Gish's Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics example essay topic

This is possibly the most fundamental question man has struggled with over the centuries. Philosophers have toiled countless hours, volumes have been written, and many a good friendship destroyed in argument about this formidable question. It touches on who we are, on our religion, and even our destiny. As introduction the theory of creationism, some of its major supporters, and some of its stronger points will be discussed. Creationism is the belief (regardless of religion) that all living things originated from a Higher Power in the form they are today. This Higher Power has many names; to some it is Buddha, to some, Thor, Ao, God and many more.

But the belief still remains that It is an all-powerful entity to whom we should give thanks and praise for the privilege of existence. However, not all creationists are created equal. Many are quite humble in their beliefs and will ponder and consider other opinions, but will simply refrain from following evolutionist beliefs despite scientific evidence presented. For them, it is often simply a question of blind faith. Others will try to utilize and manipulate whatever 'science' they can find to 'prove' that creation in fact took place. They would consider that any other opinion on the origination of our current state as sacrilege.

Faith, for many, is just as important as discovering fossils from millions years ago. This is not necessarily wrong, as will be further discussed in the conclusion. A strong supporter of creationism (and a perfect example of extreme faith) is Dr. Duane Gish. Gish, who seems frustrated at constantly having to use faith as his evidence and having to receive perpetual slander from the evolutionists, has become somewhat resentful.

Gish is, in all respects, an educated and rational man. He has written a few books on his beliefs; the book Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics is a good example of his work. Gish is an accomplished scientist who appears to utilize analytical thought. Most reviews of the book agree that Dr. Gish "scored some points" in the book. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) published Duane Gish's Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics. A 451-page book which, "evaluates the major arguments for and against special creation and evolution and defends creation scientists against the distorted, inaccurate, and often vicious attacks of evolutionists".

The book is, in effect, the creationist version of Arthur N. Strahler's 1987 book, Science and Earth History: The Evolution / Creation Controversy. In his book Gish makes a few statements, which tend to decrease his credibility. He practically turns it into a personal vendetta against evolutionists. According to Gish, evolutionists are: "smug", "gripped... firmly by dogma", "arrogant", "vicious", "slanderous", "virulent", and "bitter". Creationists, on the other hand, are "the voices of scientific reason", taking part in a "renaissance", and are promoting "an open, free, and thorough scientific challenge to evolutionary theory".

It is impossible to read more than a few pages of Gish's book without encountering emotion-laden adjectives. If Gish has the opportunity to describe an evolutionist as an "atheist", a "humanist", or a "Marxist", he rarely hesitates to do so. It is ironic, then, that Gish advises evolutionists to avoid "vicious, ad homonym attacks". Gish does not allow for much leeway in terms of being able to see both ends of the spectrum. At one stage in the book Gish states "evolutionists made no attempt to answer my challenge to explain how an ordinary beetle could have evolved into a bombardier beetle by any mode of evolution". This is contradictory to another page in the book, where he responds to only a single article from the thirty issues of the National Center for Science Education's Creation / Evolution journal published before to his book.

In this 1981 article Christopher Gregory Weber clearly attempts to explain the evolution of the bombardier to Gish. Obviously this effort was wasted. Here is a summary of the book. The first chapters set the stage. Following a short historical overview, there is a well-written discussion of terminology and the theme of "scientific integrity". Next follows two topical chapters, one on the fossil record, in which Dr. Gish responds to the arguments of Eldredge, Godfrey, Gould, Kitcher and Futuyma.

The other chapter is on thermodynamics, where the arguments of Huxley, Asimov and Patterson, among others, are rebutted. Three chapters then address specific anti-creationist books; Gish's tongue-in-cheek chapter headings "Kitcher Abuses Science,"Eldredge and His Monkey Business", and "Science Confronts Evolutionists" make them easy to identify! The last chapter, which ought to be an appendix, is a compendium of many of the quotations, which ICR loves to use and which cause so much unhappiness in the ranks of the scientific-naturalist community. Those committed to the "evolution is fact" position will do well to avoid this book.

It will not do nice things to your blood pressure and it will give you uneasy feelings about some rather well known scientists. Those committed to the "evolution is myth" position can also ignore the book. Unless you are willing to read the alternative opinion -- in detail and carefully -- it is simply a sermon you " ve heard before. There were many instances in this book where I was quite annoyed by Gish's narrow-minded approach.

But the book also offers a lot of interesting points on creationism. Its attempt at a scientific approach to the creationist philosophy is at least a refreshing divergence from the usual 'you should just believe in creation' argument. Gish points out and illustrates that there are many flaws in our modern scientific theories, and that much research is still needed. But sometimes creationism appears to be merely filler: When there is a hole in the theory they simply assign it an appropriate story, a fitting miracle and boom!

You have an instant foolproof faith formula. In contrast, science leaves the holes and tries to discover why they are there then fill them with facts that are backed up by solid reproducible evidence. Many creationists often call upon the faults of evolution to support their ideas, they also call upon a person's faith in a Higher Power. Now that Gish has responded to his critics, will the controversy be quelled? This is highly doubtful. Evolution, like creationism, can be called a belief.

