Scientific creationism and human evolution
There has always been quite controversial in the two best known theories of evolution, creationism and evolutionism, a debate between science and faith. The relationship that the theory of creationism has with science can be attacked from the controversy and discussion that these two have looking for the failures of evolutionism. Creationists have two conflicting points with such thesis between them these two;Separate predecessors for apes and men, and natural mutation and selection are insufficient to explain the development of all types of living beings from a single organism. To validate these conflicting points, they seek to invalidate scientific theses, seeking subjective arguments through religion and faith. Despite the arguments that this group of people may have, they lack absolute validity because religion is not considered a science, because faith cannot be measurable or quantifiable. For this reason, this research will seek arguments that are not so subjective and can be refuted scientifically.
The origin of the species through the natural selection of Charles Darwin was the decisive basis of biology in the 19th century. Darwin’s evolution theory left Paley’s teleological argument in a difficult position . The type of rationality to what accommodated Darwinism. As previously happened with mechanism, Darwinism has been constituted throughout the twentieth century in a new vision of the world. In addition to this being a scientific contribution, the objective or attempt that this theory be globally coupled, but this one cannot be accepted by everyone, as is the case of the dispute between this with creationism.
Creationist theory defends its point of view, counterarving the failures that the theory of evolution has. Such failures will be subsequently exposed. Theological can protect their opinion with this kind of arguments. The approaches that believers have are the following;The main conflict that creationists see is that the main theses found in the theory of evolution do not agree with biblical teachings. There is a position that science should not be mixed with religion since it has its own method however science and especially biology, offers empirical data that show the insufficiency of natural laws in the explanation of reality. These data confirm the need for foreign intervention, however, the only way in which creationists argue is to seek failures within established theories and do not find empirical evidence of their theory. Creationists argue that the theory of evolution is defective because in the fossil registry, intermediate fossil forms between two related species have not yet been discovered (as is the case of the lost link that will be discussed later). However, this argument is not entirely valid since they have been found and still finding more and more intermediate fossils. “Even without real fossils in hand, scientists can use modern techniques of molecular and genetic biology, along with the principles of evolution, to infer what ways of life they existed and predict what fossil classes are likely to be and where they are and where.”National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. (2008).
What creationists argue is that the structures of certain living beings are so complex that it is impossible that they have evolved from nothing. As well as the scourge of a bacterium, a kind of hair that helps you with the movement of the bacteria, the human eye, to the immune system of a human being, would be impossible to have been designed by themselves, that there must be a ""smart designer ". As for the scourges they have found have found intermediate forms of flagella. The creationist argument says that his preconceived idea of a creator had to have designed to have been, while the scientific position is based on observable facts and explanations that are able to submit to different tests that intend to demonstrate their falsehood.
In conclusion, creationism seeks through different ways, trying to validate its theory through arguments. This kind of arguments are not entirely objectives and seek to attack Darwin’s theory, looking for the failures of this same. If it is good that some theses have not been able to verify themselves completely due to the lack of fossilI could have is theistic, that is, through faith. In the course of these paragraphs some of these arguments have been briefly reviewed, and through the investigation carried out they have refuted equally in the same way. Creationism cannot have a scientific character because you cannot find measurable, quantifiable, reasonable, true or observable evidence that a creator has created life on the planet earth and that the human being does not come from hominid ancestors but was madeIn the image and likeness of a designer.
Leave feedback