The Way of Creationism versus Evolution - Essay Example

Creationism versus Evolution The ongoing argument over whether there is a master creator or whether Science when left to its own, spontaneously allowed life to materialize; has gone on since the time of Darwin. This argument is one of extreme complexity because it either contradicts Science or Scientifically contradicts a creator. The information supporting both arguments is undeniably massive, but to truly be able to make a sound decision as to which of these two ideologies are our origin defined; we must look at both arguments along with the facts. The big bang theory is perhaps the most difficult and complex theory that we know of. Life itself along with any and all matter, is in a constant state of decay or entropy. This is a force set in motion leaving no one or nothing immune. The big bang theory however, is fundamentally the opposite of Scientific reasoning because it is simply a case of the opposite of entropy or something coming from nothing. As we know, the laws of thermodynamics dictate that energy may be neither created nor destroyed but only changed. The notion that infinite amounts of matter and elegant complexities of life originated from a large and random explosion of atoms, is fantastical and not scientifically sound to say the least. The theory that dictates a master creator who reached out one day and wished the world and human kind to be in it, into existence is just as far fetched as the big bang theory. Still however, we had to have come from somewhere. Many that would argue that Creationism is the indisputable origin of our existence would claim that a universe which came into existence by means of “the big bang” will argue that it requires just as much if not more faith to believe in the random massive reversal of the laws of entropy such that something came from nothing. Not just something void of order but something so vast that there is an infinite amount of elegant design and order within it (the universe). Certainly, both arguments are valid and surprisingly solid. The purpose of this essay is to discuss two notable experts on both topics; Michael Shermer and Duane Gish. Shermer is an evolutionary theorist while Gish is a creationist. The following discussion will elaborate on the finer details of the arguments established by both of these individuals. In the book by Michael Shermer: Why People Believe Weird Things, Shermer utilizes rational and strategic thought to make a case for evolution, “A theory may be contrasted with construct; a notable statement to account for a set of observations. The living organisms on Earth may be accounted for by the statement “God made them” or the statement “they evolved”. The first statement is a construct, the second is a theory. Most biologists would even call evolution a fact.”(Shermer, ). When approaching the nature of our origin, what we know of Science could not possibly allow us to not utilize the scientific method in making an informed decision about the origin of the Universe. By employing the scientific method, virtually any argument or theory can be assessed into being either recognized as truth or fallacy. The most obvious difference between the theory of creation and the theory of evolution is simply between faith and logic. The belief in a higher power which allegedly created the heavens, the earth and mankind is not only fantastical but requires an immeasurable amount of faith to conceivably mentally process let alone truly accept as dogma. Those who hold dear to the ideology of scientifically based Darwinism or evolution, do so based on empirical evidence. Many theorists are in fact able to bring the two theories or ideologies into a synergistic belief. First of all, it is far from conceivable to believe that higher order appeared out of complete chaos, such as in the big bang. The actual theory of evolution however, is not so deviant from empirical evidence. It is even plausible to say that perhaps there was some sort of creator who willed the Universe into existence. But, beyond that; the Universe was left to its own which is an ideal spot for evolution to enter into the logical and conceivable picture. Evolution is more of an intrinsic explanation for how we get from point A to B and so on. For example, we can say that empirical evidence exists in favor of evolution simply by looking at varying melanin content in different human beings. For example, those who have originated from areas of the world quite close to the equator, possess a higher level of melanin. This is not something which requires a rocket scientist to figure out. Melanin is essentially human pigment. The more you have, the darker you are. It serves to protect us from the harmful UV rays of the sun. It makes sense that those who reside in parts of the world exposed to large amounts of sun exposure, have evolved over time to possess a much higher quantity of melanin. Those however say in the British isles, are typically of very low melanin content due to a very low exposure to sun in that particular part of the world. One does not have to abandon their beliefs in God or in a creator, to see this as not only empirically sound evidence but also as evidence indicative of the process of not only adaptation but also evolution. From an objective standpoint, it is not unscientific nor is it sac religious to say that both the theory of evolution and the notion of creationism may in fact have both occurred simultaneously. Based on the reading of both Shermer’s work and also Gish’s work; the notion of choosing one theory over the other is somewhat narrow minded. The very simple explanation to this rationale is that regardless of what sort of carbon dating we conduct or how many statues of the virgin Mary are found weeping tears in South America; we will never be able to go back in time to retain an absolute on the exact origin of our existence. There is always the possibility that the truth of what really fostered the Universe as we know it; is simply beyond our human comprehension and thus we will never know. If one is so inclined to believe that a grand deity randomly chose to create a Universe out of boredom, than one should be just as open to the prospects of a large and impromptu explosion of mass proportion begot the Universe and all that it contains. Both theories require