|
| |
Creationism, Evolutionism, and the Anthropic Principle
Term Paper ID:44748
|
|
|
Essay Subject:
This paper examines the debate between evolutionists and creationists discussing the so-called separation of ...... More...
|
15 Pages / 3375 Words
14 sources, 37 Citations,
MLA Format
$60.00
Return to List of Papers
|
Paper Abstract:
This paper examines the debate between evolutionists and creationists, discussing the so-called "separation of church and state," intelligent design, and evolution, and suggesting that the Anthropic Principle should be taught in the schools as a means of defusing the antagonism of the debate.
Paper Introduction:
Creationism Evolutionism and the Anthropic PrincipleIntroduction There is a longstanding perception that religion and science areincompatible and that religious people and scientists make up two distinctand openly hostile groups that will probably never reach a meeting of theminds Actually though there are numerous scientists that are religiousand numerous religious people that respect and embrace science with athird group the individuals vehemently devoted only to one side or theother notwithstanding The issue of religion versus science has never been so prominent as inthe
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.
Giere, in his book Examining Science: ACognitive Approach, points out that "The relationship between theory anddata...is said to be a 'rational,' or even 'logical,' relationship," yetwith the scientist-philosopher's job being "to demonstrate that aparticular principle captures a relationship that is uniquely rational,"the "severe empirical problem" surfaces in which Giere points out that "Ifscientific judgment were indeed guided by intuited principles ofrationality, one would expect far more agreement among scientists than infact exists."[2] He takes issue, as well, with "the social construction ofscientific knowledge," arguing that "it utterly fails to explain theobvious success of science," such as technology based on science.[3] Inplace of the rational and social perspectives on science, Giere proposes acognitive view that attempts to explain how scientists use cognition in theform of "perception, motor control, memory, imagination, and language" to"interact with the world."[4] Rather than rationality, which Giere viewsas "hypothetical," scientists would argue from the basis of what theircognition demonstrates to them.[5] This would yield a pure science thatdoes not attempt to superimpose philosophical, or even religious, thinkingupon scientific fact but merely reports what is found. 1999, pp. The schools need to inform students, not brainwash them. Science, though, is not thephilosophical endeavor that attempts to examine natural phenomena andascribe scientific philosophies to them using rationality, since such aprocess is only one step removed from being a religion of its own in which"scientific" theories are posited and scientists make determinations aboutwhat is and is not real based on these unreal and unproven theories. In the protracted battled over evolutionthat has gone on since the 1926 Scopes trial, the Anthropic Principle couldbecome the third option that stills the troubled waters.Conclusion In American society today, there is a strong anti-religious sentimentthat is evidenced in the drive for "separation of church and state," aconcept that is usually attributed to the First Amendment, in which it isnowhere to be found. This paper willdiscuss these questions, narrowing the issues to a focus on anthropicprinciples and concluding with a discussion of whether creationism shouldbe included in the public school curriculum.Design or Evolution and the Anthropic Principle In his article "Dangerous fictions and degrees of plausibility:Creationism, evolutionism and anthropology," anthropology professor RoyEllen explains that theories used to explain data range from "spectacularlyefficient" to "really rather poor," noting that one difficulty indetermining how plausible evolutionary arguments are is that there is a"disunity of science as a theorized set of practices" and a "vestedinterest which scientists understandably have in maintaining a clearboundary between science and non-science."[6] In his article "Creationismin 2 th-Century America," Ronald L. 2 3. Ponnamperuma, who provides anexcellent analogy: "The probability that life came about as a product ofthe random combination of chemicals in some evolutionary process would beas if I stood at this lectern and flipped a coin a billion billion timesand it came up heads every time."