There are several philosophies which have recently surfaced which most likely intend to debunk the certainty we are undeniably a creation. Since my adolescence I have witnessed and observed that most individuals in general, have converted to the “humanism proposition,” (HP) and become less attracted to the “creationist hypothesis” (CH). I have formed my attitude and/or outlook based on observation and collective research into what I refer to as the “Eventual collapse of the creationist perspective.” Hollywood, coupled with the upsurge of non-believers in our society-(America), is warring against the actual notion that we to some degree, shape, or form are created. I speculate it’s easier to imagine we are the result of a non-explainable cogency of nature, however; I disagree completely with all my heart and do anticipate to debunk this theory, that any other theory supplementary to creationism is a lie, a blatant shot unseen to the eye, that; evil forces which hate good do deliberately intend to pickpocket human-kind of his universal gift from his loving creator. “The evolution wars are over, right" (Scopes)? Scopes a correspondent for "right to life" was finally vindicated, creationism was booted out of the classroom, and a new president in his inaugural speech issued a clarion call to "restore science to its rightful place."(Obama)
The first piece of business I would like to address is what it is we are referring to when we say “Humanism and Creationism”. With all respect due to both schools of thought, we ought to deduce what is truth from what is a theory and refrain from believing in any type of falsehood. One can infer that if one theory is false the other must be true, this is false. Charles S. Brown contends in his book e...
... middle of paper ...
...), 10 Oct. 2006. Web. 9 Apr. 2014
Mark D. Greene, "How Life Began," Time, 142:8, November 1, 1993
"Genesis 3 (King James Version)." Blue Letter Bible. Sowing Circle. Web. 23 Apr, 2014.
(King James Bible) "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition http://worldtocome.org/20-verses-christianity-ignores-part-1?s_kwcid=TC|20361|christianity verses-|www.kingjamesbibleonline.org
Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 May 13, 2000. http://creation.com A. Plutynski (&) University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA Published online: 13 August 2008Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008
Brown, Charles S. "Whither Cometh Humankind? The Origins of Man. Genesis and Science Agree! ." amazon. "freedom press", 3 Jan. 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. .
Zhao, Buyun. "Charles Darwin & Evolution." Charles Darwin & Evolution. Christ's College, 2009. Web. 04 May 2014.
Bowler, Peter J. Evolution: The History of an Idea. London: University of California Press, 1989.
Michael Ruse, The Darwinian Revolution, pub. 1979 by The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637
Boyer, Pascal. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2001.
Lennox, James. "Darwinism." Stanford University. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition). , 13 Aug. 2004. Web. 12 May 2014.
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.
One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis or Modern Evolutionary Thought. Ernst Mayr. Harvard University Press, 1993.
The Scopes Trial, formally known as The State of Tennessee vs. Scopes but given the nickname “The Monkey Trial”, has been credited as starting the popular legal dispute between evolution and creationism in the court, and its impact in the 20’s was immeasurable. The interpretation of the case is just as popular, if not more, than the actual result of the case. The worldwide attention and media coverage the case received produced many opinions. Scholar’s opinions range from describing the case as an irrelevancy and a good show to describing it as a “Watershed in American religious history” (Ronald L. Numbers, 1998, p. 76).
Since the time that teaching evolution in public schools was banned as heresy and taboo for contradicting the Bible, most public school systems today take an opposite approach in which creationism is seldom ta...
Humans have asked questions about their origin and their purpose on earth for eons. The Bible tells humans that God created them and explains their purpose. However, since the Renaissance, humanism answers questions about origins by naturalistic means and science has been redefined in the process. Most institutions of higher education and many individuals have adopted the naturalistic theory of evolution to explain human origin without considering its effects on faith. In contrast to prevailing thought at Goshen College, a literal six-day creation is foundational to the Gospel message. Combining evolution and Christianity makes one’s faith less logical and opens one’s science to new quandaries.
The argument of whether or not humans evolved from monkeys is constantly tossed around in our society with the emergence of more and more scientific discoveries. Evolution across such a broad spectrum is known as macroevolution, or changes that happen at or above the species level. Both popular and academic discourses debate the religious and moral issues associated with macroevolution and its propositions. The main person behind the idea of evolution was Charles Darwin who theorized that everything comes from a common ancestor. In the magazine article “Was Darwin Wrong?” featured in a 2004 issue of National Geographic, David Quammen discusses whether or not Darwin’s findings in evolution theory were correct. This article was targeted for
Wiester, John L. 1993. The Real Meaning of Evolution. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 45 (3): 182-86.
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...
Klin, Candyce. “Darwinism as A Cultural Issue” Cedar Crest College, 2 June 2001. Web. 17
Mankind’s origin was not a result a ridiculous theory that a big bang occurred, causing life to begin. Neither was mankind a single cell organism floating around in the ocean. Mankind was not formed by a mutation of organisms in the sea. Man’s origin did not come from another life source from another planet.