Procrastination No More
Mar. 28th, 2007 09:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
perzephone
Yay me, I wrote my freakin' term paper & submitted it! Gods, would I love a beer!
Cut for your protection:
Creationism and the Theory of Evolution
A research paper by Janelle Feldes
March 28, 2007
In spite of the prevailing thought of today that science and western Judeo-Christian religion will never reconcile with one another, science and most modern religions hold similar philosophies and goals. Both science and religion seek to explain the world and answer the greatest questions of the human condition: why is humanity here, who or what placed us here, why are the conditions of the planet Earth and its solar system so uniquely adapted to support such a wide variety of life, including humans? The scientific theories of evolution and natural selection are essential to biologists and other scientific fields because those scientists seek to explain these great mysteries through millions of years of geologic and biological clues and evidence. The theories of intelligent design and creationism are central to most western Judeo-Christian religions because of the major holy works, the Christian and Catholic Bible and the Muslim Koran, that are believed not to be mere fiction and parable, but the words of the very deity in which these religions believe.
Within the theory of evolution is contained the idea that all life on earth descended from single-celled organisms, and as life developed, it changed into new forms through adaptation and mutation. Natural selection is the concept that the strongest, most able to adapt creatures are the most likely to breed and pass on their genetic code, and it is essential to evolution because it assists in explaining why some life forms become extinct while other life forms proliferate the earth today.
While as improvable as the theories of creationism and intelligent design, there is far more physical evidence to support the theories of evolution and natural selection than there is to support religious concepts. Biologists and other scientists can examine and observe modern species today, compare them to other similar species, and in turn compare those species with fossils and even well preserved ice age remains. By careful examination of physical and behavioral traits, connections are made that lead scientists to understand where in time a common ancestor arose. Homologous¬¬1 characteristics, such as limb placement and number of limbs, mode of locomotion, manner in which a creature bears offspring and even, to an extent, general physical appearance show what organism that common ancestor might be. The analogous1 differences between species are also important in that they help those same scientists determine how closely species are related, or if they can be considered to be related at all. Convergent evolution offers plausible explanations as to why organisms with vastly different ancestors have the same characteristics, such as bats and birds having the power of flight, even though one is a mammal and one is not. Divergent evolution does the same in cases where creatures with the same common ancestor, such as monkeys, apes and humans, end up leading vastly different lifestyles.
Biologists do have numerous other tools at their disposal to support the theory of evolution. The main one is simple proof of the passage of time. When fossils and ancient human artifacts are discovered, two common methods of determining age are used, carbon-14 dating and radiometric dating. Carbon-14 dating2 is used mostly on more modern artifacts and remains, those dating back to about 50,000 years ago. Carbon-14 is radioactive, although not detrimental to life, and has a standard half-life of about 5700 years. It decays at a steady rate and is constantly replaced in living organisms through various chemical and photochemical reactions. All living organisms on earth have approximately the same percentage of carbon-14 in their bodies, but once the organism dies, the carbon-14 begins to decay and is no longer replaced. Another carbon, carbon-12, does not decay so by examining the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in organic materials, including cloth and other textiles, and comparing that to the ratios in a living creature, age can be determined with great accuracy. Radiometric dating3 uses the same principles of determining the presence of radioactive elements in a given fossil, artifact or even geological structure, but uses radioactive elements with longer half-lives that offer accuracy up to billions of years (this method of dating artifacts may lose relevancy for future scientists examining items created post-World War II due to the use of radioactive bombs). Stratigraphy4 is another time-based proof for evolution in which layers of sedimentary rock are studied to determine when and how they were deposited. Once a time line of deposition is determined, any fossil remains can be assigned to that period. Molecular structures, controversial biological ‘clocks’5, can also indicate times when divergent evolution occurred. The hypothesis of molecular clocks is that DNA mutations occur at a regular rate as long as the DNA maintains its original purpose (neutral mutations). Using backwards engineering, two divergent species that have the same mutation can then be traced time wise to a common ancestor. Molecular clocks are somewhat controversial because there is no solid evidence that all mutations occur at the same rate, and in the case of mitochondrial DNA (DNA passed from a mother organism to its offspring), mutations may occur far more rapidly. Mitochondrial DNA was once considered the perfect molecular clock for two reasons, one being that in asexual reproduction, it is a cloned piece of DNA and there would be no confusion from DNA inherited from the father of an organism created through sexual reproduction. The other reason was that it was once believed to only be subject to neutral mutations, but this has been proving not to be the case.