Though it is not a belief in a super-natural power. It is based on fact (in what has been proven through the scientific method) and in what has been hypothesized, building on knowledge and the influence of other evolutionists. However, it still remains a belief: a belief that using the scientific method is the correct way to explain our origins. Increasingly, even scientists are questioning whether the scientific method is capable of answering many of the most profound questions. Evolution is an acceptance of many different people's ideas: It is ever changing and developing depending on new knowledge.

No man just said "THIS IS HOW IT WAS, THIS IS HOW IT IS, AND THIS IS HOW IT WILL BE" and everyone followed. This is the main fact distinguishing it from creationism. Even so, many times evolutionists are very biased, and are even less able to adapt or integrate opinions that do not suite their model, than creationists. In an Internet forum dedicated to evolution vs. creation, Barbara Lewis, DVM, MS, recently asked the following question: "I am a neophyte general bio. instructor (using Starr's Basic Concepts in... ) at a small, private Midwestern college, and new to the bio-lab list. I really enjoy it!

It is for the latter reason (along with the nature of my question), that I hesitate in asking. I searched the archives for previous threads and found none, so here goes. How do you handle the concepts or questions concerning creationism and / or scientific creationism when teaching evolution? My Chairman mentioned this issue would eventually come up in class, and suggested my answer should be simply that creationism isn't part of the curriculum of this course, seek answers in a religion or philosophy course. Frankly, as a veterinary pathologist by training, it has been years since I've even thought about the theory of evolution, much less any alternatives; so his suggestion sounds very expedient.

Unfortunately, there is a part of me that considers it somewhat patronizing, so I'm looking for help. Any suggestions, short references? I'm just looking to field students' questions, not become an expert". Thank you, Barbara Lewis, DVM, MS Lake Erie College Painesville, Ohio This woman received an unbelievable amount of replies. About 53 pages, in size 10 font.

This example and its responses illustrates the controversy surrounding this topic. Often responses were emotional, irrational and angry. The following are some of the more interesting responses (take into consideration that these responses are all in favor of evolution). These next few examples (after conclusion) illustrate that this is a highly charged and emotional controversy, often touching on religion and other core beliefs.

It touches on our beliefs in who we are and what our destinies are. It evokes responses that are often polarized and intense, with little room for acceptance of the arguments of the other party. This paper does not set out to explain Darwin, and the essence of evolution, or to analyze the scientific arguments underpinning these theories. Rather, it sets out to illustrate that the more acceptable method of forming an opinion regarding the issue, is the scientific one.

It might be flawed in some ways, but compared to blind faith, it is more rational and more likely to adapt and evolve as new evidence becomes available. Evolutionists evolve. Creationists have to be creative to keep on explaining their beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence! 'When I teach intro biology for non-majors, I try to make 3 points about evolution vs. creationism: 1. We are frequently presented by the media with a choice between "atheistic evolution" and "Biblical creationism". But this is a false choice, as there are many positions in between these extremes that are held by people of good faith.

2. Students have to decide where they fall on the spectrum of beliefs, and how this relates to their personal values. It is not the job of a biology course to indoctrinate them. 3. However, evolution is a cornerstone of biology, and students must be familiar with it to have any idea of how real biology is done". David J. Hicks Biology, Manchester College "I once had a student (in Kentucky) bring me a few books on creation science (unsolicited).

I briefly read through the least inflammatory of them and concluded that many of their arguments are reasonable interpretations of data!! IF!! one can accept the notion that the speed of light and the rate of radioactive decay has decreased over time. Personally, I don't accept the assumption that physical constants change. Their "evidence" for this is that the measured value for the speed of light has decreased slightly in the last century (I would argue that today's measurements are simply more accurate). Thus, the large amount of isotopic decay measured in older biological materials would reflect less age if the rate of decay was higher in the past. I'm looking forward to this discussion (if one arises).

I'm sure there are other arguments, this one just stands out in my mind as a major flaw". Jeffrey D. Newman Department of Biology Lycoming College "On another note, I had a colleague at another school who had a technique for dealing with really hard core creationists. I don't recommend this, but here goes. When confronted by an adamant creationist student, he would state that he had his own theory about the creation of the earth. He stated that the world was created yesterday! When the student protested that he had memories from two days ago or last week, this instructor said no, these were implanted in your brain to test your faith.

He then challenged the student to prove him wrong. The argument is the same, just the time frame is different. Needless to say the student, would protest the ridiculousness of the argument, and possibly recognize the same features in some of the creationist arguments". Guy Faris h Biology Department, Adams State College To quote Mr. P Freeman, Biology CSS: , "When encountered with a creationist I simply say, I am an evolutionist. I agree and support the modern views of evolution. But if you can give me one solid piece of evidence, one indubitable piece of evidence that your religion is true, and can prove it, I will immediately change my belief and support you like that [and he snaps his finger].

Now my question to you is [and a grin spreads across his face] will you do the same for me?".