A topic that continues to stir controversy and debate is the
origins of the human species. Using the scientific method that we learned in
class, evolution theory scientists used this method to deduce that humans
evolved from apes millions of years ago. Meanwhile, creationists used faith to
argue that a supernatural being, God, created humans.
 |
| The Scientific Method Process used by evolutionary theory scientists http://www.tomatosphere.org/teacher-resources/teachers-guide/images/scientific-method.jpg |
Firstly, let us explore how evolutionary biologists used the
scientific method to arrive at their conclusion. The famous
scientist, Charles Darwin, travelled to the Galapagos Islands to study
unfamiliar organisms such as lizards and certain birds. Through his
observations, he used inductive reasoning to form a theory that species evolve
and develop. This is the evolution theory. His theory could be replicated and
tested using more empirical evidence and deductive reasoning. So according to
the scientific method, Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct in predicting
that humans evolved from apes.
Now let’s explore the creationist belief. According to the
bible, God created each species specifically, and that humans were created in
the form of God, and therefore are better than animals. This means that humans
cannot have been apes (animals), and were created by God. The main “way of
knowing” used by creationists is faith. Creationists have a strong belief in
the doctrines of religion, and that God is the source of all basic laws that are
infallible. So according to this way of thinking, the case that humans were
created by God is true.
Which position you
should take is beyond the scope of my blog; but, I will try to offer some
strengths and weaknesses of each position. The scientific method is strong
because it uses empirical evidence, is testable, and is logical. But,
scientists are prone to the dangers of confirmation bias, paradigm traps and
fallacies such as hasty generalizations (see definitions links in Sources). Faith, is arguably simpler to do, but
it does lack the backing of empirical evidence. Depending on which “way of knowing”
I choose, both evolution theory and creationism can be true, and this is also
why this topic has been debated for centuries.
Sources:
The argument between science and faith is interesting because they both try and solve for the unknown in two very distinct ways. Faith relies simply on a strong belief, while science relies on testing and retesting. The important difference that I see between the two is that science allows for error and retesting. I think this allowance for error ultimately proves that Science should be considered the more legitimate method for solving the world's unknowns.
ReplyDeleteThere are many forms of Creationism as there are many forms of religion, but for the sake of convenience and familiarity, I must resort to using the Christian form. The Bible is considered the very word of God and as such is infallible. Despite this, many Christians take part of the bible to be metaphors and shouldn't be taken literally. If that's the case, then what parts of the Bible should be taken literally and which ones should we realize are metaphors or meant for their liturgical value? Growing up I often asked my youth pastor "where are the Dinosaurs in Genesis?" and he would tell me that just because it's there doesn't mean it didn't happen, and that the "6 days of creation (plus one of rest) could be a representation of some other unit of time or a metaphor altogether". Due to this, I argue it is hard to use faith as basis for any sort of explanation of the natural world. Who can tell what is literal and what is metaphoric? As Rudy Lindner, a professor in astronomical history, said "Galileo's philosophy was 'The bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go.'"
ReplyDeleteThere will always be an argument between science and faith on most things. Another aspect of this controversy that creationists focus on is the fact that both creationism and evolution are still considered theories. They argue that evolution, while much talked about, can be proven about as much as creationism. Many evolutionists, as you said point to Darwin's studies. They also point to "Lucy," a famed partially completed skeleton, found by Donald Johanson, of what many believe to be part ape part human. Many scientists say that the bones that were found are clear evidence that she was an erect hominoid, and a link within ape to human evolution. Scientists with creationist tendencies look at Lucy and find no evidence that she was a biped and argue she spend most of her time in the trees. A convincing point made by creationists is if this skeleton does represent a breed of human evolution, where are the rest? Only one has been found which is cause for suspicion. One final argument that creationist make that is not based on faith is that the second law of thermo dynamics, entropy, disproves evolution, fore as the universe, a closed system, progresses it is destined to become less organized and more chaotic, a law which evolution arguably does not follow.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.icr.org/article/1072/372/
https://iho.asu.edu/about/lucy’s-story
I agree that this debate between creationism and evolution will never end. It has perplexed me for years why people take such strong stands on this topic because when it comes down to it we all want the same thing, a better understanding of how we got here. I have always questioned whether there is a common ground through which both theories could be correct. I think your point about the metaphoric messages of the Bible give my idea of compromise some potential. In solely my personal opinion, I consider the possibility that God was responsible for creation, but what we read in the Bible is largely metaphoric. It was then after his creation that environmental forces started the process of evolution and brought the world to where we are today. Discovering the origins of humanity is arguably the most important question our species can answer.
ReplyDeleteWith this debate becoming so mainstream in the last few days after the Bill Nye and Ken Ham, founder of the Creationist Museum, there is much to think about in terms of how people's opinions and beliefs shape society's view on this topic. While Nye argued soundly that the natural laws of the universe do not allow for stories such as Noah's Ark, there is no way to prove legitimately that our laws were exactly the same 4,000 years ago, as we were not there to observe what actually happened. Thus, we are left to turn to relativity, where other's viewpoints are only truth in a frame of reference that is accepted universally. Since this ultimate truth has not been achieved yet, it is impossible to prove that one side of the debate is right over another.
ReplyDeleteAs far as both theories go, I believe they have the same amount of proof. Neither one has found the point of our origin, and I don't think that either will ever stop trying. Who is to say that its not a slight combination of both theories. Humans today create many things, though not perfect. They even try to create robots with AI that are meant to act like humans. Also, what is God? An all powerful, all knowing, entity. Say there was a being that was far more advanced than our human race. If they came here we would think they knew everything, saw everything, and where everywhere. We would say they were "godly". Just like us they could have experimented with making "robots with AI", and they made them the only way they knew, to be like them. They could have done this by altering genetics of animals already around, like apes. In this case "gods" and accelerated evolution could have both played a role in our creation. In the past many ancient civilizations have depicted such things using pictures of objects they could understand. So, there are a lot of theories that can be made, but creationism and evolution theory are the two most widely accepted.
ReplyDelete