One of the biggest issues facing Christianity in terms of apologetics is the scientific debate of Creationism. This is a very interesting debate because rather than trying to prove a different points such as the “Big Bang Theory” or evolutionary theory, they instead accept all other hypothesis as scientific fact and start with the assumption that Biblical science can never be accurate. Here are some of the argued points regarding Creationism, summarize from the Not So Deep Thoughts website (Pettit):
I. The Problem of Creationism Stated as a logical dilemma
A. Source of Evidence
1. Creation Science is based solely on the Bible
2. The Bible is full of inaccurate facts (even shows differing Creation accounts)
3. Therefore, Creation Science is based on inaccurate facts
B. No Consistent Position
1. Creation Scientist affirm that their belief stems from interpretation of Scriptures
2. Creation Scientists disagree on those interpretations
3. Therefore, Christian Scientists disagree on their own beliefs
C. No Testable Evidence
1. Creation cannot be tested scientifically and proven
2. True science can be tested scientifically and proven
3. Therefore, Creation Science is not true science
D. Lack of Evidence
1. Theories need evidence to be proven
2. There is significant evidence missing from the Bible (Eden, Ark, Flood)
3. Therefore, the Bible cannot be proven
E. Denial of Facts
1. Evolution is a scientifically proven fact and clearly seen in life
2. Creationists deny evolution
3. Therefore, Creationists deny scientifically proven facts
All of these are valid points if there actually based on reasonable assumptions. For example, in the first dilemma, they argue that the Bible is full of inaccurate facts, but usually they base their “error...
... middle of paper ...
...le has any scientific accuracy. For the science portions, it may be easier to rely on Christian organizations that discuss the science of this regularly such as Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org) or the Creation Research Institute (www.icr.org). Even though evolutions are often stubborn, they typically show great interest in learning, and there we have the chance to help them learn about the God Who created them.
Works Cited
Kondepudi, D. K. Introduction to Modern Thermodynamics. Chichester, England: Wiley, 2008. Print.
"Large Hadron Collider." Science and Technology Facilities Council. Research Councils UK, n.d. Web. 09 May 2014. .
Pettit, Joe. "30 Reasons Why Creationism Is False." Not So Deep Thoughts. N.p., 21 Aug. 2013. Web. 09 May 2014. .
Robert Root-Bernstein and Donald L. McEachron, “Teaching Theories: The Evolution-Creation Controversy,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 44, No. 7 (Oct…1982). This article, written by Robert Root-Bernstein and Donald L. McEachron sheds light on the controversy of evolution vs creationism in schools and the validity of each being called a scientific theory. The work was created to answer the questions, “Which of these theories is truly scientific and which is a religious belief? Which should be taught in schools?” The article concluded in favor of evolution as a valid scientific theory that should be taught rather than creationism, but also mentioned the worth of understanding the latter.
Many scientists today believe that there are no rational grounds for supporting creationism (intelligent design) and that there is no evidence to support its claims. However, that has proven to be incorrect. Creationist believe that there is, in fact, evidence supporting intelligent design and that ID is the only logical explanation for the vast complexity that is found in all of creation. Even though the Big Bang Theory is thought to disprove intelligent design, ID is a valid science and has many accounts of proven evidence, including the highly improbable conditions necessary for supporting life and the discovery of duons and functional "junk" DNA.
I shall begin by telling you what I believe. I do not think that the fossil record is of any help to evolution. I trust that the fossil record is, in fact, the greatest evidence against the evolutionary train of view.
The arguments that many Young Earth Creationists make for their belief and against evolution are that fossils were created through the great Flood, the literal belief in Genesis, and that radiocarbon dating used in Evolution is too imprecise to prove that the Earth is older than 10,000 years.
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.
Pollitt, Katha. "What's the matter with Creationism?." 14 June 2012. Web. 18 May 2014. .
A lot of people, Christians and non-Christians alike often question the accuracy of the theory of evolution. Those who express doubts about the theory are often labelled “unscientific” or “backwards” by some in the pro-evolution camp. At times, the popular perception of evolution seems to be that it has been proven beyond all doubt and there are no scientific obstacles left for it. In fact, there are quite a few scientific flaws in the theory that provide many reasons for it to be doubted. It is true though, none of these questions necessarily disproves evolution, but they do show how the theory is less than settled.
In the last few decades, a movement called "creation science" has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific data to support and expound the creation model." (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.
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.
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.” A secular country like our own does and should treat each argument as valid. However, only the third student’s argument cites scientific backing. Is it fair that we are denying that intelligent design be taught as an alternative to evolution in our science classes? When a belief has no legitimate scientific backing, it is not science, but rather a philosophy, whereas biology is in fact science, which is why intelligent design does not belong in science classes in public schools.
Walsh, S., & Demere, T. A. (2000, December 7). Creationism Should Not Be Taught in Public Schools. Facts, Faith, and Fairness. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from Opposing Viewpoints in Context.
... 1959; Nagel, 1971). Some are able to bear the burden of absurdity. Others still feel “that nostalgia for unity, that appetite for the absolute illustrates the essential impulse of the human drama” (Camus, 1955). If scientific discovery can be used as a barometer for the zeitgeist of any particular moment, then the struggle between science and creationism is an indicator of a shifting paradigm. Science is alienating those who need a greater purpose and meaning in life. The threat is a personal one. To teach creationism is not only an infringement on religious freedom, it is also the promotion of intolerance and an advocacy for being afraid of existence. Religion is always there for those who need it. Science is there for those dedicated to truth and knowledge and are comfortable with facing the painful, anxiety-producing endeavor of exploring the unknown.
In the history of science vs. religion there have been no issues more intensely debated than evolution vs. creationism. The issue is passionately debated since the majority of evidence is in favor of evolution, but the creation point of view can never be proved wrong because of religious belief. Human creation breaks down into three simple beliefs; creation theory, naturalistic evolution theory, and theistic evolution theory. The complexities of all three sides create a dilemma for what theory to support among all people, religious and non-religious.
There must be some fairly significant reasons that cause individuals to become so committed to arguing their point of view in the evolution/creation debate. Many creationists feel that without a supernatural creation by an intelligent being there is no purpose to the universe and no reason to live (Wager, 1997). Many Christian creationists hope that by convincing others of Godís role in the origins of life, they can more effectively lead others to salvation. Still others believe that it is the duty of Christians to "defend against the godless dogma of evolutionary humanism" (Tyler, 1995). It is easy to see why this topic is so important to people. If one believes that evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive, as many people do, then it is natural for Christians to want to disprove evolution and eliminate what they perceive as a threat (Wright, 1989). However, the debate is also meaningful to evolutionists. Many evolutionists feel that to try and discredit evolution is to ignore facts and scientific reasoning (Tyler, 1995). Some evolutionists who are dominant i...
In today’s society, many topics create a very substantial amount of controversy between different groups of people. From abortion to the healthcare reform, there are countless topics of discussion. One of the major and ongoing controversial topics in the religious society is the Big Bang theory versus Creation. One side of the controversy is, predominately, the scientific community, with the other end obviously being the religious community.