It has recently become common for religious groups to call for creationism (or ‘Intelligent Design’ as it is now called) to be recognised as having scientific support, but this is not as convincing as it seems. As the theory most supported by scientists, the onus of proof is on the creationists to show why a hundred years of solid science is now believed to be faulty. They have convincingly failed to do so. One of the fundamental flaws of creationism is that is begins with the assumption that a creator is responsible for life on earth, that the earth is
It is snowballing; it builds on achievements of previous scientists. This explanation shows that science can be a belief system as nothing can ever be proven 100% as there will always be something or someone that will disprove a theory with other evidence and therefore people belief what they have been told. This is much like religions in a way by the fact that religion cannot be proven it is something that people believe in. If Popper is right then it doesn’t why science has grown over the last few centuries. Merton argues that science can only succeed as a major social institution if it receives support from other institutions and values.
Although the modern day public may dismiss some of his ideas as backward or non-progressive, Galton was a genius among men; Galton published many works that introduced the scientific world to never-before conceived ideas and concepts. Francis Galton traveled extensively and studied many other fields including geography and meteorology before moving onto the study of heredity and the new field of “eugenics” (Gillham, 2011). This shift was due to Charles Darwin’s extremely influential arguments in The Origin of Species, which had one section on variations in human populations that provided a spark of proof to Galton that the human race could be advanced by means of selective breeding. Darwin heavily influenced many including Galton, largely due to the impact of
Intelligent Design vs. Evolution A decades-long conversation about the origins of the world has escalated into a roaring debate about how science should be taught in public schools. Should evolution be taught alone in science classes, or should it be accompanied by alternate theories such as “intelligent design,” the belief that the Earth and its life forms were guided in their development by some unidentified higher intelligence? (GOD) Based upon me being a Christian, I believe that the theory of life origin was created and designed by God. The world around us that we see every day is probably best evidence and proof that God created the universe. The creation of the world was a miracle and cannot be explained by scientist.
The creation or development of earth has been debated for many years. People have come up with theories and hypothesis to explain where the universe originated from. Scientists try to come up with a theory explained by a natural occurrence whereas Christians stick with the beliefs that the Bible tells, God created everything. Although, scientists are still stuck on trying to figure out how old the earth is. Many have come up with theories for an old-earth but Christians believe in the young-earth.
The repetition of the words ‘And God said’, ‘And it was so’, ‘And God saw it was good’ show that God is a craftsman who was very much aware of what he was creating; it is said that this God is omnipotent. These quotes also show that God takes pride in his work as he says ‘It was good’. This is extremely different to the concept of the Prime Mover as he did not create the world he simply started the chain of causes that caused its existence which means the Prime Mover cannot be called a craftsman as he simply caused the cause and effect chain. The Prime Mover is again different to God as a Craftsman as he s transcendent and does not interact with the universe unlike the craftsman which is described as all loving and interacts with his creation. There is evidence of this within the Bible when God causes miracles however there is also evidence of this in the natural world as when God causes natural disasters, he is interacting with his creation.
All human beings seek to be rational in what they do. Yes, science does provide a method of justifying rationality but God is the other part of the spectrum that science cannot explain. God is also another figure that provides rationality to someone who does not understand science the only path to salvation and to rationality is through religion. If this form of God takes 1000 different shapes across many religions, it does not make God untrue, it is just a manifestation. The biggest contradictory idea against the motion would be that of whether God can be proven empirically.
In what concerns religion, the greatest paradigm shift was monotheism. In previous centuries, most of humanity believed in more than one god: polytheism. Gods were used to explain nature and phenomena not yet understood – the mysterious laws of nature. The unknown was always attributed to the gods. Yet, Different cultures had different gods.
As such, it rejects not only drilling into rocks to date the age of the Earth, but also ice core dating, which hint that the Earth is far older then the timeline they go by. Instead, they interpret it as a result of a global flood. Flat Earth creationism is the belief that God created the world with a flat surface 6,000 years ago. All that modern science says about shape, size, and age of the Earth is wrong, and evolution did not and still does not occur. Very few people today maintain such a belief.
Most biologists support the idea of evolution, by means of natural selection. Thus meaning scientists therefore therefore reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence. Of course, even if there is such a divine designer, this argument does not strictly prove that the designer has all the attributes