[25] Aldicott elaborates on the manyforces and "fundamental constants" that must be calibrated precisely inorder for life to exist, going beyond the force of gravity and "therelative masses of protons and neutrons in an atom" to "commonplacephenomena such as the placement of Earth to the Sun, the unique propertiesof water, and so on."[26] In fact, Aldicott, states, "the universe, lawsof nature, and Earth are perfectly calibrated for life's existence andtailor-made for the higher forms of living things, including humans," allwhich makes up the Anthropic Principle.[27] In the debate between evolutionists and creationists, the AnthropicPrinciple could just be the perfect compromise. 23.[27] Aldicott, p. Aldicott cites Cyril A. Moritz Law.Retrieved on December 2, 2 9 from:"http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/lawjournal/issues/volume63/number6/addicott.pdf[19] Addicott, p. A related question is, "Are God and scienceincompatible?," an issue that some people on both sides of the argumentbelieve is the case. no! The Evolution Deceit, pp. Given this pervasive belief, schools aresuspending students for having Bible studies and wearing tee shirts with aChristian theme, reading the Bible on the schoolbus, and even handing outChristmas cards to their friends. 26.[29] Aldicott, p. Glazier. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. a thousand times, No! 27.[36] Sizemore, Bill. Moreover, in substantiation of their belief in an omniscientGod, they must accept that God has complete and detailed understanding ofscience, since-as they assert-He created it. Regardless of its positionon the supernatural, the religious contingent must acknowledge thatscientific principles exist and that they govern the way the universeoperates. Examining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Freeman, Anitra L. 26.[34] Aldicott, p. "A Designer Universe?" New York Review of Books, 21Oct. 5.[5] Giere, p. 1999, pp. "Creationism in 2 th-Century America." Science,218.5, (Nov 1982), p. To assert that any scientificprinciple is over God's head is therefore a ludicrous position for areligious debater. 1A. "Creationism in 2 th-Century America." Science, 218.5, (Nov 1982).Rowe, Timothy; Ketcham, Richard A.; Denison, Cambria; Colbert, Matthew; Xu, Xing; Currie, Philip J. "Storm Clouds on the Horizon of Darwinism:Teaching the Anthropic Principle and Intelligent Design in the PublicSchools." Ohio State Law Journal, 63.15 7, p. "Forensic palaeontology: The Archaeoraptor forgery. "The 'missing link' that wasn't." USA Today, (Feb 1, 2 ), p. Addicott discusses the legal issues surrounding theintelligent design versus evolution debate, commenting that "Thedevelopment of case law in this area has quite properly ensured that publicscience education is protected from being [entangled] with religion...butit has also apparently proven to be a tremendous boon for those who wish tohold inviolable the teaching of the theory of evolution...to the totalexclusion of all other ideas-scientific or otherwise-about the appearanceand function of living things."[18] Addicott refers to what he terms "theDarwinian paradigm," which is pitted against the "creationist movement" andsuggests that future jurisprudence will show a preference for "keeping thescience classroom free from any pedagogy that might suggest the existenceof a supernatural being."[19] Intimating that the battle to allowintelligent design to be taught in American classrooms may be lengthy andunsuccessful, Aldicott does, however, point out that there is "a silentpartner to intelligent design theory" that does stand a good chance ofgetting through the court system-the Anthropic Principle.[2 ] The Anthropic Principle, according to Michael Anissimov, is "thesimple fact that we live in a universe set up to allow our existence. With this approach,the different branches of science such as archaeology and anthropologywould find greater common ground with each other and with the religiouscommunity seeking scientific answers for questions that originate withreligion. 1 3- 12 . The issue of religion versus science has never been so prominent as inthe discourse on creationism and evolution. 539.