Since the dawn of curiosity and exploration we have attributed all our advances to a supernatural entity christened “God.” As science moves forward, evidence suggest less the necessity for such a being; however, the religious still fight to keep The Bible within science. Obtruding their beliefs of a creation story as “True science” has confused many and halted science exploration, due to a false image of what science is. It is very apparent that some see creationism as a viable model of science but it does not meet the standard scientific requirements.
The basis of creationism is founded on anemic grounds, with a lack of data to support the claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old. The assertion of a young Earth arises from an Archbishop who tracked the genealogy of biblical characters back to Adam and Eve. According to the genealogy in the bible the Earth came to be in 4004 BC(Ussher, Annals). Unfortunately, The Bible or the authority of a religious figure is not evidence to support a scientific theory. The belief in a young Earth created by a religious deity is based upon faith that The Bible is true but for creation to be a viable model of science it must follow the same line of rigorous skepticism and experimenting permitted by the Scientific Method(Dunbar, Scientific Method).
Creationists want the same respect in the scientific community as any other reputable science but that is hard when their “science” contradicts the evidence. In Fulufjället, Sweden, there lives to this day a spruce tree that is 9,550 years old(Owen, National Geographic). This tree is over 3500 years older than creation science claims the earth is. Surmount evidence proves the age of this tree but creationism lacks any evidence to support a you...
... middle of paper ...
...: Master Books, 2003)
Dunbar, Brian. "Scientific Method." NASA. NASA, 7 Feb. 2008. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. .
Owen, James. "Oldest Living Tree Found in Sweden." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 14 Apr. 2008. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. .
Sellers, Casey. Personal Interview . 13 Apr 2014
Carbon-14 Dating: New Possibilities Science News, Vol. 111, No. 26 (Jun. 25, 1977), p. 405 Published by: Society for Science & the Public
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org.db08.linccweb.org/stable/3961980
"Evolution, Evidence of." World of Earth Science. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. Vol. 1. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 209-210. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
During the late 18th century, several geologists began to propose an age for earth based on their various studies, and it greatly exceeded the time frame of the Bible. These new studies started th...
a. Fossil evidence from a squirrel was determined to be 36 millions years old found in North America (Basgall).
The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. "Fossil Record." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 15 May 2014.
The main arguments in Evolution is the theory of natural selection, radiometric dating, and adaptation. The four parts to the theory of natural selection are that more individuals are produced each generation that can survive, phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable, those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive, when reproductive isolation occurs new species will form. In simpler terms, this means that the organisms that are better suited to their environment will survive, animals have different genes and these genes change and can be inherited, and when one species is separated into two physically blocked areas, they will form new species. Radiometric dating as stated by Dr. Roger C. Wiens is “the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements”. This works through something called the half life of radioactive materials. The half life of radioactive materials is the amount of time it takes for radioactivity to fall to half of its original value. In simple terms, they measure how much a radioactive material has decayed and they get the age from that. Adaptation is similar to one of the four parts of natural selection. Adaptation of organisms is the variation among individuals in a species. The change from the parents to the offspring to better fit their ecological zone, is adaptation. Those are the three major facts that prove
The discourse focused on one question: Is creation a viable modern of origins? This directly links to the focus of this essay: that expert disagree despite the same evidence. Part of this comes from confirmation bias, a disregard for facts or ideas that go against one’s own ideation. Ken Ham was guilty of this; he took scientific ideas that only matched his creationist views and distorted them to be portrayed the only correct science. The methods he used, such as coral reef aging, are outdated and have been replaced by better methods, such as radioactive dating. Bill Nye used these more accurate measurements support his argument that the Earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old. Another argument from the creationist side is a distinction between observational and historical science. Essentially, historical science is scientific study in regards to the past, whereas observational science is the scientific research of the present and cannot be applied to the past. Beyond the implication of nigh complete uncertainty of past events and how they transpired, the claim is not even falsifiable. It is impossible to prove that science today is different than past science, thus the idea can be disregarded as any sort of theory. The more rational thought, that science is science whether in the past or present,
Evolution and creationism: two warring beliefs that are constantly looking for an upper hand. With similarities and comparisons that Christianity does not deny, yet evolution quickly repudiates. Where do you stand? In a belief that has so many loose threads, like a puppet that has too many strings, you try to apply it, but the strings become tangled and unusable? Or in a belief that does have proof and undeniable evidence, one that has a promise of everlasting life as apposed to a dark nothingness? A decision must be reached. Whether through further evidence outside this paper, or just through your day to day life, your must know where your beliefs lie. Just know, that if what Christians say is true, and the evidence is overlooked and criticized, you will face something much, much worse than being castigated by those around you.
