Реферат: Religion And Evolution Essay Research Paper Religion
Religion And Evolution Essay, Research Paper
Religion & Evolution
In my short life on this planet I have come to question things that many take upon
blind faith. We all know that we must some day die; yet we continuously deny the
forces at work inside ourselves, which want to search out the answers of what may
or may not come after. It is far easier for humanity to accept that they will go to a
safe haven and be rewarded for their lives with pleasures and fantasies of an
unfathomable scale than to question the existence of a supposed omnipotent being.
Yet, there are a few of us humans who tend to question the why?s and wherefore?s
that society puts forth to us. We question the existence of God, or the creation of
mankind rather than blindly accepting faith-filled beliefs we may received from our
parents as children. Perhaps it is because we live in a nation filled with many
peoples of different beliefs whose Gods are all so varied and different that it is
difficult to fathom that they are all the same divine being. It is also plausible that
we just have a desire to quench the thirst for knowledge that lies deep within
ourselves. As for myself, I cannot believe in a being which created a universe and a
multitude of worlds in a rather short period of time then deigns to lower itself into
becoming a puppet-master and “pulling the strings” of the Earth and all of the
people therein.
Since this paper touches upon many scientific terms, I feel that in order for the
reader to correctly grasp the content I must first define three words: Theory, Law,
and Hypothesis. The definitions will allow for a greater understanding of this essay
and give us an even ground upon which to begin.
Theory; noun
1. a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of
circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of
procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of
a specified set of phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a system.
2. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Law; (l”) noun
12. a. A formulation describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or
among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of
gravity. b. A generalization based on consistent experience or results: the law of
supply and demand; the law of averages.
Hypothesis; noun
1. A tentative explanation that accounts for a set of facts and can be tested by
further investigation; a theory.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an
assumption.
It is important that you thoroughly read the above definitions or you will be at a
disadvantage if you do not. You will note that there are several different definitions
to each word. I felt it was important to include the added definitive statement to
theory because it shows the difference between a scientific theory and an
“everyday” theory based upon conjecture. The additional definitions to law and
hypothesis are both added for a further understanding of these words.
The definition of creationism is somewhat more complex. One must start by saying
that the belief in the creation of the universe given at the beginning of the Bible is
literally true. Creationism is a belief based solely upon faith (which is a belief in and
of itself). There are no scientific facts as a basis for this belief, solely conjectural
theories and speculations. It is ingrained into our minds, as children that a belief of
a force, or supernatural entity, which is all powerful and all knowing, is watching
over us and taking care of our needs. Yet, to me, saying this very sort of thing is
heretical in its very essence. To be so crude as to think that some being which
created the universe itself and all things in it would take the time to care for each
and every individual is incomprehensible. In practically all ancient cultures, the
biblical included, the universe was thought of as an original chaos into which order
had been introduced by a creative hand: This was the essence of creation.1 In this
statement alone we can see one of the major flaws of creationism. While science
can prove without doubt the universe up to the first 20 milliseconds of existence, we
cannot prove anything before that point at this time. The statement above,
regarding creationism, suggests that there was no beginning, only chaos.
Subsequently this “creative hand” structured the order of the universe out of chaos
and applied physical laws to that chaos so it would form itself into motion and order.
Yet, creationism as a whole does not touch base upon what came before the chaos.
While science admits that there was a time in which different laws and order
applied; creationism attempts to deny this existence by saying that there was
always something. For if there was indeed a beginning and there was no God before
this time, where did God come from? We can scientifically prove that there was a
beginning. We cannot yet ascertain what was before this beginning, but we now
know that there was one. To suggest that the universe has always existed is a mere
myth today. Much like the myth that the world was once flat. Today, we take for
granted that the world is indeed round, for have we not seen pictures from the
space shuttle in orbit of the earth. Not to mention the multitude of orbital shots
from satellites. Consequently we would consider it preposterous if someone
attempted to tell us that the world is a flat surface. Yet, upon blind faith, some are
content to believe that a “creative hand” structured this existence. Although the
figures (Gods) differ from mythos to mythos, all the ancient stories intend simply to
give a poetic accounting for cosmic origins.2
In the scientific community there is a well known and accepted theory known as the
“Big Bang Theory”. Most people know of this theory because they were taught it in
school. Yet it usually contradicted what their parents and pastors taught them in
church. As a result, the Big Bang Theory was generally discarded as something that
intellectual minds which cannot exist upon the true faith alone, must accept as
truth. The Big Bang Theory is stated in condensed form as follows. As the universe
expanded, the residual radiation from the big bang would continue to cool, until now
it should be a temperature of about 3 K (about -270? C/-454? F). This relic
radiation was detected by radio astronomy in 1965, thereby providing what most
astronomers consider to be confirmation of the big bang theory.3 In this statement
we have our first of arguments over creationism by evolution. We have the
beginnings of a proof that there was a time or rather, I should say, a point in time
where there was indeed nothing.
