A 

Abortion
Accounting
Advertising
Africa
African-American Studies
Aging
Agriculture
American Indian Studies
Anthropology
Archaeology
Architecture
Argumentative
Art: Artists (Alphabetized)
Art: General
Become an Affiliate and Earn $$$
Biographies (Alphabetized)
Book Reviews (Non-Fiction) (Alphabetized)
Business: Companies (Alphabetized)
Business: General
Business: Industries (Alphabetized)
Business: International
Business: Small
California
Canada
Caribbean
Child Abuse
China
Communication: Journalism
Communication: Language & Speech
Communication: Media
Communication: Non-Verbal
Communication: Television
Communication: Television & Children
Communism
Computer Science
Consumerism
Criminal Justice: General
Criminal Justice: Juvenile Delinquency
Criminal Justice: Police Science
Criminal Justice: Prisons
Cuba
Death & Dying: Euthanasia
Death & Dying: General
Death & Dying: Suicide
Drama: American
Drama: English
Drama: World
Drugs: Alcohol
Drugs: General
Economics: Banking
Economics: Economists (Alphabetized)
Economics: General
Economics: Inflation
Economics: International Trade
Economics: Macroeconomics
Economics: Microeconomics
Economics: Taxation
Education: Administration
Education: Curriculum
Education: General
Education: Higher
Education: Physical
Education: Psychology
Education: Reading
Education: Special
Education: Teaching Methods
Education: Theory
Energy: General
Energy: Nuclear
Energy: Solar
Environmental Studies
Evolution
Family & Marriage
Films: Artists (Alphabetized)
Films: General
Finance: Companies (Alphabetized)
Finance: General
Former Soviet Union: Post-1990
France
Gender & Sexuality
Geography
Germany
History: Ancient Greek & Roman
History: European
History: Great Britain
History: U.S. (After 1865)
History: U.S. (Before 1865)
History: U.S. Presidency
History: U.S. Presidents (Alphabetized)
Homosexuality
Immigration
India
Indonesia
International Relations: Arms Control
International Relations: Cold War
International Relations: Non-U.S.
International Relations: U.S.
Japan
Jewish Studies
Korea
Labor
Latin America
Law: Business
Law: Capital Punishment
Law: General
Law: International & Non-U.S.
Law: Supreme Court
Leadership
Literature, American: Authors (Alphabetized)
Literature, American: Faulkner
Literature, American: Fitzgerald
Literature, American: General
Literature, American: Hawthorne
Literature, American: Hemingway
Literature, American: Melville
Literature, American: Poe
Literature, American: Steinbeck
Literature, American: Twain
Literature, English: Authors (Alphabetized)
Literature, English: Chaucer
Literature, English: Conrad
Literature, English: Dickens
Literature, English: General
Literature, English: Joyce
Literature, English: Lawrence
Literature, English: Shakespeare
Literature, English: Swift
Literature, General: Children
Literature, General: Classic (Greek & Roman)
Literature, General: Russian
Literature, General: World
Management: General
Management: Japanese
Management: Motivation
Management: Theory
Management: Women
Marketing: Companies (Alphabetized)
Marketing: General
Marketing: Plans
Mathematics
Medical: Aids
Medical: Dentistry
Medical: Diseases & Disorders (Alphabetized)
Medical: General
Medical: Nursing
Mexican-American Studies
Mexico
Middle East: Egypt
Middle East: General
Middle East: O.P.E.C.
Military
Music: Classical
Music: General
Mythology
Nutrition
Parapsychology/Occult
Philosophy: Ancient Greek
Philosophy: Descartes
Philosophy: Eastern
Philosophy: General
Philosophy: Kant
Philosophy: Sartre
Poetry: American
Poetry: English
Poetry: Milton
Poetry: World
Political Science: Elections & Campaigns
Political Science: Foreign
Political Science: Lobbyists & Pressure Groups
Political Science: Machiavelli
Political Science: Mill
Political Science: Political Theory
Political Science: U.S.
Psychology: Behaviorism
Psychology: Child & Adolescent
Psychology: Disorders
Psychology: Dreams
Psychology: Experimental
Psychology: Freud
Psychology: General
Psychology: Jung
Psychology: Physiology
Psychology: Piaget
Psychology: Rogers
Psychology: Social
Psychology: Testing
Psychology: Therapies
Public Administration: General
Public Administration: Government Agencies (Alphabetized)
Racism
Real Estate
Recreation & Leisure
Religion: Eastern
Religion: General
Religion: Islam
Religion: The Bible
Research: Completed Studies (With Statistics & Results)
Research: Designs & Proposals
Research: Statistics & Methodology
Russia: Pre-1917 Revolution
Science: Astronomy
Science: Biology
Science: General
Science: Genetics
Sociology: Durkheim
Sociology: General
Sociology: Marx
Sociology: Social Problems
Sociology: Social Theory
Sociology: Social Welfare
Sociology: Weber
Soviet Union: 1917-1990
Sports: Drugs
Sports: General
Technology
Transportation: Automotive
Transportation: Aviation
Transportation: General
Transportation: Railroads
Urban Studies
Vietnam
Women Studies
 

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.