Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Charles darwin evidence against evolution
Relationship between religion and evolution
Evidence in favour of darwinism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Charles darwin evidence against evolution
The purpose of this essay is not to prove “Darwinian” evolution, as the writer would be performing a feat already done by others, but to examine a certain track of thought amongst Creation proponents. Specifically their noting certain improbabilities of evolution's ability to “design.” I'll evade defining the individual concepts because they've all been described before, and far better than I could manage, although I'll point out that micro/macro evolution distinction is largely Creationist lingo, as is the “kind” terminology. In the text, I'll refer to evolutionary theory/macro-evolution as “evolution” and creation/intelligent design as “creation”, and proponents of each of them as “evolutionists” and “creationists” respectively. If either of these are offending to either party, suck it up. Also note that creation is a largely moving target, so characterizing their views is difficult to impossible since it's subject to change, as opposed to evolutionary theory, where many of the original tenets set forth by Charles Darwin still exist, albeit some have admittedly changed.
I don't claim to be an expert in the innumerable fields of expertise one needs to properly defend evolutionary theory. Nor do I hold degrees in any of the relevant fields. Many proponents of either evolution or creation have no problems in arguing across broad spectrums of expertise. It's commonplace to see theology majors arguing astrophysics, and vice-versa. The tactful build their arguments based on references to the writings of people with that expertise. As I haven't seen the argument I wish to present in any reference material, I don't have that luxury. That isn't to say it doesn't exist.
Often creationists present certain, extreme, adaptations as...
... middle of paper ...
...y saying that several modern species of animal sport vicious teeth and yet are vegetarian. Another article I find illuminating is an Answers In Genesis article in which it is claimed that the South American Pirahna ate vegetation. We find these claims at such odds with mainstream science that it's difficult to reconcile these, especially if you are partial to a literal reading of Genesis. So, to crack this impasse, we look to genetics for the hard and fast answers. This is where the layperson drops out, grabs a sandwich and watches some television.
If a creationist and an evolutionist sequenced the DNA of something, they would both arrive at a genetically identical value, excepting any lab problems which are negligible. This is a useful synergy of facts, since many of the other fields, such as archealogy and morphology, a bias in interpretation can be claimed.
Evolution is deemed as being scientific because it is testable and correctable, unlike creationism which deals with “God’s will,” an unchanging and set in stone philosophy that contradicts any scientific notion it attempts to deliver. Evolution is the scientific explanation to how organisms developed the forms and functions
...arth and humans were not created less than 10,000 years ago; however, it does not mean that divine intervention did not take place in the creation of the universe and the earth. It is this that is the focal point of my argument; the debate is not merely black and white, the grey area is where the compromise can be made. Many argue that without divine intervention, there is no possible explanation for the creation of the universe; however, others argue that due to evolution, creationism is clearly untrue. These ideas when combined allow creationists to retain their belief that the universe was created by the divine, yet allow for the introduction of modern science to explain evolution. The result is a successful resolve to the evolution and creationism debate. Therefore, I believe that not only can evolution and creationism coexist, but also support one another.
The Evolutionists continue to build on shaky, ever shifting ground. Sometimes the ground that they build on is not even there.
Berra, Tim M. Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts in the
Considering an argument as valid requires critical analysis of several aspects and providing strong evidence. Robin Mather, a journalist who “has passion for food and its sources, has worked at major metropolitan newspapers (the Detroit News, the Chicago Tribune)”(86), argues that GMOs have risks and hazards to human health and threats to wildlife and environment in her article “The Threats from Genetically Modified Foods”, whereas Entine, a colleague at the Genetic Literacy Project, and Wendel, a science writer(82), claim that GMOs are safe to eat and no harm to people or animals in their article “2000+Reasons Why GMOs are Safe to Eat and Environmentally Sustainable” Both articles’ authors state their ideas clearly for whether GMOs could be eaten or not. However, Mather provides more solid
The clash between evolutionists and creationists seems to be far from its finale. Both sides come up with potent arguments in favor of their positions. Evolutionists stress the absence of factual evidence in favor of God’s existence, point to fossils as a proof of the evolutionary process, and name the Big Bang as the reason of the universe’s appearance and further development. Creationists, in their turn, stress that there are no intermediate links between species in found fossils, consider complexity and diversity of nature to be an indirect evidence of God’s existence, and refer to the second law of thermodynamics to argue against the Big Bang theory. However, none of the sides seem to see that both points of view can not only co-exist, but be successfully combined. Such a combination could explain everything at once.
One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis or Modern Evolutionary Thought. Ernst Mayr. Harvard University Press, 1993.
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking Origin of Species, which would introduce the seminal theory of evolution to the scientific community. Over 150 years later, the majority of scientists have come to a consensus in agreement with this theory, citing evidence in newer scientific research. In an average high school biology classroom, one may imagine an instructor that has devoted much of his life to science and a predominantly Christian class of about twenty-five students. On the topic of evolution, one of the students might ask, “Why would God have taken the long route by creating us through billion years of evolution?” while another student may claim “The Book of Genesis clearly says that the earth along with all living creatures was created in just six days, and Biblical dating has proven that the earth is only 6000 years old.” Finally a third student interjects with the remark “maybe the Bible really is just a book, and besides, science has basically already proven that evolution happened, and is continuing to happen as we speak.”
To infer God’s existence by ‘Argument from Design’, Rachel has taken the example of amazing things that are present in nature around us such as eye, the most complicated part of body system, the way eye is attached to the human body and the phenomenon by which it performs it function is astounding and such types of creations cannot be occurred randomly by chance. Although, it is only the creation of some intelligent designer. Whereas, in the case of evolution and intelligent design, the author put forward the “Theory of Natural Selection” given by Darwin. In this theory, Darwin stated that evolution occurred among the species due to the changes in their environmental conditions and to adopt these changes, certain changes take place among the specific characteristics of the species in response to such environmental conditions. Therefore, through the process of natural selection, organisms passed their newly adapted characteristics to their off springs and then new generations born with such characteristics which help them to survive and reproduce in altered environmental conditions.
John Polkinghorne’s The Universe as Creation does its best to not convince the reader of Intelligent Design, but rather to dissuade the reader from the notion that although the is intelligently designed, but in this way, it has made science possible.
...e. "A Hypothesis to Explain the Role of Meat-Eating in Human Evolution." Www.cnr.berkely.edu. 4 Feb. 2001. Web. .
There is a long line of history surrounding evolution. Theories really stated with creationism. According to Donald R. Prothero, leading paleontologist, creationism is the belief that living organisms in the unive...
Monastersky, Richard. (2004). Society Disowns Paper Attacking Darwinism. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 51, Iss. 5, A.16.
In a scientific aspect, the existence of an intelligent designer cannot be denied, due to the lack of evidence that contradicts otherwise. On the other hand, creationists cannot prove the existence of an intelligent designer but indefinitely believe through a concept called faith. In addition, both concepts agree that microevolution occurs. For example, since the arrival of sparrows to North America, mutations have occurred from different locations.
Talking on both sides of the debate, each side feels as though the other has no scientific reasoning come up with their theory. In reading the article written by Shipman, the evolutionists believe that intelligent design has no concrete evidence on how the world was crea...