Many creationists will argue that the universe is too ordered; the path of the planets
(which meant wanderers, or great wanderers in early Grecian society) is too
ordered, too perfect. I will start by asking you to attempt to define perfect (as it
existed at that time). In the creationalistic point of view, a person might write it off
as the act of God. It was his divine will that moved the planets together in such a
way as to be able to support life. Or you could ask the more worldly scientist who
would explain to you about the Law of Probability, the Theory of Relativity, and
show you lengthy mathematical equations dealing with Quantum and Theoretical
Physics. In the end, you would likely have a headache of immense size, but come
away with perhaps a better understanding of how the order of events, and the laws
which created, ordered and structured the planets to exist as they do. Many
creationism fanatics will also attempt to dissuade the argument of evolution by
saying that the Big Bang is merely a theory. The only reply that the scientific world
can refute this with is the fact that relativity and gravity, are also theories. This
argument by creationists is obviously not in their favor.
The creation of the universe by scientific means is a world-wide theory that many
creationists refute simply because it goes against their beliefs. Yet to understand
evolution to its fullest, we must further investigate life, or rather human life. We ask
questions like: How did we evolve from amoebae? Are you trying to tell me that I
evolved from an ape? If we are evolving in such a manner as described, why can we
not see it daily? Since these are all very good questions, I will touch base upon
them all.
Approximately seven-hundred or eight-hundred million years ago life was first
known on this planet in the form of single-celled organisms called procaryotes, not
amoebae. Over time these unicellular organisms diversified into an array of adaptive
types. Scientists hypothesize that many advanced cells (eucaryotes) may have
evolved through amalgamation of a number of distinct simple cell types.
Single-celled eucaryotes then developed complex modes of living and advanced
types of reproduction that led to the appearance of multicellular plants and animals.
The latter are first known from about seven-hundred million years ago, and their
appearance implies that at least moderate levels of free atmospheric oxygen and a
relatively predictable supply of food plants had been achieved.4 Through a long and
drawn out process life eventually formed into that of mammals and dinosaurs.
However, approximately sixty-five million years ago the dinosaur specie was
completely eradicated (perhaps by way of natural selection), which left only
mammals.
Approximately two million years ago humanity began to show its evolution in the
order of the universe. Humans originally belonged to an order of mammals, the
primates, which existed before the dinosaurs became extinct. This development of
descending from tree habitats to forest floors and eventually to more open country
was associated with the development of many unique features of the human
primate, such as erect posture and reduced canine teeth, which suggests new habits
of feeding. However, while humanity did evolve from a primate ancestor, it did not
evolve directly from an ape-like specie. Humans as well as apes both evolved from
the same primate specie, but each branched in different directions to become apes
in one specie and humans in another specie.
Yet, you ask that if this is the case, and humanity has evolved from primates in
such a short period of time, why can we not see the evolutionary process taking
place today? The answer is a simple one. I know of no human which has lived for
two-million years. Which in and of itself is not a very valid argument for this case,
but nevertheless a substantial point at any rate. However, if we were to be more
objective about the process of human evolution we would see that in the life span of
the earth we are still a relatively young race. Dinosaurs, for example, inhabited this
planet for over one-hundred-thirty-five million years. In relative view of this
information, we can see that humans have only been in existence for approximately
1/60th of the time that dinosaurs existed. With this in mind, we can further grasp
that the process of evolution is a very slow process which requires an almost
incomprehensible scale of time to our limited lifespans.
While I realize that many points, and beliefs were not touched upon in this essay I
did attempt to cover as much ground as possible in as short a space as possible. It
is painfully clear to me that an existence based upon blind faith is no longer an
acceptable tradition. The ideas of creationism are far outweighed by the Laws and
Theories of evolution. While there are understandably a great many men who have
spent a vast amount of time in scribing the Bible, we must realize that they were
indeed men, not Gods and the bible is, actually, only a book. To believe the
contents of that book completely, one must have unwavering faith in the validity of
its concepts and the precepts upon which its religion is based. One of the striking
and perhaps most intriguing points of interest that I have stumbled upon is the lack
of education of creationism in schools. If the point was so very valid and without
skeptical doubt, then why is it not being taught to our children? I understand the
idea of separation between church and state, and the fact that the school is very
much a part of state. Yet it seems to me that if the idea is a basic building block in
today?s society then why not teach this to the young? Why is it that we only teach
evolution if it is so unbelievable? The simple fact of the matter is that we have
evidence and supporting cases in science today which makes the very idea of
creationism redundant to teach, as well as a contradicting view of evolution which
could possibly confuse those of a younger age. There are many religions in the
world upon which the bible are based, and the ones which espouse creationism are
but a few. Being a western culture we tend to forget this.
In summary I believe that evolution is the only plausible of these two theories
which is acceptable to the current state of humanity. In closing I leave you with a
simple, yet disturbing statement that a great man once told me: “it is not what you
believe; it?s what you can prove.”5 Creationism is based upon belief; evolution is
based upon scientific proof.
“Creation,” Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c 1993-1995 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved. c Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Creation,” Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c 1993-1995 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved. c Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Cosmology,” Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c 1993-1995 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved. c Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Evolution,” Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c 1993-1995 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved. c Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. All rights reserved.