Darwinism Versus Creationism

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.

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.

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?

The subject of origins, or how we got here, is one of the most fundamental questions that can be asked. The important question of why we are here can’t be answered by science alone. How we answer these questions provides the basis for how we think about things, it defines our world-view. The Evolution vs. Creation debate is often referred to as the Great Debate. 20th century science has made the compelling discovery that, at some point, the universe began. Both sides of the debate Evolutionists and Creationists agree on one thing only, that the universe has not always existed. This is where their agreement ends. The why and how the universe began is where the division and dispute begins.

The debates illustrated how despite scientific evidence, people still continue to believe what they choose to believe. The implications of these trails regarding evolution emphasize the complications between scientific arguments and religious

In the “Introduction,” Verschuuren introduces the supposed conflict that some believe exists between science and faith. He immediately questions this belief by suggesting that some atheists tried to use evolution to discredit Christianity, and in response, some Christians simply rejected

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

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

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 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

There are many topics that science and religion have opposing views on and continue to debate. One of these subjects that has received a great deal of attention and has placed an enormous wedge between the two realms is the varying opinions concerning the creation of the universe. For nearly a century, scientists have explained this phenomenon with the Big Bang theory, whereas spiritual thinkers have long placed their faith in the Genesis creation account. Both submit valid arguments, however, it is ultimately up to each individual to decide which testimony to accept as truth and to consider if it is possible that both opinions could co-exist.

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.

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).

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.