Evolution theory is chiefly concerned with what, how and when things began to happen, while the creationist theory is chiefly concerned with who began the process of evolution and why. One axiom that remains common in both theories is that both of them do not deny that a non material cause was responsible for creation i. e. what and who part of the questions. In case of evolution it is the Big Bang, while evolutionist theories claim a super-natural being, many a times made just of nothingness (Shtulman and Schulz 1052).
The theories of each side vary widely in the remaining places. Also one of the major problems with the debate itself is that each side does not agree with what the other side considers as proof. For instance, scientific community does not agree with words written in any Holy Book, which is the basis of the creationist theory, while the preachers do not believe in the theory of the Big Bang or natural selection. This is perhaps the single widest breach for the existence of a true debate between the two theories (Legare et al.
613). Also the fact the either of these beliefs cannot be outright rejected as false adds fuel to the fire. That is to say, since almost every religion has some or the other kind of Holy Book, most of which originated from oral transmission, the Books cannot be dated. Also completely different religions have too many similarities regarding the theory of evolution, which makes the process of negation of Holy Books even more complicated. Similar is the case with Big Bang or natural selection.
As is mentioned earlier, Big bang took billions of years ago, and while attempts have been made to recreate the same, there is no conclusive evidence that it did not happen. Natural selection is also a process that takes million of years to happen, and as there was no record except from C-14 dating to refute the existence of fossils, the belief still stands. Conclusion Regardless of the fierce debate, there are certain points which come into light when each of the theories are taken in perspective.
First is that, the evolutionist theory has too many proofs to base its assumptions on, and hence cannot be denied outright. The natural selection process, fossil dating, and the tries to recreate of Big Bang in the near future by CERN, a European scientific organization proves that the basis of creation proposed by the scientific community might be correct. Also the various wrong theories proposed by scientists have been corrected eventually. In addition, the scientific community is dynamic in nature, and does not have fixed assumptions that do change given sufficient proof.
This is the single biggest advantage of the Evolution theory proposed by the scientific community. While science has yet been unsuccessful in creating life from organic compounds, the experiments are still on, and the reasons for failure have been figured out and debated actively. The debates, when they are open, and not confined to any particular dogma have more chance of being fruitful, since they accept the existence of other point of views, and accept them one they are proven correct.
The problem with the contradiction of second law of thermodynamics is also that the law is applicable for a closed system, and universe being an infinite space might not fall under the same theory. At any rate, if the entire nature is taken to be the space where creation was done, there is no evidence that evolution disproves the second law of thermodynamics. Even with such an overwhelming support of theories proposed by the scientific community, one fact remains – religious doctrines exist naturally in almost even culture.
In addition, the preachers themselves have always succumbed to the provocation of treating the Holy Books as being literal, which shouldn’t be the case. It has been proven time and again that the oral tradition frequently used many metaphorical ways of expressions which did not have any literal significance, except for the ideas they presented. At the risk of blasphemy, the evidence that a supernatural being which is nothing like matter was responsible for the creation of the world can be construed in a slightly different way.
The religious belief argues that it was due to the will of the Being, that the universe was created. It can be argued that the supernatural being and his will might be an event, which very well agrees with what was supposed to happen when light was created from the dark or everything from nothing, which is basically what the scientific community believes in. The interpretation of religious text might hence shed light on what happened, which means that scientific community might have to give more credit to the religious community than what is being done now.
Courtney from Study Moose
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/3TYhaX