‘What is the most profound question that human beings can ask about themselves? It has to be: Where do we come from? That leads, of course, to: Where does all life come from?’ These questions have interested humanity for years. Many different views on the origin of humankind have been debated and remain in question today. (Edey, pg. 1) One view is known as ‘creation-science’.
It is commonly understood to refer to a movement of Christian fundamentalists based upon an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible. Creation-scientist’s do not merely insist that life was suddenly created; they insist that the job was completed in six days no more than ten thousand years ago, and that all evolution since that time has involved trivial modifications rather then basic changes. The existence of fossils, according to a Creation-scientist, is attributed to Noah’s flood. (Johnson, pg. 4) ‘Creationism’, another view on man’s origin, means belief in creation in a more general sense. A Creationist may believe that the earth is billions of years old, and that simple forms of life evolved gradually to form more complex forms including humans.
In addition to that belief, however, is the belief that a supernatural Creator initiated the life process and continues to control it. (Johnson, pg. 4) The most reasonable view on the origin of mankind is known as naturalistic evolution. It means a gradual process by which one kind of living creature changes into something different; evolution that is not directed by any purposeful intelligence. Another part of the idea is that more complex forms have arisen from simpler forms.
The Essay on Creation V Evolution An Educational View
Creation v. Evolution: An Educational View Many words have been written about the origins of things. Numerous ancient people believed that several powerful gods were responsible for creating human beings (Warburton 12). Another theory is parallel evolution, humans evolving simultaneously in several parts of the world (Allman, 54). The metaphysical assumptions and moral implications demonstrated in ...
Tracing back to the simplest living thing, a bacterium, scientists may find the origin of mankind by finding something even simpler, something out of which bacteria themselves came. Recent work has revealed the existence of a group of bacteria that are as different from other bacteria as the latter are from plants and animals. This discovery compels the reorganization of all life forms into a family tree unlike the traditional ones. Out of this reorganization comes a strong suggestion that there is a single ancestor to all modern forms of life. (Edey, pg. 297) The abundance of evidence that there was life much earlier then ten thousand years ago makes it easy to disprove the view of the Creation-scientists.
It is hard to disprove the Creationist’s view because its similar to the view of naturalistic evolution. The only difference is simply that a Creationist believes in a divine Creator as opposed to life beginning naturally. An argument against Creationism can be found, however, in the imperfections of nature. ‘Perfection could be imposed by a wise Creator or by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history.
And past history — the evidence of descent — is the mark of evolution. Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case.’ Basically, a Creator would have properly designed each organism from scratch, rather then having them evolve to perfection. (Johnson, pg. 70) Mankind, in general, consider themselves a literate society; an educated society that believes in science.
The culture of mankind is based on technology, and technology, ina sense, is science; ‘it’s the practical application of it, to learn about the world and put that knowledge to work.’ Creationists and Creation-scientists, with the idea of divine creation, are trying to make science selective. ‘You can’t do that. You can’t accept one part of science because it brings you good things like electricity and penicillin and throw away another part because it brings you some ideas you don’t like about the origin of life.’ People in this society are supposedly brought up to think scientifically, to do experiments in school and college, to admire and reward its doctors, astronomers and biologists. If we are so educated, how is it possible that people still believe that life was suddenly created; that life began in a flash less then ten thousand years ago? (Edey, pg. 2) bibliography Edey, Maitland A. and Donald C.
The Essay on Evolution Science
Will believers in Intelligent Design be able to embrace the incredibly promising and innovative solutions outlined in Luke Bawazer’s Tedtalk while rejecting Darwin’s theory? Yes. One will be able to believe in intelligent Design while embracing Mr. Bawazer’s ideals. It is easy to see that Darwin’s theory is not longer accurate as we learn more about life at a molecular level. Darwin ...
Johanson. Blueprints. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1989 Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial. Washington D.
C. : Regnery Gateway, 1991 Hutchinson, Peter. Evolution Explained. Vermont: David and Charles, 1974 works citedEdey, Maitland A. and Donald C.
Johanson. Blueprints. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1989 Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial. Washington D. C.
: Regnery Gateway, 1991.