about the same amount of faith in something unseen and unable to be solidly proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Consider for a moment a student who has constructed a model of the Universe, downsized proportionately to the actual Universe which we are aware of. Then, consider that the student’s teacher comes into the room where this science project is set up. The teacher responds with awe and is so impressed with the model that she asks the student, how did this come to be? Certainly you did not do this yourself but assuming you did, how did you do it? The student then responds by saying “ You are right, I didn’t do this myself. In fact, I simply threw some materials into an empty room and then left the room in chaos. I came back the next day to find an entire scaled down model of the universe with perfectly correct mathematical proportion”. Certainly, the teacher would respond in disbelief and would demand a sound answer which is appropriate to the condition of the model. This analogy is essentially the same as the fantastical theory of the “big bang” as well as the fantastical theory of creation. Both are full of a certain amount of logic but both are astronomically miniscule in their probability of actual occurrence. In discussing the work of Gish and his support of the theory of Creation, it is credible that he is a biochemist with extensive background. Gish is also noted fro his repetitive argument for creation with little regard for the ideas and evidence presented by his colleagues. Sadly, Gish’s approach is not unlike the approach taken by those who hold fast to a religious belief regarding the origin of the species. The infamous attitude of Fox news commentators has done more harm than good in the attempt to spread an alleged ‘Christian’ belief system. The part of the argument strategy which has worked aggressively against Gish is his inability to respond to debates with various rebuttals conducive to the challenges thrown at him by his evolutionist opponents. His inability to respond with ‘rapid fire’ responses without changing the subject regarding viable and reasonable questions make him a weak debate opponent. Sadly, this is not to the benefit of the theory of creation. Shermer is noted as having said that Gish seemingly repeats himself during debates and begins and ends the debate process with identical dialogue each and every time, in a somewhat mechanical sense. On eof Gish’s frequent debate opponents is a man by the name of Massimo Pigliucci has charged Gish with simply evading or ignoring viable and empirical scientific evidence simply because it is in opposition to his religious beliefs. Historically, this type of debate style is simply in bad taste and tends to nullify much of what is being said by the individual. Regardless of how convincing Gish’s argument could potentially be, his delivery of his compiled data is done in such a way that skeptics are prone to focus more on his narrow minded ideology than on his potentially factual information. Shermer possesses a more approachable, so to speak, method of delivery concerning his case for evolution: Scientific American is carrying a new piece by Michael Shermer on "Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution." Shermer is a libertarian, agnostic Darwinist, so it is curious that he would make this argument. It reminds one of Eugenie Scotts lectures in churches. (Recall that they are both original signatories of Humanist Manifesto III.) But perhaps this is all the more reason to hear Shermers argument. After all, if ID advocates and their detractors merely speak to their natural constituencies, this controversy-that-does-not-exist will go nowhere. Shermer makes six quick arguments. (Gage, 2006). Shermer, though fervent in his agnostic beliefs and capable rhetoric, tends to not force the beliefs he holds on solid evolution and Darwinism; down the throats of the skeptics and non- believers. This is perhaps why he is that much more skilled at relaying scientific data proving theoretical evolution. It is in fact in line with Shermer’s theories on the matter, that one may be a Christian or a follower of the idea that there is a higher power responsible for our origin while simultaneously supporting the Darwinist theory of evolution. Without looking at two scholars on opposite sides of the scientific spectrum and then choosing the best theory based on how the argument is delivered; Shermer ultimately wins the favor of so many because he is not presenting his ideology in a closed minded and rigid format without room for other possibilities. He makes way for an embrace of empirical evidence and scientific theory while allowing for one to simultaneously embrace theological views including the theory of a higher power or deity. In summary, There is such a vast degree of freedom as to the exact origin of the species that it may not be possible at any point to pinpoint the exact event which brought the universe and the complexity of life; into existence. Choosing between one of two scholars who are undoubtedly masters in their field is not only next to impossible but is also somewhat obtuse. Both Gish and Shermer make fervently strong and viable points. The truth of the matter is however, that we simply may never know. The best thing to do is to listen to all sides of the argument and make a sound decision individually based on one’s religious views and understanding of science. In reality, it is both Shermer and Gish who prove something important. We are here by some sort of superhuman means, be it Science and its occasional propensity to break its own laws or by the intervention of an unseen, higher power. The important take-home message is that yes, we are here, we are constantly evolving (be it in terms of Darwinism or other means) but we are certainly a species with origins most likely beyond our own comprehension. Works Cited: ----------------, “Shermer, Right on Darwin”( 2008), Evolutionary News and Views, retrieved from website at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/shermer_right_on_darwin.html Gish, Duane., (1996), “Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?”, retrieved from website at: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html Shermer, Michael. (1997), “Why People Believe Weird Things”, Henry Holt and Company, New York. Read More