However, Darwin's theory alone seems to be an inadequate interpretation of the entire scope of life. My thoughts on religion changed significantly as I researched the creationist perspective on evolution. I am not at all convinced by the intelligent design hypothesis, despite the fact that natural theology has become a great deal more sophisticated since Genesis. In a way, I agree with evolutionists who claim that until the existence of God can be proven, no creationist theory will hold water against Darwin. It's frightening to abandon the idea of a higher power, but after reading several creationist texts, I question His place in the scientific community.
He became an advocate for the relationship betwe... ... middle of paper ... ...tanding of how complex life is. Scientists are able to clone, help create life amongst other things that one-day were considered to be so far fetch and probably never thought to be possible. One thing that science cannot answer until this day is how life begun on earth. There are several theories offered some more accepted than others, but nothing is set on stone as the clear explanation. Research like this one does not attempt to answer this question as well, but it does help to fill in the loopholes in the history of human creation if our thinking process follows the orientation of evolution.
However, they are neglected by many Darwinists and isn’t considered to be proof against Darwinism. Many of the evidence Darwin proposed to prove his evolution does not exist, as said in the beginning of the paper, many Darwinists create fraudulent evidence to prove evolution. If evidence has obvious evidence, why does scientist go out of their way to create false evidence for evolution. Darwin also admitted that it would be obstinately absurd that the human eye could be a product of natural selection. His uncertainties are voiced in his book, The Origin of Species,”To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” Here Darwin admits that the human eye, in all of its intricacies, could have not been made by trial and error.
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.
While in the future Aristotelian physics would turn out to be completely incorrect, his original ideas and theories were critical for developing modern science as we know it today. However, it was not until humanity accepted the flaws in Aristotelian physics that science made any progress toward finally understanding the universe. While Aristotelian physics was completely wrong in a multitude of ways, it was still needed to form a basis of the modern method of discovery. Furthermore, the majority of theories in the history of science are incorrect at first. Historically, this has been the method of progress in the sciences.
Like all science, everything I say in this essay could be proved wrong by a new theory or discovery tomorrow. However, the path that we follow will be full of interesting ideas that, I hope, will stimulate the reader. The reason I talk about extraterrestrial life is because there is strong evidence that all life on this planet has a common origin. Chemically and genetically there are evolutionary links between all organisms that more or less reflect the more traditional attempts at linking them. This means, of course, that we have only one example of life to study.
More and more scientists are daring to step away from evolution, as a basic argument for how life came to be and develop on the planet. It just does not hold water to explain how life started and develops. The conclusion favouring these scientists is intelligent design but at the moment this has not got the well thought out theories which evolution has. It is still in its early stages of understanding and requires far more research into what it means before it can be defined scientifically, it only can be said to imply there is a god or gods which made life and matter. Science should be based on observation, analysis and impartial application of evidence to draw a conclusion which fits the data found.
In science we still have evidence and proof that can be backed up through their evidence and studies. Some religions don’t accept the fact that this earth was created through science and not the God, the all mighty. Religious people might take the stories that are told in their religion too literal. Galileo, a theist astronomer says, “…it may say things that are quite different from what its bare words signify.” The scriptures from one religion might say something that might be taken too literal while it really means something else. For
Arguing Evolution There is a blurry and indistinct line between giving the best possible scientific support for a theory in which one strongly believes that has only incomplete evidence, and writing a persuasive piece that will draw people to one side of an argument based on feelings as well as facts. Indeed, there may be no line at all, upon close inspection, but that would be an unpleasant thought to most scientists, who value their ability to write objective reports on subjects and end up with one best answer, because science possesses answers that are definitely and provably better than other answers. Unfortunately it is impossible to find all the facts needed to support some theories, and sometimes scientific theories get mixed into debates involving other thought systems, such as politics or religion. Evolution may be one of the theories most prone to these problems, so writing an objective report on evolution is intensely challenging. In writing What is Evolution?
Nowadays people believe that if a scientific view is false, then by continuing study and research the truth may be discovered. one may conclude that if no one presented new ideas, then intelligent thought would have no place in a society like that. Scientists like Darwin accepted the risks involved in presenting new ideas. Voltaire also was a revolutionary thinker. Although, he presented ideas of his own, he decided to satirize science and religion.