Debate on Creationism
Debate on Creationism
INTRODUCTION The dispute between representatives of the various fields of science and religious representatives is one that will last for many decades (if not centuries) to come, as each one of the two camps confirms that its view of the universe, the beginning of life, and the meaning of human being is the correct one and the one that should be, therefore, passed on to the next generations. This debate, that in some cases reached the level of confrontation, started many centuries ago when the Church rejected many of the scientific views that were presented by scientists.
And this resulted, in certain events, in severe punishments that were carried out against those scientists. The specific case of the Bill 481 that was introduced to the 2001-2002 session of Ohio’s General Assembly claiming to improve the efficiency of science education in schools, was specifically done in order to allow the principles and the ideas of what is called ‘Intelligent Design’ in the science classes of public schools.
Intelligent Design is not that different from Creationism; they both claim that the universe came to being as a result of a supreme being (God) that created it and created and everything else including humans with their present shape and form a few thousand years ago and that, therefore, evolution did not take place.
There are small variations between ID and Creationism; for example, ID proponents do not call the supreme being with the title used by the various religious texts, they call Him ‘Intelligent Designer’; they do not confirm that notion that the entire universe was created several thousands years ago, and they do not claim, for instance, that humans walked the earth along with the Dinosaurs. WHAT IS SCIENCE?
In order to be able to understand if Creationism or Intelligent Design can be admitted into science classes, we need to understand if they qualify to be considered science. Science, or what is also called as the scientific method, is the human technique of understanding the various natural phenomenon and the laws that govern each factor within these phenomenon in a way that is testable, repeatable, and approvable through practical tools that are agreed upon by all.
From the above mentioned definition, it is evident that beliefs, personal opinions and supernatural forces are not permissible in the realm of science. Creationism and Intelligent Design rely solely on belief systems that were produced by religious thought and they take certain foundations of understanding the universe as fact when they cannot be put to test, and they cannot provide any agreed upon natural evidence to support their claims.
We cannot find any element in any one of them that can be proven through testing or through repeatability. As we can understand, Intelligent Design and Creationism are not science; they are simply belief systems originating from religious thought: In the 1970s and 1980s, that [creationist] movement recast the Bible version in the language of scientific inquiry – as “creation science” – and won legislative victories requiring “equal time” in some states. That is, until 1987, when the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s law.
Because creation science relies on biblical texts, the court reasoned, it “lacked a clear secular purpose” and violated the First Amendment clause prohibiting the establishment of religion (Ratliff). CONCLUSION The ideas of Creationism and Intelligent Design should be, if they must be, admitted in the classrooms, but not as sciences, instead, they should be taught and presented as anything else because they do not have the elements that shape science and make it what it really is.
The idea that best explains the reality of Intelligent Design is what Mr. Newt Gingrich said: “Evolution certainly seems to express the closest understanding [of how we came to be] we now have… Evolution should be taught as science, and intelligent design should be taught as philosophy” (Wilkinson 50-51). Works Cited Ratliff, Evan. “The Crusade Against Evolution. ” Wired October 2004. 03 October 2006 <http://www. wired. com/wired/archive/12. 10/evolution. html>. Wilkinson, Francis. “The Discover Interview: Newt Gingrich. ” Discover October 2006: 50-51.