Creationism is a primary feature of almost all religion. Every religion seeks to know how life, the universe and everything around us began. Usually, creation myths involve a deity or some neutral intelligence that gets lonely or bored and begins creating astronomical structures, a life-supporting planet, and the life upon that planet. Concerning fundamental western Christianity, creationism is especially important because of the major Christian text, the Bible. Most fundamental Christian sects interpret the text of the Bible literally – that is, the words written come from their major deity himself as transcribed by various sages over the past few thousand years, and are one-hundred-percent factual in nature. Because of the missionary and evangelical nature of fundamental western Christianity and Catholicism, it is important to members of the religion to, not only; spread the ‘word and works of God and his son on earth, Jesus Christ’, but also to convert non-Christians and non-Catholics into the religions. By evangelism and conversion, most Christians and Catholics are thereby assured a place in heaven, their biblical afterlife. This nature is also reflected to some extent in Muslim societies, but only a few Muslim sects are as fanatical in their mission to convert others to their belief system.
Some supporters of creationism speak of the first book of the Bible, Genesis (which contains the biblical creation myth), as an allegory, stating that God spent millions of years over the course of each ‘day’. The chosen advocate for creationism in the famous Scopes vs. the State of Tennessee (more easily recognized as the Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’) court case, William Jennings Bryan, was one of the first to publicly speak of Genesis as this allegorical story and was later criticized and ostracized by other fundamental Christians for his non-literal interpretation7. William Jennings Bryan’s decision to defend the Bible and creationism was based out of his abhorrence for the popular connections at the time of evolution being a justification for eugenics and segregation.
Intelligent design originated in the theories of creationism, but its most well-known supporter was William Paley. He summed up intelligent design with what is known as the ‘watch-maker analogy’: if a person is walking through a field and finds a pocket watch, the finder does not automatically assume that the watch magically appeared in the field, but that it was dropped by someone, and furthermore, the person who lost the watch did not originally obtain it from thin air, but someone made the watch from pieces and parts8. In other words, it was intelligently designed by a human. Likewise, the universe, with its convenience for life supporting systems, should not be considered a random act of chaos, but an intelligent design – preferably that of the western Judeo-Christian deity known as God.
Most humans have a basic fear of the unknown. Anything that happens around them that is not immediately recognizable and knowable can be considered a threat. Some humans, for whatever reason, become stuck on a misleading or misguided theory, and since it becomes familiar, anything else presented to them as an explanation is then considered a threat to what they know or understand to be true. Many people, including scientists and logical, rational people, can be close-minded and fearful. Any threat to the basic concepts of creationism is seen as a threat to the guarantee of an afterlife in paradise, as well as a threat to what for some is a moral and ethical framework on which to base a life or raise a family. Someone who believes firmly in the theories of evolution is not going to readily accept the idea that a deity, invisible and unknowable, created the vastness of space, the wonders of earth, and life itself in only seven days, and that non-believer is going to be seen as another threat to the security a religion offers someone else.
Because of this fear, modern proponents of both creationism and intelligent design seem to suffer a major flaw when preparing arguments against evolution. Biologists, geologists, paleontologists and other scientists maintain a level of detachment from their subjects. They effectively remove their emotions from the subjects they present to the public, and can back up their hypotheses and theories with hard, solid evidence. Evolution becomes very appealing to those who are analytical, scientific and have some degree of logical thinking. Creationists and ID supporters’ arguments border on the hysterical. Packed with emotional pleas to support the teaching of their theories in public schools, they use no rational arguments and seem to focus on spreading misinformation instead of utilizing the scientific method.
Sir Isaac Newton could not see gravity, but he could see its effects on the world around him. In a way, he could be said to have faith in the hypothesis he presented to the world – that the earth holds everything onto its surface by the force of its rotations on its axle. Ancient humans did not know which plants or animals were safe to eat, but they could experiment and study the results. They also had faith that if they ate something while suffering an ailment and it made them well again; the results could be repeated on someone suffering the same ailment. Religion is, in its very essence, something felt rather than seen. Individual spirituality is not based in logic, but in emotion, and that upwelling of emotion is supported by the interpretation of phenomena that surrounds the believer. Both the lack of emotions in scientific writing and speech and the overemotional response of major religions to the implied threats of evolution can be daunting to someone just learning about how the earth and life on the earth was created. The extremes do little to meet at a common ground that shares both the hard evidence of evolution and the spiritual wonder of the existence of life itself.