[9] Ashmore, Malcolm. The chiefest of these is the argument about whether the earthand its inhabitants were created by God through a process of intelligentdesign and creation or whether they came about through an accident ofcreation and subsequent evolution, as the Big Bang theory and Darwin'stheory of evolution suggest. Retrieved on December 2, 2 9 from:http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:UwjdcJ6p7jAJ:scholar.google.com/+nebraska+man+AND+forgery+AND+evolution&hl=en&as_sdt=2 [11] Rowe, Timothy; Ketcham, Richard A.; Denison, Cambria; Colbert,Matthew; Xu, Xing; Currie, Philip J. Moritz Law. 26.[32] Aldicott, p. Constitution, either,nor in the Declaration of Independence or the Federalist Papers; as BillSizemore notes in a commentary on the subject, "They are not the law;neither are they part of the legislative history of the law...[They are] afabrication of blatantly liberal, anti-Christian, dishonest, activistjudges" consisting of "words taken out of context from a letter written byThomas Jefferson."[36] Sizemore adds, "They exist nowhere in the laws ofour nation."[37] Yet the real antagonism in the creationism-evolutiondebate pivots on the evolutionists' belief that the separation of churchand state is a legal right and that it implies keeping all vestiges ofreligion out of the schools. In the last analysis, the Anthropic Principle can somewhatdefuse the antagonism over the creationist-evolutionist debate and offerthe new generation of students the opportunity to make up their own mindson the issue. "The Separation of Church and State Hoax." Bill Sizemore Taxpayer Commentary. "Science, Religion, and Anthropology." Anthropology of Religion: A Handbook (1997), edited by Stephen D. With antagonism againstChristians and Christianity running this high and the deck stacked againstChristian principles, convincing the courts to allow intelligent design tobe taught in place of or in conjunction with evolution is only the remotestof possibilities. 2 3. Retrieved on December 2, 2 9 from:http://lordibelieve.org/news/missinglinkUSAToday.PDF[13] Giertych, Maciej. In fact, they not in the U.S. 49-5 . Nature, 41 , 539-54 , 2 1. "Teaching on evolution in European Schools." Bipedia, 27.5. 23.[26] Aldicott, p. "What Is the Anthropic Principle?" WiseGeek.Retrieved on December 3, 2 9 from: Retrieved on December 3, 2 9from:http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-anthropic-principle.htm[22] Anissimov.[23] Anissimov.[24] Aldicott, p. Aldicott asserts that itis "perhaps the only common ground that will ever be found in theevolution/creation controversy," and he provides six reasons for thatassessment.[28] First, the Anthropic Principle is recognized by thescientific community as "a legitimate scientific axiom," in contrast tointelligent design theory, which is regarded by many as being invalid.[29]Second, the Anthropic Principle-unlike fundamentalist creationism-agreeswith science rather than "require[ing] the scientific community to be inerror."[3 ] Third, it is an empirically-based doctrine that gathers "hardquantifiable data" from a variety of different scientific disciplines, nota faith-based doctrine whose argument is derived from "sectarian religiousdogma."[31] Fourth, it looks not just at the living aspects of theuniverse but also at the non-living.[32] Fifth, the Anthropic Principledoes not dogmatically insist on a certain logical conclusion, "even if theprimary interpretation is clearly tied to a recognition of God(s); fourmajor interpretations exist to explain it, and only one of them issupernatural."[33] Sixth, it is not-as intelligent design is-associatedwith the idea of religious motivation.[34] Ultimately, Aldicott points outthat "The Anthropic Principle has none of the so-called religious baggagesome associate with the roots of the intelligent design movement."[35] Given the advantages of the Anthropic Principle for accomplishing atask heretofore seen as impossible-providing a common ground where thecreationist and evolutionist camps can enjoy a meeting of the minds-itholds great potential for resolving the warfare between these two groupsand possibly reducing it to a mere friction. Retrieved on December 2,2 9 from:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v41 /n6828/abs/41 539b .html[12] Friend, Tim. The Evolution Deceit, pp. 2.