Documents

Evolution Equilibrium

Description
EQUILIBRIUM 1 Evolution Equilibrium Week 6 Assignment – Argumentative/Persuasive Essay Lydia Sorensen English 141 Jessica Dennis October 5, 2014 EQUILIBRIUM 2 The teaching of creationism and evolutionism has been a controversial topic for decades. From The Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, to the modern day debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye from earlier this year, the position has always been that the facts of science overrule the beliefs of a religion. Public schools, which teach evolution a
Categories
Published
of 11
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  EQUILIBRIUM 1 Evolution Equilibrium Week 6 Assignment  –   Argumentative/Persuasive Essay Lydia Sorensen English 141 Jessica Dennis October 5, 2014    EQUILIBRIUM 2 The teaching of creationism and evolutionism has been a controversial topic for decades. From The Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, to the modern day debate between Ken Ham and Bill  Nye from earlier this year, the position has always been that the facts of science overrule the  beliefs of a religion. Public schools, which teach evolution alone and call i t “science , ” will not teach creation because of the “separation of church and state”  clause. But the teaching of evolutionary theory to the exclusion of creation actually violates the separation clause. Evolutionary theory is no more observable to empirical science than what creation is observable. Both are dependent on the willful acceptance, or belief, of certain core positions by their devotees. The teaching of creationism in schools should be accepted because it violates no sectarian issues, it does not violate the separation clause, and it provides absolute academic  balance. In the early 1980‟s, Louisiana passed a law that provided  such a balance by having public schools that taught evolutionists ideas also had to teach creationists ideas to “prese rve academic freedom” (Hall). The Louisiana law was challenged in  Edwards v. Aguillard   (1987), and a majority of the Court agreed that the law offended the establishment clause. According to the Court, the Louisiana statute stumbled over the first prong of the three-part  Lemon  test. [The  Lemon  test was the result of  Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) , and it required that laws had to have a secular purpose, a secular effect, and entail no excessive entanglement between government and religion.] In spite of the Loui siana legislature‟s assertion that the act was necessary to preserve academic freedom, a majority of the Court concluded that the act was, in fact, supported by an essentially religious purpose that of restoring the religion-rooted view of natural srcins represented by “creation - science” to the public school  EQUILIBRIUM 3 classroom. Finding that the law lacked any real secular purpose, therefore, the Court concluded that it violated the establishment clause. (Hall) In fact, the whole concept behind the separation of church and state is flawed. The idea is to keep religious teachings out of public school curriculum to not infringe on others‟ beliefs, but  by attempting to be neutral, the government is supporting atheism, and that is a religion. It is impractical for the government to make any decision without even the slightest touch of religious influence. Even the Declaration of Independence has religious influence; many of its concepts were based off of Biblical doctrine. By deciding to teach evolution over creation, one chooses atheism over theism. To keep it neutral, one theory cannot be favored over another. It should be up to the individuals to decide which theory they believe, not what the government thinks should be taught as truth because it is labeled “science”. In order for true teaching without religious bias, both theories must be taught and explored, to keep everything fair and just. There are five questions we must ask ourselves when it comes to evolution, according to a post by Dave Woetzel found on a website for Genesis Park  . “Where did it all come from? How could a big bang create a fine-tuned universe? How could life come from rocks? How could  biological systems assemble by accident? Why do we have a soul?” ( Woetzel, 2014 ) Let‟s explore these ideas individually, focusing on the scientific fallacies first. Where did it all come from?  Evolutionists argue the existence of the universe was caused by a big bang; this is called the Big Bang Theory. But what caused the Big Bang? Where did it com e from? It‟s a never ending cycle of “Where?” for each answer. One can argue that  EQUILIBRIUM 4 matter has always been here in some form, but that contradicts the law of thermodynamics (Woetzel, 2014). An extremely improbable explanation would be that such matter just appeared from nothing, but that explanation could never be considered by evolutionists because it requires them to believe something without scientific fact or reasoning (Woetzel, 2014). A prudent answer would be this is caused by an intelligent design (Woetzel, 2014). Intelligent design, though, means there must be a designer, and this designer is God, a supernatural being that is not tied down by scientific theories. “Atheists sometimes will retort, „Where did God come from?‟ But God, by anyone‟s definitio n, is supernatural. He is not subject to a cause and effect universe that He made. It is only those who claim there is nothing but the universe and its natural laws that are limited by the law of cause and effect in their srcins model. The Christian worldview is entirely consistent ” (Woetzel, 2014 ). How could a Big Bang create a fine-tuned universe?  Take a look at what Dave Woetzel points out as he cites Paul Davies‟ article in The Guardian : In a 2007 issue of The Guardian , physicist Paul Davies said, “Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth  –   the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too conven ient „coincidences‟ and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal.” (Davies, to be fair, is not say ing God did it. But he nicely describes the  problem that requires faith in a designer, multiplied universes, or unknown natural laws.) (Woetzel, 2014)
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks