Darwinism Versus Creationism

Robinson, in her essay, claims that while Creationism is owned by “Religious Right”, Darwinism is owned by “Irreligious Right”2. She writes that the differences between the two are meaningless and that the people who defend religion make religion seem foolish while the defenders of science attributed to objectivity. Many people believe that Creationism and Darwinism do not belong together and are about as similar as cats and dogs. Just as there are cat people and dog people, there are people who stick to one belief or the other in the creation versus evolution debate. Robinson disagrees, however, and says that Creationism is probably the best thing that has happened to Darwinism. Darwinism, she writes, is “the caricature of religion that has seemed to justify Darwinist contempt for the whole of religion”3.

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.

2) Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

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).

Through the analysis of the major televised debate, held February this year, between the popular science communicator, Bill Nye, and the US-based Australian creationist, Ken Ham. It has come to light that through careful analysis and research it is my belief that scientists should not be involved within any debates “scientific” or otherwise regarding topics pertaining to creationism or any other religious perspective. The inappropriate use of the loose definitions of science and religion lead to the intertwining of the two subjects that are extremely different in methodology, leaving the audience up for misinterpretation. While the debate did bring about the topic to the forefront of the public, which in itself was a positive, I do not believe that the post debate result was a win for science. Bill Nye’s derogatory demeanour represented post debate towards Ken Ham was in turn a representation of institutional science. Leading to which the validity of the debate and post debate could be brought into question.

Although Darwin’s (1809-1882) work in evolutionary observation might appear radically different from those focused on other areas, the theories he developed from these observation lead to such groundbreaking publishing’s as The Origin of Species. These intern caused an upset within the then accepted norms of philosophy and religion, had a profound impact on the academia, and further

It is for this reason that the debate is also not between science and Christianity. Each advocate for each position is attempting to reconcile the apparent differences between science and Christianity. It is simply the case that they each take a different approach and give different amounts of authority to science and a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Exploring the debate over creationism as opposed to evolutionism is a multifaceted and touchy undertaking. Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee’s Inherit the Wind examines this debate in the court case that is central to the work as well as in a short feud between two characters, Melinda and Howard. As this argument represents the trial that drives the work and is indicative of how the court case unfolds, it is a momentous interaction that furthers the message of the need for consideration of other points of view during debate.

In March of 2010, the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History marked its 100th anniversary with the opening of the Hall of Human Origins exhibit. The Hall of Human Origins is comprised of information that takes museum-goers back in time to witness human development over the course of thousands of years and its impact on the world. For many, this exhibit serves as an environment that fosters learning, increases knowledge, and sparks interest in anthropic history. Yet for others, this exhibit sticks out like a sore thumb, due to the fact that an exhibit based on the premise of evolution goes entirely against what a large majority of Americans still hold to be true- creationism. The support for creationism and backlash against evolution has remained ever present despite years of knowledge accumulation within the scientific community. This plethora of discovery is laid out on the table as the sections of the exhibit delve into a variety of topics ranging from the origins of language, social structure, and our impact on the earth throughout the years. Despite the sections being seemingly geared towards pro-evolution museum goers, it is evident, through observation, that the museum developers had the goal of appealing to creationists as well. They did this through finding common ground on both the side of evolutionists and creationists, common ground which is rooted in anthropocentrism. The language and rhetoric used within the Hall of Human Origins emphasizes the anthropocentric

As Darwin’s works became more popular, the message caught on and more and more people used logic that Darwin employed in explaining competition, natural selection, and evolution in other disciplines. Soon, the same pages were being used by feminists, anti-feminists, religious sects, atheists and more to explain contradictory ideologies. Due to the great range of ideologies that reference Origin and Descent, historians strive to try to determine how one work could produce so many different ideas about “evolution and society,” as well as try to figure out where Darwin may have stood on some of the social questions that Origin and Descent raised. This essay will look at two historians, Evelyn Richards and John Greene, to determine some of the methods that they used to understand Darwin, evolution, and the society surrounding the

Dr. Stephen Meyer’s Darwin's Doubts could possible disprove Charles Darwin’s theory of biological evolution. In fact, Meyer’s ideologies emphasize a creationist's perspective on materialism and a reassurance of the belief in an intelligent designer. Critics are appealing to ridicule Meyer’s inaccuracies of data on the Cambrian explosion and the actual duration of the period in which fossils appeared. Critics also question Meyer’s misinterpretation of past and modern phylogenetic classification, and correlations between older nomenclature of phyla within the Cambrian period. Nevertheless, the debate between naturalism and materialism can presumably be skewed, the fact remains on whether one is undoubtedly factual. But Meyer’s takes a different proposition on the skepticism of evolutionistic-hating creationists, accepting the fact that world is undoubtedly indifferent, but his mission is to combine both religion and science together. In so doing, Meyer’s exhibits philosophies consistent with the idea of an intelligent designer, in which

Hodge and Gregory Radick, have fittingly organized chapters along methodological lines, and the abruptness between sections is to some extent an artifact of decades of exciting and bewildering disputes over Darwin and Darwinism.... an ideal companion, ushering the reader into conversations already underway.... its aim is rather to shepherd the reader in search of deeper and more expansive

The article, “A Matter of Scale,” urges the audience to observe the small and extraordinary components of the biosphere and acknowledge its genetic variations as explained by Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, Kelly’s essay, “Evolution: An Article of Faith,” considers Darwin’s theory as a “false religion” suppressing God’s ability to create the “work of intelligence.” (Evolution) The heated debate over the credibility of Darwin’s theory of evolution has led to the division of scientific and religious groups. Devoted, religious people discover two major flaws with Darwin’s theory of evolution regarding the inaccuracies of the fossil record and the contradicting phrase “survival of the fittest” that has passed on harmful mutations to next

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

Evolution. The theory that has shaped people's minds. The theory of how life has changed over time. Creation. Life by God. Life by superior being. The age old words of the Bible. The words that give people a meaning to live, a purpose. Darwinian evolution. A scientific reason of life. The theory of modern atheistic thinking. The theory that supposedly murdered God. People think the continents have been torn apart, the human embryo resembles a fish, and people believe in creation and evolution. Creationists and Darwinists have their own thoughts, but I have come to the conclusion that Darwinian evolution is not a proven fact.