Creationism vs. Darwinism: A Comparative Analysis

I. Acceptance of Creation is growing in spite of overwhelming evidence proving Evolution There is no easy resolution for whats true and evolution or creationism. It is a complex topic with profound scientific, religious, educational, and criticism. How can a student or parent come to grips with this issue? Evolution vs. Creationism provides a badly needed, comprehensive, and balanced introduction to the many facets of the current debates about what should be taught in a classroom or in reality itself. Evolution relies on scientific facts while creationism clings on biblical beliefs. But the legal and

The Creationism/Evolution Continuum Personal Response Essay In her essay entitled “The Creation/Evolution Continuum,” Biological Anthropologist Dr. Eugenie Scott seeks to dispel the false dichotomy that is often posited between the proverbial “creationists” and “evolutionists” by differentiating the religious, philosophical, and scientific beliefs of several subgroups within this divide. The continuum, as illustrated in the essay, depicts a line separating “Creation” from “Evolution,” marked by eleven distinct viewpoints that are then individually outlined within the essay. The most dogmatic religious and scientific viewpoints occupy the poles of the continuum and represent an inverse relationship between belief in modern science and ancient

The act of creation has been hotly contested by many over the years. This denial of the biblical account of crea-tion has increased in intensity, especially since the nineteenth century, by such erring souls as Charles Darwin, who initiated the theory of evolution.

The main controversy creationist have with accepting the theories of evolution is how all different life forms were produced using genetic material that was present and reproduced from the first living cells. Yet this claim has not fully been proved correct, scientific discoveries and theories have given it great justice so far. Aside from genetic variation, crossbreeding, survival of the fittest etc. Such drastic changes from species to species are due to mutations. In most eyes, mutations are considered to be harmful and destructive. Which is true in some cases, but they are also beneficial in the case of genetics and evolution. Many helpful mutations are incorporated into the normal genotype through natural selection, and when harmful mutations do occur the process of natural selection kills that mutation off. Without randomly occurring mutations, there would have been no development of life and no evolution would have taken place.

The debate over Evolutionary theories and Creationism beliefs has been a major debate throughout our churches, education system, and even our homes. There have been countless scientists, theologians, journalists and Christians that have studied both sides of the spectrum, that argue how the world we live in was created. Many empty statements, with little to no facts, just assertions about this particular question have been stated in many debates all over the world. So on one side we have Creationism belief that essentially argues that God is the “intelligent designer” and on the other side Evolutionary theories that state the world has evolved over the centuries. In the Merriam- Webster dictionary, Creationism is defined as, “a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis “. Merriam- Webster dictionary also defines Evolution as, “a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time; the process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time; a process of slow change and development”. So is it possible to believe both of those definitions?

Moreover, today’s criticisms and denials also come from all quarters in various forms such as creationism, Li 2 neo-creationism, and intelligent design. Even though several points exist on either side of the creationism versus evolution argument, notwithstanding the gaps on both sides of the divide, it becomes apparent that the theory of evolution has some serious fundamental flaws. Creationism is the belief that concept and design require a creator (Sarfati and Mathews). When applied to detecting design in the universe and life, this principle becomes a more reasonable explanation to believe in a higher power as the Creator or Designer of both (Sarfati and Mathews). Unlike the concept of evolution, which remains unproven and continues to lack even the slightest experimental or observational support, the creationist argument is sound because it argues against a set of misunderstandings about evolution that people are right to consider ludicrous (Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini).

A creationist is one who rejects scientific explanations for the origin of life and the universe, preferring a hypothesis of supernatural creation by a designer named God. The belief that people were created by God, in the image of God, is at

In Creation Science is not Science, Michael Ruse argues that Creation science is not science and in Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern, Larry Laudan opposes this view by arguing that Creation Science is science, but that it is false. In this paper, I argue that Michael Ruse had the better argument and that Creation Science is not science. First, I explain Ruse’s argument for why creation science does not meet the criteria for science. Second, I consider and explain Larry Laudan’s opposing view that creation science is false science. I then argue why I believe Ruse has the better argument.

Many religious groups such as Catholics, Muslims, Jews and Mormons agree with this concept. However, there are numerous variations to creationism. Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism are only two out of six umbrella terms that most creationists are split into. Young Earth Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by God between 5 700 - 10 000 years ago. This is a literal interpretation from the book of Genesis and is followed mostly by Catholics.

Evolutionist believe that their carbon dating method is accurate and can specifically date fossils and bones back to a certain period in time. They believe this works for when something dies the carbon 14 it has in its body will start to decay. So when half of the carbon 14 that used to be in this living thing has decayed they say that it has been dead for 5730 years which is considered a half life. Creationists believe that Carbon Dating is inaccurate for many reasons. Charles Darwin was making the assumption that the earth has been around for billions of years when he published his book ‘On the Origin of Species’ in 1859. It was not until 1940 when radioactive Carbon 14 was discovered by Martin Carbon. Carbon dating was not invented until 1947 by Willard Libby (Radiocarbon dating). So how would we know that the fossils or bones are really that old back then? Also, Carbon dating is only reliable back to 50,00 years ago, so how do they determine the Earth is actually 4.5 billion years old with only 50,000 years of so called proof? The Big Bang, common ancestry and carbon dating are all proven false if you just use common sense. Although an evolutionist would probably bring up how was God created and how would we know God is real but that ties in with your faith. It is difficult to believe evolution with all this evidence that shows it is

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

Creationism is the doctrine which God brings individual human souls into existence at birth. Creationists has this idea that the world and creatures was created in six days and it was accounted in the bible, in the book of “Genesis 1- 31” not the scientific process, however it was not explain how God created the world. Scientists cannot find out or investigate about the creation processes that God used.

If the question was posed as to what is the debate between creationism vs. evolution consist of, the thought that it is ‘“God did it” vs. “Natural processes did it,”’ (Scott, 2004) may arise. Science cannot absolutely prove or disprove Creation or Evolution. Yet scientist and the remainder of society use creationism and evolution to prove our existence. Creationist believe in the Christian account of the origin as recorded in Genesis. Creationism is the belief that statements such as “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (NIV) found in Genesis 1:1 and also “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (NIV) found in John 1:1. Evolution is the belief that everything just changed over

In the history of science vs. religion there have been no issues more intensely debated than evolution vs. creationism. The issue is passionately debated since the majority of evidence is in favor of evolution, but the creation point of view can never be proved wrong because of religious belief. Human creation breaks down into three simple beliefs; creation theory, naturalistic evolution theory, and theistic evolution theory. The complexities of all three sides create a dilemma for what theory to support among all people, religious and non-religious.

The first position is that of young earth creationism. Additionally, this is what most people mean when referring to “creationism.” This is primarily due to the fact that the creationists visible in the public eye during the creation-evolution debate were most likely to hold young earth creationist views. Additionally, the terms “recent earth” or “recent creation” have been used to refer to this same position. These terms clearly define their position as one in which the creation of the world occurred somewhat recently, that is, the world is young. However, it obviously doesn 't provide us with much information beyond that. To begin with, how young is the world? In order to help answer this and other questions concerning young earth creationism, biologist and philosopher of science Paul Nelson and philosopher John Mark Reynolds, both fellows of the Center for Science and Culture under the Discovery Institute, present with their viewpoint