other hand, see uncertainty


as simply an inevitable element of scientific knowledge. They regard debates on


fundamental theoretical issues as healthy and stimulating. Science, says


evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, is "most fun when it plays with


interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old


information may be explained in surprisingly new ways." Thus, through all


the debate over evolutionary mechanisms biologists have not been led to doubt


that evolution has occurred. "We are debating how it happened," says


Gould (1983, p.256). Creation science, on the other hand, is not science but


pseudoscience and it is connected to a particular group of fundamentalist


Christians. Most Christians, fundamentalist or not, probably never heard of


creation science. Like creationists of all sorts, "creation science"


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


the world must conform to the Bible. It assumes that the Bible needs no revision


and can contain no error. Where creation science differs from creationism in


general is in its notion that once it has interpr

eted the Bible to mean


something, no evidence can be allowed to change that interpretation. Instead,


the evidence must be refuted. Compare this attitude to that of the leading


European creationists of the 17th century who had to admit eventually that the


Earth is not the center of the universe and that the sun does not revolve around


our planet. They did not have to admit that the Bible was wrong, but they did


have to admit that human interpretations of the Bible were in error. Today’s


creationists seem incapable of admitting that their interpretation of the Bible


could be wrong. Creation scientists can’t be seen as real scientists because


they assume that their interpretation of the Bible cannot be in error. They put


forth their views as irrefutable. Hence, when the evidence contradicts their


reading of the Bible, they assume that the evidence is false. The only


investigation they seem to do is in an effort to prove some scientific claim is


false. Creation science sees no need to test its theories, since they have been


revealed by God. A theory that is absolutely certain cannot be empirically


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


of infallibility and the demand for absolute certainty characterize not science


but pseudoscience. What is most revealing about the militant creationists lack


of any true scientific interest is the way they willing and uncritically accept


even the most preposterous of claims, if those claims seem to contradict


traditional scientific beliefs about evolution. In particular, any evidence that


seems to support the notion that dinosaurs and humans lived together is welcomed


by militant creationists. The theory of scientific creationism is a good example


of a non-scientific theory because it cannot be falsified. "I can envision


observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I


know," writes Gould, "but I cannot imagine what potential data could


lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not


science" (Gould, 1983). What makes scientific creationism a pseudoscience


is that it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares none of


the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing. Creation science will


remain forever unchanged as a theory. It will engender no debate among


scientists about fundamental mechanisms of the universe. It generates no


empirical predictions that can be used to test the theory. It is taken to be


irrefutable. It assumes a priority that there can be no evidence that will ever


falsify it. The history of science, however, clearly shows that scientific


theories do not remain forever unchanged. The history of science is not the


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


is the history of theorizing, testing, arguing, refining, rejecting, replacing,


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


for a time, anomalies occurring (i.e., new facts being discovered that don’t fit


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


partially or completely replacing the old ones. Of course, it is possible for


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


that one finds an occasional oddball in the history of science (or a person of


integrity and genius among pseudoscientists) does not imply that there really is


no difference between science and pseudoscience. Because of the public and


empirical nature of scientific debate, the charlatans will be found out, errors


will be corrected and the honest pursuit of the truth is likely to prevail in


the end. This will not be the case with pseudosciences such as creation science,


where there is no method needed for detecting errors (since it can’t err) much


less of correcting them. Some theories, like creationism can’t be refuted, even


in principle, because everything is consistent with them, even apparent


contradictions and contraries. Scientific theories allow definite predictions to


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


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


observation. Metaphysical theories such as creationism are "airtight"


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


scientific theory is ever airtight.

Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: Creationism Essay Research Paper Creationism is a

Слов:1512
Символов:10466
Размер:20.44 Кб.