We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

See Pricing

What's Your Topic?

Hire a Professional Writer Now

The input space is limited by 250 symbols

What's Your Deadline?

Choose 3 Hours or More.
Back
2/4 steps

How Many Pages?

Back
3/4 steps

Sign Up and See Pricing

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Back
Get Offer

Religious Metaphysical Theory of the Origin of the Universe

Hire a Professional Writer Now

The input space is limited by 250 symbols

Deadline:2 days left
"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Write my paper

Креационизм – это религиозная метафизическая теория происхождения Вселенной. Это не научная теория. Технически креационизм не обязательно связан с какой-либо конкретной религией. Это просто требует веры в Создателя. Миллионы христиан и нехристиан верят, что существует Создатель вселенной и что научные теории, такие как теория эволюции, не противоречат вере в Создателя. Однако христиане-фундаменталисты, такие как Рональд Рейган и Джерри Фалуэлл, взяли на вооружение термин «креационизм», и теперь трудно ссылаться на креационизм, не понимая, что это относится к христианам-фундаменталистам, которые: о происхождении Вселенной и жизни на Земле, и (б) полагают, что Бытие несовместимо с теорией Большого взрыва и теорией эволюции. Таким образом, обычно считается, что креационисты – христиане, которые верят, что описание сотворения Вселенной, представленное в Книге Бытия, буквально истинно в своих основных утверждениях об Адаме и Еве, шести днях творения, а не в аллегории.

Креационная наука – это термин, используемый некоторыми креационистами, чтобы указать, что они верят, что Книга Бытия – это научное объяснение происхождения Вселенной. Чтение Библии как научного текста противоречит теории Большого взрыва и теории эволюции. «Ученые-креационисты» говорят, что эти теории ложны и что ученые, которые отстаивают такие теории, не знают правды о происхождении Вселенной и жизни на Земле.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Religious Metaphysical Theory of the Origin of the Universe
Just from $13,9/Page
Get custom paper

Одним из главных лидеров креационной науки является Дуэйн Т. Гиш из Института креационных исследований, который излагает свои взгляды в сочетании с нападками на эволюцию. Гиш является автором книг «Эволюция, вызов летописи окаменелостей» (Сан-Диего, Калифорния: издательство Creation-Life, 1985) и «Эволюция, окаменелости: нет» (Сан-Диего, Калифорния: издательство Creation-Life, 1978). Другой лидер этого движения – Уолт Браун из Центра научного креационизма. Ни Гиш, ни Браун, похоже, не понимают разницы между фактом и теорией. Они громко заявляют, что эволюция – это всего лишь теория и что она ложна. Научные теории не верны и не ложны. Это объяснения фактов. 99,99% научного сообщества считают, что этот вид произошел от других видов как научный факт.

Darwin’s theory of how evolution happened is called natural selection. That theory is quite distinct from the fact of evolution. Other scientists have different theories of evolution, but only a negligible few deny the fact of evolution. Gish is not doing science when he argues against the fact of evolution. He has no interest in scientific facts or theories. His interest is in apologetics: defending the faith against what he sees as attacks on God’s Truth.

All his arguments are defensive; they are attempts to show that the evidence does not support the scientific fact of evolution.

Creationists, mistaking the uncertain in science for the unscientific, see the debate among evolutionists regarding how best to explain evolution as a sign of weakness. Scientists, on the other hand, see uncertainty as simply an inevitable element of scientific knowledge. They regard debates on fundamental theoretical issues as healthy and stimulating. Science, says evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, is “most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information may be explained in surprisingly new ways.

” Thus, through all the debate over evolutionary mechanisms biologists have not been led to doubt that evolution has occurred. “We are debating how it happened,” says Gould (1983, p.256).

Creation science, on the other hand, is not science but pseudoscience and it is connected to a particular group of fundamentalist Christians. Most Christians, fundamentalist or not, probably never heard of creation science. Like creationists of all sorts, “creation science” puts forth its claims as absolutely certain and unchangeable. It assumes that the world must conform to the Bible. It assumes that the Bible needs no revision and can contain no error. Where creation science differs from creationism in general is in its notion that once it has interpreted the Bible to mean something, no evidence can be allowed to change that interpretation. Instead, the evidence must be refuted.

Compare this attitude to that of the leading European creationists of the 17th century who had to admit eventually that the Earth is not the center of the universe and that the sun does not revolve around our planet. They did not have to admit that the Bible was wrong, but they did have to admit that human interpretations of the Bible were in error. Today’s creationists seem incapable of admitting that their interpretation of the Bible could be wrong.

Creation scientists can’t be seen as real scientists because they assume that their interpretation of the Bible cannot be in error. They put forth their views as irrefutable. Hence, when the evidence contradicts their reading of the Bible, they assume that the evidence is false. The only investigation they seem to do is in an effort to prove some scientific claim is false. Creation science sees no need to test its theories, since they have been revealed by God. A theory that is absolutely certain cannot be empirically tested, but empirical testability is the hallmark of a scientific theory. Claims of infallibility and the demand for absolute certainty characterize not science but pseudoscience.

What is most revealing about the militant creationists lack of any true scientific interest is the way they willing and uncritically accept even the most preposterous of claims, if those claims seem to contradict traditional scientific beliefs about evolution. In particular, any evidence that seems to support the notion that dinosaurs and humans lived together is welcomed by militant creationists.

The theory of scientific creationism is a good example of a non-scientific theory because it cannot be falsified. “I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know,” writes Gould, “but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science” (Gould, 1983). What makes scientific creationism a pseudoscience is that it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing. Creation science will remain forever unchanged as a theory. It will engender no debate among scientists about fundamental mechanisms of the universe. It generates no empirical predictions that can be used to test the theory. It is taken to be irrefutable. It assumes a priority that there can be no evidence that will ever falsify it.

The history of science, however, clearly shows that scientific theories do not remain forever unchanged. The history of science is not the history of one absolute truth being built upon other absolute truths. Rather, it is the history of theorizing, testing, arguing, refining, rejecting, replacing, more theorizing, more testing, etc. It is the history of theories working well for a time, anomalies occurring (i.e., new facts being discovered that don’t fit with established theories), and new theories being proposed and eventually partially or completely replacing the old ones.

Of course, it is possible for scientists to act unscientifically, to be dogmatic and dishonest. But the fact that one finds an occasional oddball in the history of science (or a person of integrity 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 will be found out, errors will be corrected and the honest pursuit 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 method needed for detecting errors (since it can’t err) much

Некоторые теории, такие как креационизм, невозможно опровергнуть даже в принципе, потому что с ними согласуется все, даже очевидные противоречия и противоречия. Научные теории позволяют делать на их основе определенные прогнозы; в принципе их можно опровергнуть. Такие теории, как теория Большого взрыва и теория устойчивого состояния, могут быть проверены опытом и наблюдениями. Метафизические теории, такие как креационизм, «герметичны», если они самосогласованы. В них нет противоречивых элементов. Никакая научная теория никогда не бывает герметичной.

 

Cite this Religious Metaphysical Theory of the Origin of the Universe

Religious Metaphysical Theory of the Origin of the Universe. (2018, Jun 10). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/creation-science-essay/

Show less
  • Use multiple resourses when assembling your essay
  • Get help form professional writers when not sure you can do it yourself
  • Use Plagiarism Checker to double check your essay
  • Do not copy and paste free to download essays
Get plagiarism free essay

Search for essay samples now

Haven't found the Essay You Want?

Get my paper now

For Only $13.90/page