CREATIONISM VS. EVOLUTION IN SCHOOLS.   Term Paper ID:20273 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Argues that creationism is not scientific & should not be taught. Legal, philosophical, factual issues.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 8 sources, 44 Citations, MLA Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Argues that creationism is not scientific & should not be taught. Legal, philosophical, factual issues. Paper Introduction: To require balanced treatment of creationscience and evolutionscience in public schools is to violate the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That amendment provides for a separation of church and state (Ruse 24). Creationscience is not science; it is religion. In fact, the documentation which delineates the field of Creationscience is identical to the corresponding chapters of the Bible's Genesis (Ruse 24). Creationscience is essentially a desperate attempt by southern fundamentalists to try to circumvent the First Amendment and have the nation's public schools indoctrinate young people in the Book of Genesis (Raloff 404). The law passed in Arkansas (Act 590 of 1981, General Acts, 73rd General Assembly, State of Arkansas) requires balanced treatment of both creationscience and evolutionaryscience (Ruse Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Creation science is, thus, parasitic ofthe work of evolutionary science (Ruse 331). They blatantly disregard the fact that the law applies only toclosed systems (Ruse 332-333). One of the problems with the Arkansas law is its presumptionthat it is necessary to present all sides of an argument; it grants equalmerit to creation-science and evolution-science when such is not the case.What it requires is the equivalent of forcing a physics teacher to presentastrology on an equal basis as astronomy (Ruse 336). B. The Arkansas law defines evolution-science as evidencesupporting such ideas as that life arose by the natural processes of theuniverse or that the Earth's geology and evolutionary sequence can beexplained by the principles of uniformitarianism (Ruse 325). In fact, the documentation which delineates the field ofCreation-science is identical to the corresponding chapters of the Bible'sGenesis (Ruse 24). That amendment provides for aseparation of church and state (Ruse 24). Creation-science isdefined as the evidence that supports the sudden creation of the universe,energy, and life from nothing just a few thousand years ago (Godfrey 6).Creationists also believe that this period gave rise to every species thathas ever lived but that many animals perished during a period of globalflooding (Lemonick 75). By insisting that they are all not just a group of monkeys, thecreationists make a point on which they have some hope of being in completeaccord. The practitioners of creation science takethe off-hand remarks of true scientists and try to adapt them to their ownpreconceived notions (Ruse 331). The truth is that bridging fossils have been found: an exampleis Archaeopteryx, the missing link between reptiles and birds (Ruse 333).Although creationists might argue that, because it has feathers,Archaeopteryx is not a bridging fossil but a bird, their argument is simplynot true (Ruse 333). Archaeopteryx may have feathers, but it also has atail, separate digits, and teeth (Ruse 333). However, the only falsehood that such discussionelucidates is the falsehood that the creationists have any reasonableargument. R. "Blunder In Their Footsteps: Creationists Still Cite the Texas 'Mantracks' as Evidence That Dinosaurs and Humans Coexisted." Natural History 1986: 4-1 .Gould, S. Even that change, however, is based on the analysis ofobservable fact. Philosophy of Biology. It is not until some time later, however, on the fourth day that Godcreates the sun, the moon, and the stars (Gould 18). In fact, some researchershave mistakenly classified it as a reptile (Ruse 333). R., and J. New York: Macmillan, 1989.----------------------- 8 Lewontin then says that nowwe know them to be the products of evolution through natural selection(Ruse 332). Thus, the creationists feelcompelled to insist on the separate ancestry of people and apes (Ruse 324). These are notauthoritative dogmas; they are conclusions arrived at by inductivereasoning, conclusions which are not fixed, but are subject to change overtime, an evolution which responds to the natural shifting of the preceptsand assumptions from which the original concepts derive. In The Genesis Flood, John C. "Genesis and Geology: Are You Interested in the Rock of Ages, or the Age of Rocks?" Natural History 1988: 12-17.Lemonick, M. Works Cited"Apes and Apostates (Christian Fundamentalists)." Economist 1987: 33- 34.Edwords, F. and HenryMorris emphasize that "the Creation was a unique period, entirelyincommensurate with this present world" and that it is "the height ofpresumption for man to attempt to study Creation in terms of presentprocesses" (Ruse 336). It is an interpretation that even the most devoutlyreligious have difficulty accepting. To require balanced treatment of creation-science and evolution-science in public schools is to violate the First Amendment to theConstitution of the United States. Forexample, the fundamentalists cite the absence of Precambrian fossils assupporting evidence for their views (Ruse 333). That is not to say that all scientific knowledge is the equivalent oftruth. The Arkansas law may offer students a choice, but, byeliminating the teacher's ability make value judgments on the merit of thedifferent choices, it mandates schools to a curricula incapable ofintellectual guidance. An even more ludicrous example of the creationists' philosophy istheir insistence that the present-day geologic features observable on Earthresulted from global flooding (Ruse 334). Thisindignation they direct against the truth. It ismore a reaction to evolution-science than a doctrine of its own accord.For