Evolution And Creationism : An Intelligent Design

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

Since the beginning of the human race there has been a lingering question as to the origins of man and how all living things acquired their characteristics. The two main theories that arose over time were Creationism and Evolution, both of which provided very distinct answers to this question. Creationism based its answer on the idea of a supernatural power or being that created the entire universe, man and the numerous other organisms that live within it. While, Evolution theorizes that all living things have the potential to change and grow over time into something new and different. So in other words, one theory suggests that humans and all the organisms on Earth are the result of divine design, while the other indicates that they

Intelligent Design is the idea that living creatures on Earth are so complex that, they could not possibly have been created through the natural selection. It is the belief that there must be an ?intelligent designer? that created us all. This creator is usually referenced as God. However, it may also be

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?

In the modern world, mankind is surrounding by a plethora of unique animals, plants, and other organism that have a certain natural design all their own. For instance, every organism appears to be best suited in their natural environment, as they are usually able thrive under unique conditions that may not optimal for every organism. Thus, it would appear as though divine intervention was necessary for this perfect design and placement of an organism into their environment. Consequently, this was the ideology for many centuries until Charles Darwin explained how these “illusions” fit into his theory of natural selection. Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection stated that the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, such as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations (Cite). Although it is widely accepted that many of human’s physical traits are inherited from their parents, the notion that the mind has evolved and is designed to function is certain ways is still controversial (Cite). With that being said, the majority of theories that illustrate how the mind develops are still being debated. Moreover, the

In Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?, Alvin Plantinga argues that proponents of naturalism, like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, tell us that, according to the theory of evolution, neither God nor any other agent has designed or created the living world, and that evolution, therefore, clearly contradicts the central tenant of theistic religion (which Dennett labels “entirely gratuitous fantasy” ). If what these experts say is true and we must understand evolution only in the context of naturalistic, unguided evolution, “then evolutionary theory is deeply incompatible with theistic religion, whether Christian…or Jewish.” However, Plantinga stresses that evolution does not need to be interpreted in this way, and that, because of this, religion does not have to be held in such opposition to science at all. Christian and Jewish doctrines require only that “God intended to create creatures of a certain kind…planned that there be creatures of that kind…and acted in such a way as to accomplish this intention,” and such a claim is clearly consistent with evolutionary theory in that naturalism is not a necessary requirement of the theory itself. In this paper I will explore the positions of the Jewish faith with respect to the question of evolutionary theory, and, more explicitly, will draw comparisons between Judaism and Christianity to investigate whether popular religion is as staunchly opposed to evolutionary theory as Dawkins and Dennett propose. If the work of

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. New York: W.W. Norton, 1986.

Case law supporting the absence of the instruction of intelligent design theory from secular, public education cites several main grounds for exclusion, including the unconstitutionality of ?sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity? [397 U.S. 664].

The study of science is defined as that which deals with the workings of the physical world we are able to observe and measure. The origin of life, however, is a topic that science has long grappled with, despite the impossibility of observing or proving any origins theory in a strictly scientific manner. Today, the widely accepted theory of life’s beginning is the theory of Evolution by mutation and natural selection, or Neo-Darwinism. Most people in our modern society accept this theory at face value because it is popular with the majority of scientists, but it must always be taken into account that our origins cannot be proven scientifically and that, in fact, the theory of Evolution is not the only or even the most logical theory

The argument has been going on for years and years. Should schools be allowed to teach evolution without teaching creationism? The courts have ruled, the answer is no, the theory of creationism cannot be included in a public school’s academic curriculum. With the court’s decision, it has been made clear there is no place for faith based theories to be taught in our public schools. What if there was a different approach that took God out of the equation? Public high schools should allow a course in intelligent design to be included in the curriculum as a way of teaching both evolution and creationism without violating the separation of church and state. This is certainly easier said than done.

There are two basic theories in this debate. The first is the historical default, the creation model of origins. This theory maintains that the intricate design infiltrates all things, which implies a designer. The second theory is the more recent, atheistic explanation, the evolution model of origins. This theory suggests that the intricate design infiltrates all things and is a product of random chance and excessive time.

Natural selection is an important component of evolution. Natural selection occurs when some members of a population are better fit for survival and reproduction than the others in that population (Phelan 284-85, 2011). The environment in which organisms live plays a part in natural selection as well. Depending on the conditions of the environment, the organisms may pass down selected traits to their offspring. These selected traits will allow for the next generation to better adapt and survive longer. One example of evolution that has occurred in the past ten years is that of hypolimnas bolina, or the blue moon butterfly. The blue moon butterfly evolved through the process of natural selection in order to survive. The male blue moon

To answer this question a good understanding of Intelligent Design is essential. As stated, it is the belief that life or the universe was created by an outside being or intelligence. The said intelligence does not have to be a god. Who or what created life is up to the believer. People can believe in different creators but still support the same Intelligent Design theory. Intelligent Design (ID) just acknowledges that the universe was created by something and not randomly formed. Many scientists, along with non- experts, believe in ID because biological structures are so complex and suitable for life it seems that they would have to be carefully designed. This may sound similar to creationism, however it is very

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.

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