[25] Aldicott, p. In the sense that neithercamp finds it offensive or provocative, the Anthropic Principle is not onlythe most promising concept in terms of being accepted by both sides butalso the most likely to provide rest from the bitter debate betweencreationists and evolutionists. They are opposed only tothe theory of evolution, which has not yet been proved, and therefore isnot to be called by the sacred name of science."[8] Although Christianopposition to evolution changed through the succeeding decades, the issueof the unproven theory of evolution is still a keynote of modern Christianresistance to evolution. There are people at both extremes of the argument that mustby necessity be excluded from any thoughtful consideration of the issues-those religious people who believe that science is completely outside therealm of God and those scientists who believe that religion is completelyoutside the realm of science. 46-47.[18] Addicott, Jeffrey L. 26.[33] Aldicott, p. 7.[7] Numbers, Ronald L. "A Designer Universe?" New York Review of Books, 21 Oct. Retrieved on December 2, 2 9 from: Giere, Ronald N. "What Is the Anthropic Principle?" WiseGeek. Realistically, however, the hue and cry that would result from theintroduction of intelligent design in most states would likely generate anincrease in antagonism that could lead to increased hostility-or evenviolence-against Christian students. Retrieved on December 2, 2 9 from: -----------------------[1] Freeman, Anitra L. Numbers discusses the history ofcreationist thought in America and its encounters with the opposingviewpoint of evolution. Retrieved onDecember 2, 2 9 from:http://books.google.com/books?id=deultnhWbqcC&pg=PA3&lpg=PP1&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html[3] Giere, p. Retrieved on December 3, 2 9 from:http://www.newswithviews.com/Bill/sizemore8.htm[37] Sizemore. Works CitedAddicott, Jeffrey L. Retrieved on December 3, 2 9 from: Weinstein, Steven. Retrieved on December 2, 2 9 from:http://cerbi.ldi5.com/IMG/pdf/bip27-5.pdf[14] Lett.[15] Lett.[16] Lett.[17] Weinstein, Steven. The Anthropic Principle would release students fromhaving to suspend their disbelief at such illogical notions as men evolvingfrom apes while apes are still in existence contemporaneously with men onthe earth. Retrieved on December 2, 2 9 from: Sizemore, Bill. Examining Science: A Cognitive Approach. 26.[31] Aldicott, p. Retrieved on December 2, 2 9 from: Numbers, Ronald L. Without the Christian overtones thatevolutionists find so provocative, yet without the blatant evolutionistmyth that creationists find contentious, the Anthropic Principle provides ameans of paving the way for students to consider intelligent design withoutsanctioning either creationism or evolution. 23.[28] Aldicott, p. On the religious side of the controversy between creationism andevolution, religion would have to acknowledge that there are scientificprinciples that govern the universe and that science has a legitimate rolein identifying and classifying these principles. 2.[2 ] Aldicott, p. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 199 . "Dangerous fictions and degrees of plausibility:Creationism, evolutionism and anthropology." Anthropology Today, 18.5,(Oct), 2 2, p. Retrieved on December 2, 2 9 from: Anissimov, Michael. Google Books. Should intelligent design be taught in the schools?Yes, definitely. Retrieved on December 3, 2 9 from: Retrieved on December 3, 2 9 from: Ashmore, Malcolm. Giertych, Maciej. No! 5.[6] Ellen, Roy. "The 'missing link' that wasn't." USA Today, (Feb 1,2 ), p. 49-5 . Finally, how can either or both camps prove theveracity of their contentions, or is this even possible? The Anthropic Principle, therefore,is a better alternative. "Storm Clouds on the Horizon of Darwinism: Teaching the Anthropic Principle and Intelligent Design in the Public Schools." Ohio State Law Journal, 63.15 7, 2 2. 539.[8] Numbers, p. In addition, the teaching of the AnthropicPrinciple in the schools would set a precedent for basing science onempirical facts rather than assumptions, which are the primary substance ofevolutionist thought. Students would be free to reason logically rather than underconstraint to believe a tissue of propagandistic ideas that do not makesense to them. Friend, Tim. 26.[3 ] Aldicott, p. London: Ta-HaPublishers Ltd. 26.[35] Aldicott, p. Pp. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 199 , p. In the light of this admittedly idealistic platform of cognitivescience and science-acknowledging religion, a number of diverse andcontroversial issues on creationism and evolution that exist outside it canbe examined. "Teaching on evolution in European Schools."Bipedia, 27.5. 