instance, typical scientific research involves finding facts andderiving conclusions from them. "Defeat For Strict Creationists: Evidence of Dinosaur and Human Coexistence Proves False." Time 1986: 1.Raloff, J. "Seeing The Light." Humanist 1986: 33-34.Ferrell, K. They fail, however, toacknowledge the fact that Precambrian fossil evidence has not only beenfound, but also documents nearly three-quarters of the Earth's 4.6 billionyear history (Ruse 333). J. Such obvious impropriety discredits every argument made by thecreationists.In fact, many of their statements are so incriminating that, in a recenttrial concerning the constitutionality of the Arkansas law, the stateattorney general actually had to rely on people who had not writtenanything about the field to make his case for the defense (Ruse 336). In it, Lewontinsays that, before Darwin, people believed that the hand and the eye werethe best evidence of God's design (Ruse 332). Whitcomb Jr. Creation-science is not science;it is religion. Scientific knowledge is not irrevocable; it is a fluid phenomenasubject to change. Still, the creation scientistsrefuse to be persuaded. For instance, in the third verse ofthe first chapter of Genesis, God commands, "Let there be light" (Ruse 24). Certainly, with enough energy, order can becreated out of disorder; the Earth, with its unrelenting source of heat andlight, the sun, has that energy (Ruse 333). It disregards, however, the fact thateducation is not the indifferent purveyor of ideas merely because theyexist (Ruse 336). Evidence may be sought to support them, but the conceptsthemselves are not subject to scrutiny or change. It insists thatteaching only evolutionary-science may not only undermine religiousconvictions but also violate principles of academic freedom by denyingstudents a choice (Ruse 327). In fact, theonly time that its supporters appear even the slightest bit credible iswhen they admit it. They arestatic. They claim that people and dinosaurs coexisted (Edwords 33), thatthe more primitive life forms occur lower in the stratigraphic recordbecause they were more sluggish and thus drowned quickly as the floodwaters rose (Ruse 334). Discrepancies such asthese make interpretation of the Bible, literal or otherwise, extremelysubjective (Ruse 24). In fact, withoutevolution-science, creation-science would probably cease to exist. These fundamentalists make assertions such as that a naturalbeginning to life is impossible because it would require the production oforder from disorder and thereby violate the second law of thermodynamics(Ruse 332). In his book, Creation: The Factsof Life, he refers to "noted Harvard geneticist [Richard] Lewontin's" viewthat the hand and the eye are the best evidence of God's work (Ruse 332).The actual article on adaptation from which this distortion of the trutharises was published in Scientific American (Ruse 332). The fossilrecord is one such link to which they cling tenaciously (Ape 33). Their analysis on theprogressive nature of the fossil record resembles something akin tofantasy. "The Chasm of Creationism." Omni 1991: 14.Godfrey, L. Cole. The law passed in Arkansas (Act 59 of 1981, General Acts, 73rdGeneral Assembly, State of Arkansas) requires balanced treatment of bothcreation-science and evolutionary-science (Ruse 324). Each appears to be written at a different point inhistory to serve different purposes (Ruse 24-25). Creation-science ideas, in contrast, are just that--ideas. The supporters ofcreation-science claim that such gaps prove the falsehood of the theoriesof evolution (Ape 33). Creation science is a perversion of reason (Ruse 335). Parker (Ruse 332). They do not have toappeal to their adherents' sense of reason; their aim is toward the baseremotions--moral indignation being predominant among these. Rather, they are derivedfrom a literal interpretation of the Bible which is, at best, a distortionof fact (Lemonick 75). The law feignscredibility by maintaining that its intent is to protect theconstitutionally guaranteed freedom of religious exercise. It is in this instance that the denialof reality--so characteristic of creation-science advocates--achieves itscrescendo. So complete is theirdistortion of the truth that they make it seem that the evolutionists areactually proving their points (Ruse 331-332). These ideas, interesting though they may be, arenot based on the scientific analysis of fact. Creation-science is not the result of analysis of fact,but rather it is dogma created in reaction to such facts (Ferrell 14).Creationists do not care whether their stand is logical; they rally supportto their cause like the evangelists that they are. Other perceived weak links at which the creationists grasp includethe occurrence of gaps in the fossil record (Apes 33). More advanced creatures, they insist, were able toscramble higher up the mountainsides before being overtaken (Ruse 334).This, they say, explains the appearance of the progression from simple tocomplex as one proceeds through the fossil record (Ruse 334). At least, it can be said that these authors arewilling to surrender to the fact that their arguments have no basis inlogical reason. Obviously,such conjecture is utter nonsense. In addition, they hold fast to what appear to beweak links in the supporting evidence for evolution-science. Creation-science is essentially a desperate attempt bysouthern fundamentalists to try to circumvent the First Amendment and havethe nation's public schools indoctrinate young people in the Book ofGenesis (Raloff 4 4). In addition, thefirst chapters of Genesis present two completely different accounts ofcreation (Ruse 24). Heknew that using any of the law's most ardent supporters would have been afatal mistake. "High Court Rejects Creationism Law." Science News 1987: 4 4.Ruse, M. An example of the dishonesty inherent to creation-science is providedby the work of Gary E. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.