The Pros And Cons Of Creation Science

The riddle of the origin of man has been subject to many ponderings and theories for thousands of years. In America, two theories concerning this timeless question have driven a spike through the general populace. These two beliefs, Evolution and Christianity, have driven a riff through the American populace and fueled several debates and conflicts over which is the truer theory. Incidents such as the decision of the Kansas school board to ban schools from including the Evolution Theory from their curriculum are becoming a tragically frequent and threaten to escalate if not checked soon. However, there is a growing belief in America today in the possibility of believing that evolution is an inescapable fact while still

Through the 1920s, conflicts regarding the teachings of religious values versus Evolution, along with the increasing fight for women’s independence, caused a great deal of tension within America. Prior to the ‘20s schools taught the Bible and Christianity’s principles were stressed. It was in 1925 when Clarence Darrow defended John Scopes, a biology teacher, who was put on trial in the court for teaching the theory of Evolution (Doc C). This document illustrates the dialogue of

To accurately determine wether creationists should be involved with scientists in public debate, or in scientific debate at all, one must accurately define the institution that scientists represent. The issue present is the ability to provide an accurate definition of science. As Ruse stated “it is simply not possible to give a neat definition” (Ruse, 1982), however Ken Ham attempts to define science through the linguistics route. Using the origin of the latin word

The problem in scientific creationism, and what I see as a reason for its exclusion from the science classroom in public schools, is the fact that it looks as if, from the outside, the whole theory that it rest on is simply a contortion of the traditional version of creation described in Genesis, custom-made to fit in with Darwin’s theory of evolution. R. M. Hare would probably say that scientific creationism is simply a modification of the story of creation in Genesis, to fit into the ÒblikÓ of the religious fundamentalist. A blik, as Hare describes it, is a pre-set worldview held by all people, in which they draw from when forming certain opinions on any particular subject. In the case of religious fundamentalist, whose faith in the validity of the Book of Genesis is an essential part of their blik, it becomes necessary for them to contort their literal view of the Book of Genesis into a form that is scientifically acceptable. For this reason, creation science still does not have a place in the science classroom of public schools.

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.

Dr. Connie Bertka’s essay, “A Primer on Science, Religion, Evolution and Creationism,” expands on Kingsolver’s idea that science and religion have cohabited by explaining how science and religion are formative elements that shape society and serves to contribute to the common good. The relationship between science and religion can be described as a conflict approach which means that “science sets the standard of truth to which religion must adhere to or be dismissed or religion sets the standard to which science must conform.” On the other hand, science and religion can form an interactive relationship in which ideas converge from a scientific and religious perspective. Dr. Bertka mentions that religion and science can be taught in a classroom, since their interactive relationship can constructively benefit from engagement, since they both lead to individual insight and communal discernment.

In the article “What’s the Matter with Creationism?” Katha Pollitt discusses her opinion of high percentages in the belief of creationism in correlation with “educational failure” (35). It is evident that Pollitt is speaking to one audience – the audience that already believes her argument is correct; she is preaching to the choir. However, despite her one-sided audience, Pollitt use of both ethos and pathos makes her argument effective to perhaps more than just her intended audience.

What is Science? When it comes to the word ‘science’ most of the people have some kind of knowledge about science or when they think of it there is some kind of image related to it, a theory, scientific words or scientific research (Beyond Conservation, n.d.). Many different sorts of ideas float into an individual’s mind. Every individual has a different perception about science and how he/she perceives it. It illustrates that each person can identify science in some form. It indicates that the ‘science’ plays a vital role in our everyday lives (Lederman & Tobin, 2002). It seems that everyone can identify science but cannot differentiate it correctly from pseudo-science and non-science (Park, 1986). This essay will address the difference between science, non-science and pseudo-science. Then it will discuss possible responses to the question that what should we do when there is a clash between scientific explanation and non-scientific explanation. Then it will present a brief examination about the correct non-scientific explanation.

Despite great efforts to convince the opposing side, a battle still brews amongst creationists and evolutionists over the beginning of life and the universe, but neither opinions’ palpability can be firmly upheld through scientific manners. Since science can only prove hypotheses that are testable and based on current observations, neither creation nor evolutionary concepts can be proven with irrefutable evidence. However, regardless of the inability to prove either concept, most public school systems promote evolution as a scientific fact. Many students who lack firm beliefs about the origin of life believe what they are taught without giving any personal thought to the matter. Instead of robotically absorbing biased information,

In his argument, Michael Ruse defended the science communities’ position that creation-science was not a science. He claims that it is a pseudo-science. His main argument against creationism was based on the lack of support from the established view of real science. Ruse laid out what he believed the criteria for real science should look like. He then, expanded on several parts of scientific activity which included the role of prediction, explanation, testability, confirmation, falsifiability, tentativeness, and integrity. Ruse presents these as the absolute necessary empirical and social fundamentals for determining whether observable theories are scientific.

The Arkansas trial raised discussions about the demarcation of science from nonscience. Towards the end of the trial Judge Overton justified his decision by providing five criteria, which stated the definition of science. Discussions arose which argued for and against these criterias. One of the philosophers that claimed that creation science was indeed science was Larry Laudan. Laudan expressed his disappointment towards the decision of the trial, and stated that the trial failed to recognise the falsifiable theories that creationists made. Gilkey and Ruse were a couple of the philosophers however, that agreed with the decision arguing that creation science failed to comply with the standards of science especially through its conclusion of an unexplainable divine creator. In this essay, I will discuss the arguments that aid the demarcation of science from nonscience, and ultimately conclude with an

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

Teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design to our youth can be done in a way that is neither opinion based nor completely fact based, but may hold some risk of personal interpretation. The first thing needed to be considered is how can children of the middle school age range grasp such a deep subject and have the capacity to reach their own conclusion. Information found regarding the development of children in this developmental range was found in the book titled "Characteristics of Middle Grade Students,” Caught in the Middle by the Sacramento Department of Education. It was found that students of this age hold a variety of learning attributes that support the belief that children can handle both sides of this controversial issue. Some

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).

Public schools are a place to learn proven facts and some very well—known and accepted theories. These schools have been led this way for a long time and show no signs of changing. Many states around the country have rejected the teaching of creationism in public schools, since the subject is so controversial among teachers and parents. In Ohio, a bill to develop new science content standards was not successfully passed. Many creationists were upset when they discovered that the first drafts of the standards were filled with evolutionary content, without any allowance for alternative explanations of life’s origins. In the uproar, the state board held a special meeting to investigate the process that the writing team and advisory committee used to draft the science standards (Matthews, Answering Genesis). This is why learning the facts about evolution should be taught at school. By doing this, there would be much less confrontation between teachers, students, and parents. If one has the desire to learn about creationism or any other beliefs of how the world came to be, one should learn it at a place outside of school, such as church or at home.