3. "A Psychological Analysis ofFundamentalism." 2 2.[2] Giere, Ronald N. Truescience, instead, is a study of the natural world that merely quantifiesand examines what is. Ronald N. 2.[21] Anissimov, Michael. 3.[4] Giere, p. Although Lett mounts scientific and philosophicalarguments in favor of evolution, he also spends a great deal of timebattering Christianity and the Christian God, which suggests that there isan underlying agenda at work. Google Books. Creationism, Evolutionism, and the Anthropic PrincipleIntroduction There is a longstanding perception that religion and science areincompatible and that religious people and scientists make up two distinctand openly hostile groups that will probably never reach a meeting of theminds. London: Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. As Malcolm Ashmore relates, "PiltdownMan was for the forty years before this date [of the discovery that it wasa fraud] a very famous, though increasingly problematic, paleontologicalfind of some pieces of cranium and jaw which were taken to represent asignificantly ancient humanoid; and for the forty years since, the 'same'bones have represented an even more famous, and entirely unproblematic caseof forgery."[9] Piltdown Man was not the only forgery of this nature,moreover, but just one of many. Since thereis in reality no legal separation of church and state, there is no legalreason not to include it, either. Here, the range of opinions oneach side runs the gamut from unthinking full persuasion to openquestioning and receptiveness to both scientific and religiousexplanations. The value of the AnthropicPrinciple is that it distills the elements that the two sides do agree onand eliminates the issue of religion, which is the real antagonist in thedebate, so that the scientific facts can be examined without the overtonesof creationism and evolutionism. What religion sees as"supernatural," i.e., beyond the scope of explanation in terms of naturalscience, is analogous to what rational/philosophical science has explainedby means of theories that it then sets about to prove or disprove.Religion points to the supernatural to explain phenomena that sciencecannot explain, while science maintains that there is a scientificexplanation that simply has not yet been found. Lett equates the concept of God with theparanormal, in which resides "the entire range of transcendental beliefs,covering at once everything that would otherwise be called magical,religious, supernatural, metaphysical, occult, or parapsychological"viewing the supernatural as "propositionally meaningless."[14] Lettasserts that "Irrationality is...the defining element in religion" and thatthe argument between religion and science is not one between thesupernatural and the empirical but that is predicated on religion's desireto be irrational-"relying ultimately upon beliefs that are eithernonfalsifiable or falsified"-and science's opposing desire to be rational-"relying exclusively upon beliefs that are both falsifiable andunfalsified," a view that he holds substantiates the claim that "noreligion is true."[15] Lett states, "I think...that the political threatfrom the oxymoronic 'scientific creationists' would be better met ifanthropologists were to debunk the entire range of creationist claims(including the belief that God exists as well as the belief that humans anddinosaurs were contemporaneous."[16] Steven Weinberg likewise argues infavor of evolution based on his negative opinion of Christianity, which hepoints out was used to justify slavery, relating the experience of formerslave Frederick Douglass, who related that "his condition as a slave becameworse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him tojustify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham."[17] Jeffrey F. Moreover, since evolution is still justan unproven theory, teaching it as the sole explanation for life on earthwhen there are other equally or more plausible theories is radical andirresponsible. Harun Yahya (2 1) cites many, includingNebraska Man, a reconstruction created from a pig's tooth; Ota Benga, aCongolese pygmy captured in 19 4 by an evolutionist researcher who chainedand caged him "like an animal" and introduced him as "the closesttransitional link to man;" and a series of concocted stages of evolutionaryman such as Australopithecine man, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus, whichYahya refers to as "The Imaginary Family Tree of Man."