The Theory of Evolusion Revised Essay

Depending on your school of thought, the phrase “Creation Myths” may be threatening or provocative. Using it was a powerful mechanism for bringing in and holding any reader’s attention. Creationists and Evolutionists (along with everyone in the middle) are likely to be entertained by the essay, but they won’t realize it until they have absorbed multiple points in support of evolution. The mention of hoaxes opened the essay up to a variety of readers: those who are interested in baseball, scientists and nonscientists alike, those who love a good exposé, and even those who despise sports all together. The essay candidly tells the tale of George Hull’s gawky and outlandish creation as a preface to a much larger hoax. Gould is unabashedly critical of the hoax and those who perpetrated it, but his harsh tone slightly subsides when addressing the human “psychic need for an indigenous creation myth” (263 Gould).

Gould espouses more of the ideology of Williams and Colomb regarding why the theories of dinosaurs being incapable of having children and overdosing on psychoactive plants are entirely without merit. Williams and Colomb say, “we engage one another cooperatively in arguments, we aim not to coerce or seduce others into mindless agreement, but to enlist them into helping us to find the best, most reasonable solution to a shared problem”(67). Williams

Gould explains how Evolution is a theory and a fact. Evolution is a fact but how evolution happened is a theory. Darwin's theory of natural selection as an example of how evolution happened. Creationists deny evolution. Creationists believes in a supernatural creator of plants and animals. They believe that science would never discover how the creator created creations. Gould believes that Scientific creationism is a meaningless phrase because it’s

Throughout his essays, Gould applies dual or more complex definitions to certain words or phrases by implanting dashes which separate the words and meanings. For example, in Evolution as Fact and Theory, Gould breaks down the step by step process scientists had been following to explain the mystery of the mammalian jaw bone, where he references the term “mammal-like reptiles”. In this case, he does not mean that upright walking, scale covered, cold blooded creatures are what we are descendants of necessarily. Rather, the hyphen between “mammal” and “like” creates entirely new meaning, that meaning being more similar to mammals than to reptiles. Furthermore, the healthy use of dashes and hyphens amongst the piece remains one of the major tell-tale clues to Gould’s masterful

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.

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

Stephen Jay Gould in his article "The Evolution Of Life On Earth" aims to clarify the misconception of natural selection as the sole reason for evolution. Yet, he emphasizes on the presence of other causes and the complex unforeseeable nature of the universe that can not be explained in one theory. Even though the article is concerned with a deep scientific subject and factual information, we see the usage of description in every sentence. Description has an intrinsic role in this article where the uniqueness and the beauty of the language relies on the strong descriptive construction. It employs the power of the language and the readers senses to bring life to the subject. It also simplifies it by liking the described setting or object to something else that the readers are easily able to visualize and associate in their minds. In addition, using specific descriptive words make a statement more dynamic and effectual to the readers convincing them and inviting them to see the situation from the author perspective.( to help convince the reader and strengthen the argument of the author). It could exaggerate the details to effect the readers in a more emotional way and capture their attention. This won 't only engage the targeted audience, but it will allure other readers as well.

And so, as a conclusive demonstration, Drummond places the Bible and Darwin side-by-side, a symbol of the internal search for truth. His half-shrug and half-smile signal an acceptance of his own ignorance (Lawrence and Lee 2.2.79). Through Drummond’s actions, Inherit the Wind proves that a skeptical nature is far more valuable than mere

The lack of defiance against premeditated ideas in Hillsboro created a uniform group fighting for beliefs beyond their conception. Cast as a sole defender of evolution and as “standing up” against the conformity of jury members “run through a meat-grinder,” Bertram Cates spurred questions about long-standing truths of creation (Lawrence

A common argument that quite a few people bring into play when they do not agree with creationists on their stances is that creationism is not able to be proven scientifically. But a counter to that argument is how the theory of evolution is just as much as a theory as the theory of Creationism, so it seems to render that argument as a moot point. However, that is not true. There is a difference between the science use of theory and regular people's use of theory. As the University of California at Berkeley’s Understanding How Science Really Works puts it:

Of course Professor Gould’s writings were rarely without substance. He does go on to point out two creationist’s argumentative fallacies and then, finally, he addresses the issue of fact versus theory. His distinction, summed up both imperfectly and incompletely: a theory is comprised as a rigid, codified series of explanations of the facts; therefore, the theory of evolution, a consistent explanation of the recurring trends found in the fossil record, is in line with said “facts.” It is a

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.

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).

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