Creation Science Essay -- essays research papers

Creationism is a religious metaphysical scheme more or less the origin of the universe. It is not a scientific theory. Technically, creationism is not necessarily connected to any particular religion. It merely requires a belief in a Creator. Millions of Christians and non-Christians regard there is a Creator of the universe and that scientific theories such as the the theory of development do not conflict with belief in a Creator. However, fundamentalist Christians such as Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell, have co-opted the term creationism and it is now difficult to preserve to creationism without being understood as referring to fundamentalist Christians who (a) take the stories in propagation as accurate accounts of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, and (b) believe that multiplication is incompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. Thus, it is normally assumed that creationists be Christians who believe that the account of the creation o f the universe as presented in Genesis is literally true in its basic claims about Adam and Eve, the six days of creation, and not an allegory. Creation science is a term used by certain creationists to indicate that they believe that Genesis is a scientific account of the origin of the universe. Reading the Bible as if it were a scientific text contradicts the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. "Creation scientists" say those theories ar false and that scientists who advocate such theories are ignorant of the truth about the origins of the universe and life on Earth. star of the main leaders of creation science is Duane T. Gish of the Institute for Creation Research, who puts forth his views in conjunction with attacks on evolution. Gish is the author of Evolution, the Challenge of the Fossil depict ( San Diego, Calif. Creation-Life Publishers, 1985) and Evolution, the Fossils Say No (San Diego, Calif. Creation-Life Publishers, 1978). Another leader of this mo vement is Walt Brown of the middle for Scientific Creationism. Neither Gish nor Brown seem to understand the discrimination amidst a fact and a theory. They loudly proclaim that evolution is near a theory and that it is false. Scientific theories are neither true nor false. They are explanations of facts. That species evolved from other species is considered by 99.99% of the scientific community to be a scientific fact. How spec... ... act unscientifically, to be dogmatic and dishonest. But the fact that one finds an occasional(a) oddball in the history of science (or a person of impartiality and genius among pseudoscientists) does not imply that there really is no difference between science and pseudoscience. Because of the public and empirical nature of scientific debate, the charlatans go out be found out, errors will be corrected and the honest prosecution of the truth is likely to prevail in the end. This will not be the case with pseudosciences such as creation science , where there is no mode needed for detecting errors (since it flowerpott err) much less of correcting them. Some theories, like creationism cant be refuted, even in principle, because everything is consistent with them, even apparent contradictions and contraries. Scientific theories throw in the towel definite predictions to be made from them they can, in principle, be refuted. Theories such as the Big Bang theory and the steady state theory can be tested by experience and observation. Metaphysical theories such as creationism are "airtight" if they are self-consistent. They contain no self-contradictory elements. No scientific theory is ever airtight.