[1 ] Not to beforgotten is the more recent hoax, the Archaeoraptor forgery, in which anArchaeoraptor fossil was "announced as a 'missing link' and purported to bepossibly the best evidence since Archaeopteryx that birds did, in fact,evolve from certain types of carnivorous dinosaur[s]."[11] The latterfraud was rapidly followed by one made up by a Chinese farmer, who added atail from his backyard to a pterosaur fossil and sold it to a museum.[12]To the long and growing list of forgeries, Maciej Giertych adds "the famousdrawing, showing in one row a chimpanzee, a gorilla, a Neanderthal, anAboriginal and a Scandinavian," of which he points out that although thedrawing depicts "the change of colour from black to white, a reduction ofhairiness and an increasingly erect posture," fossil bones provide noinformation on any of these traits.[13] On the evolutionist side of the debate, there are those who, likeprofessor James Lett, seem to argue in favor of evolution because they areagainst religion. 2, 2 2. Both extreme positions are nothing more thanfundamentalism of different varieties, which Christianity professor WalterShurden defines as "an attitude of intolerance, incivility andnarrowness...that says, 'We have the truth, the whole truth and nothing butthe truth."[1] In the legitimate debate over creationism and evolution, the realityof both science and religion is acknowledged. There is more scientific evidence supporting intelligentdesign than supports the flawed and unproven theory of evolution, so evenif they are both regarded as hypothetical, intelligent design deserves itsplace in the line-up of possible explanations for existence. Ifthe universe were any other way, we would not exist."[21] Introduced byphysicist Brandon Carter in 1973, the Anthropic Principle raises leadingquestions that suggest the existence of intelligent design, such as "whyare certain physical constants so finely-tuned?"-and "providing a simpleexplanation for some otherwise very perplexing coincidences."[22]Anissimov notes, "While some people view this as evidence for asupernatural creator, materialists simply observe that if it were any otherway, we wouldn't be here."[23] Aldicott notes that it would be "highlyimprobable" for this fine-tuning to occur merely as a coincidence and thatfor life to exist, the need for the laws of chemistry and physics to be"fine-tuned to a mathematical precision is "immutable."[24] This fine-tuning virtually obviates the possibility that life arose as the Big Bangtheory suggests. "Fraud by Numbers: Quantitative Rhetoric in the Piltdown Forgery Discovery." Retrieved on December 2, 2 9 from: Ellen, Roy. 46-47.Yahya, Harun. Retrieved on December 2, 2 9 from: Lett, James. In tracing the history of the debate, Numberscites William Bell Riley, who in 1922 identified the primary reason thatfundamentalists were opposed to the teaching of evolution-"evolution is nota science; it is a hypothesis only, a speculation."[7] Numbers citesKeyser (1925), who related that "It is not 'science' that orthodoxChristians oppose. "Fraud by Numbers: Quantitative Rhetoric in thePiltdown Forgery Discovery." Retrieved on December 2, 2 9from:http://www.gesctm.unal.edu.co/CMS/Docentes/Adjuntos/ 99 372 9_2 8 313_ 55 15_PILT-FBN-revised%2 4%2 as%2 published%2 complete.pdf[1 ] Yahya, Harun. "Dangerous fictions and degrees of plausibility: Creationism, evolutionism and anthropology." Anthropology Today, 18.5, (Oct 2 2).Freeman, Anitra L. Actually, though, there are numerous scientists that are religiousand numerous religious people that respect and embrace science, with athird group, the individuals vehemently devoted only to one side or theother, notwithstanding. On the other hand, gays and lesbians,witches, and other groups and individuals that mitigate against familyvalues are permitted without retribution. "The Separation of Church and State Hoax." BillSizemore Taxpayer Commentary. Nature, 41 , 539-54 , 2 1. "Forensic palaeontology: TheArchaeoraptor forgery. This opposition has only been strengthened by desperate attempts onevolutionist scientists to forge the so-called "missing link" between manand the apes by counterfeiting one. 1A. "A Psychological Analysis of Fundamentalism." 2 2.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
Click here to request an essay written just for you.
|
|
|
