That will give you more than enough to read about. Many people now see evolution as almost a form of religion just like Christianity is. I would point out the obvious - why is it okay to teach that we were created by two masses of chemicals or whatever it was smashing together? If people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Darwin exhibit in at the American Museum of Pro creationism essay History. Screenshot from exhibit web site. Its best-known exponent was English theologian William Paley, creator of the famous watchmaker analogy.
If we find a pocket watch in a field, Paley wrote inwe immediately infer that it was produced not by natural processes acting blindly but by a designing human intellect.
Likewise, he reasoned, the natural world contains abundant evidence of a supernatural creator. The argument from design, as it is known, prevailed as an explanation of the natural world until the publication of the Origin of Species in In some circles, however, opposition to the concept of evolution has persisted to the present.
These antievolutionists differ from fundamentalist creationists in that they accept that some species do change but not much and that Earth is much more than 6, years old. Like their predecessors, however, they reject the idea that evolution accounts for the array of species we see today, and they seek to have their concept—known as intelligent design—included in the science curriculum of schools.
ID is getting a hearing in some political and educational circles.
Most biologists have concluded that the proponents of intelligent design display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary science. Yet their proposals are getting a hearing in some political and educational circles and are currently the subject of a debate within the Ohio Board of Education.
The section concludes with an overview of the intelligent-design movement by a philosopher and cultural historian who has monitored its history for more than a decade.
The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity: Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines. Intelligent Design position statement By Michael J. To Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, the living cell was a black box because its fundamental mechanisms were completely obscure.
We now know that, far from being formed from a kind of simple, uniform protoplasm as many nineteenth-century scientists believedevery living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.
Does natural selection account for complexity that exits at the molecular level? How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications—I call them irreducibly complex.
An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of 1 a flat wooden platform or base; 2 a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; 3 a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; 4 a catch that releases the spring; and 5 a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back.May 31, · But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.
Evolution vs. Creationism Essay of science vs. religion there has been no issues more hotly debated than that of 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 .
Join Family Policy Alliance for a nation where God is honored, religious freedom flourishes, families thrive, and life is cherished. Science curriculum must evolve: Sir David Attenborough says creationism should be banned from the classroom.
The Humanist and Skeptic Website of Steven Schafersman. Non-Skeptical Pro-Authenticity Websites about the Shroud of Turin. Shroud of Turin Website(Barrie Schwortz's website; the most comprehensive). Shroud of Turin Website Library. The thunder-and-lightning example seems like a bad comparison for this kind of situation, in that the false claim is (1) easily observable to be untrue, and (2) utterly useless to the society that propagates it.