Creationism vs. Evolution Article Review by Jay Writtings LLC

Creationism vs. Evolution
Discusses two articles arguing for and against evolution and creationism, "Science, Education, and the subject of Origins" by Dr. Duane Gish, Ph.D, and "Can science conquer Kansas?" by David Tenenbaum.
# 119446 | 1,239 words | 4 sources | MLA | 2010 | US
Published on Apr 29, 2010 in Education (Curriculum) , Religion and Theology (General) , Biology (General) , Hot Topics (General)


$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now

Description:

This paper presents extreme arguments made by both scientific and religious communities revolving around the origins of life on earth. The author concludes that the anti-creationism argument is more persuasive because of Tenenbaums' emphasis on scientific facts, figures, and reasoning in hist justification for the theory of evolution.

From the Paper:

"Gish uses the quotes that supports his view points from two newspaper articles, one journal and from one book that is refuting Darwinism as evidence for building his case in favor of teaching creationism in the class room. Further he advocates that a scientific theory must be based on repeatable observations, subjected to scientific tests, and potentially falsifiable. No human being has observed the origin, and so the opponent of creationism, i.e. theory of evolution, cannot be proved. By virtue of his educational qualification of Doctorate and his position as Senior Vice President of Institute for Creation Research, the author seems to be a person with rich experience and credibility. His high motivational level in defending the biblical concepts can be ascertained from the welcome note of the web site of IRC that starts with the wordings of, 'We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism.' The logic on which the author is building his case is entirely based on the mythical and religious faith only. Having found no scientific proof in support of creationism he urges that the students and teachers are to be encouraged to search out and find scientific evidence that contradicts the assumptions and claims of the validity of the theory of evolution. However he quotes that the fossil records found so far are totally complete and fully formed and there is no transitional form of fossil is so far found to prove the Darwinian theory of evolution. But he fails to provide data from any reliable source to substantiate his claim. Unable to provide foolproof evidence that the universe was created by a Creator, he resorts to emotional appeal of invoking the faith and belief of God. The author quotes Dr. Michael Ruse, who was one of the witnesses in support of evolution in the 1981 Arkansas trail related with the same topic, as a completely changed man after 20 years to say that evolution is being developed as an alternative to Christianity. By giving a religious dimension to a scientific question, the author is attempting to invoke religious emotions to the scientific dispute. The objective of the author in writing this article seems to give the creationism a dominant position in the science curriculum of the school by creating a mass opinion that evolution is a threat to Christianity. In the pursuance of his objective the author targets the parents, students, and science teachers to develop such a massive movement against the scientific study of biology. "

Sample of Sources Used:

  • Britannica Encyclopedia, 2004, Deluxe Edition provides valuable information about the creationism and Evolution.
  • http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=43
  • http://whyfiles.org/095evolution
  • http://www.icr.org

Cite this Article Review:

APA Format

Creationism vs. Evolution (2010, April 29) Retrieved July 06, 2022, from https://www.academon.com/article-review/creationism-vs-evolution-119446/

MLA Format

"Creationism vs. Evolution" 29 April 2010. Web. 06 July. 2022. <https://www.academon.com/article-review/creationism-vs-evolution-119446/>

Comments