Instead of focusing on an old-earth or new-earth perspective, it interprets Genesis 1 as topical and poetical, where each of the days describes parallelism in the way the world was created. The days of creation are connected together in a poetic manor. “For example, day one describes the creation of light while day four describes the creation of the light-bearers (Young 16).” By viewing Genesis as a poetic account instead, this theory adopts the benefit of time not being an issue. Evolution, the geologic timescale, and radiometric dating can all be completely accepted from a scientific perspective. This theory has minimal controversy. This theory asserts that the reader should not be concerned about how long it took God to make the sky, but rather to just appreciate that He did so. Another major advantage of this belief system that out of the theories I have discussed, this one is by far the most adaptable. No matter what science has found out or will find out about the origin of the world, this theory can be interpreted as truth. Because of this, the Framework theory does not offer a solid foundation for those who believe in literal interpretation of scripture, and can easily seem justification to the changing world and continuous scientific discovery. Some may believe that
Ncse.com, (1982). Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE. [online] Available at: http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating [Accessed 7 Aug. 2015].
Clearly, the scientific argument on the creation issue is backed by more concrete evidence than the writings of the Bible. Still, the presentation of scientific data does not necessarily imply truth; the Bible, although backed by the belief in its divine origin, can very well be the true account of creation. Human nature, however, tends to believe more in concrete and visible objects. Science makes its explanation of creation more believable by supplying those objects, especially more recently with pictures taken by spacecraft of distant planets and galaxies. In the end, since nobody actually witnessed the creation of the universe (obviously), the true story can never be found, and the battle between religion and science will remain for future generations.
Young Earth creationists believe that Earth and everything on it was created by God between 5700 and 10000 years ago (Numbers, 2006). They believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible in terms of the age of the earth. They differ from old earth creationists who interpret Genesis metaphorically and believe that the Earth is 13.798 +- 0.037 old (Scott, 2000). Young earth creationists also interpret the passages in the bible of the flat Earth literally. They reject modern astronomy, physics, the big bang theory, the age of Earth and chemistry. They also reject biological modifications that happened throughout history. Young Earth creationists believe that God created every genetic variation in all living creatures on earth. Henry Morris was one of the biggest influences of young Earth creationism in the second half of the 20th century (Scott, 2000).
years, and that it was created as it is now just six thousand years ago? Creationism should
After Sir Charles Darwin had introduced his original theory about the origins of species and evolution, humanity’s faith in God that remained undisputed for hundreds of years had reeled. The former unity fractured into the evolutionists, who believed that life as we see it today had developed from smaller and more primitive organisms, and creationists, who kept believing that life in all its diversity was created by a higher entity. Each side introduced substantial arguments to support their claims, but at the same time the counter-arguments of each opponent are also credible. Therefore, the debates between the evolutionists and the creationists seem to be far from ending. And though their arguments are completely opposite, they can co-exist or even complement each other.
There is much debate over how old the earth truly is. If the creation story is taken literally, the earth could be as young as twenty-five thousand years old. If creation is taken metaphorically, the earth could be four to fifteen billion years old. However, it is not essential which theory one believes, what matters is that God created all of it. This informs Christians that God created the universe; this is the most basic affirmation of Genesis. There is no room given for any other creative power. Through God’s spoken word, the universe was created. Our Christian worldview emphasizes that God is in full control and the origin story clearly shows this. God as creator shows that he has sovereign control. Whether aspects of evolution exist or not, we accept that God is in full control because of what is included in Genesis 1. The objective of Genesis 1 and the story of the origin of the universe is not meant to satisfy our curiosity about science, it is meant to reveal to us the true nature of God. Science attempts to inform the secular worldview while Scripture is able to inform the Christian
The Bible has been at the center of many highly controversially issues over the last 2000 years. Believers and non-believers alike have been debating whether it is the true word of God, or just a collection of stories and myths. At the forefront of this debate is the issue of creation. Many Christians believe that God created the world in 7 literal, 24-hour days. Using this theory, they would say the earth is roughly 6000 years old, but there is also a minority who believe in an old earth and that the creation story in Genesis 1 should be taken figuratively. Those who believe that the creation story is written in figurative language hold a variety of different beliefs on the issue, but at the center of their argument is the statement that: “Genesis 1 should not be taken literally, and that there is no way the earth is only 6000 years old”. In order to understand both sides, the true meaning of the Biblical text must be understood.