____________________________________________________________________
Resources: (I kind of had to wing it w/the resources because, well, I knew most of the basics... my resources are reverse engineered - I wrote the paper & inserted relevant resources. I use my history book - Eric Foner's Give Me Liberty! for all kinds o' papers. It was truly a good read.)
1) General information on homologous, analogous, convergent and divergent evolution: article from Understanding Evolution, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php, a collaborative effort by the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_09 © 2007 by The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California.
2) Carbon-14 dating: article from www.howstuffworks.com, How Carbon-14 Dating Works by Marshall Brain, http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm. © 1998-2007 HowStuffWorks, Inc.
3) Radiometric dating: article, Georgia Perimeter College, www.gpc.edu. Radiometric Dating, http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm, Document created by: Pamela J. W. Gore, Georgia Perimeter College, Clarkston, GA. Document created February 4, 1996, last modified February 3, 1999
4) Sequence stratigraphy: article, USC Sequence Stratigraphy Web, http://strata.geol.sc.edu/index.html. Introduction to Sequence Stratigraphy, http://strata.geol.sc.edu/seqstrat.html. Copyright © 2005 University of South Carolina - Geology Department All Rights Reserved Last Revised: April 6, 2006
5) Molecular clocks: article, “Welcome to M.Tevfik Dorak's Website” http://www.dorak.info, M.Tevfik Dorak, B.A. (Hons), M.D., Ph.D. Molecular Clock, http://dorakmt.tripod.com/evolution/clock.html, © M.Tevfik Dorak, MD, PhD Last updated January 9, 2007
6) Mitochondrial DNA as molecular clock: article, “The Revolution Against Evolution”, www.rae.org, Upsetting Pet Theories: Surprising New Evidence that Molecular Clocks Can Run Very Fast by John Woodmorappe, last updated 6/5/1999
7) The Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’: Foner, Eric: Give Me Liberty!: An American History, vol. 2. Publisher: W. W. Norton, © 2005
8) William Paley & the watch-maker analogy: paraphrased from article, Natural History Magazine, www.naturalhistorymag.com. Republication of Special Report: Intelligent Design? http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html, prepared by senior editors Richard Milner and Vittorio Maestro. Copyright © Natural History Magazine, Inc., 2002
In other news, my feet are freezing.
Cut for your protection:
Creationism and the Theory of Evolution
A research paper by Janelle Feldes
March 28, 2007
In spite of the prevailing thought of today that science and western Judeo-Christian religion will never reconcile with one another, science and most modern religions hold similar philosophies and goals. Both science and religion seek to explain the world and answer the greatest questions of the human condition: why is humanity here, who or what placed us here, why are the conditions of the planet Earth and its solar system so uniquely adapted to support such a wide variety of life, including humans? The scientific theories of evolution and natural selection are essential to biologists and other scientific fields because those scientists seek to explain these great mysteries through millions of years of geologic and biological clues and evidence. The theories of intelligent design and creationism are central to most western Judeo-Christian religions because of the major holy works, the Christian and Catholic Bible and the Muslim Koran, that are believed not to be mere fiction and parable, but the words of the very deity in which these religions believe.
Within the theory of evolution is contained the idea that all life on earth descended from single-celled organisms, and as life developed, it changed into new forms through adaptation and mutation. Natural selection is the concept that the strongest, most able to adapt creatures are the most likely to breed and pass on their genetic code, and it is essential to evolution because it assists in explaining why some life forms become extinct while other life forms proliferate the earth today.
While as improvable as the theories of creationism and intelligent design, there is far more physical evidence to support the theories of evolution and natural selection than there is to support religious concepts. Biologists and other scientists can examine and observe modern species today, compare them to other similar species, and in turn compare those species with fossils and even well preserved ice age remains. By careful examination of physical and behavioral traits, connections are made that lead scientists to understand where in time a common ancestor arose. Homologous¬¬1 characteristics, such as limb placement and number of limbs, mode of locomotion, manner in which a creature bears offspring and even, to an extent, general physical appearance show what organism that common ancestor might be. The analogous1 differences between species are also important in that they help those same scientists determine how closely species are related, or if they can be considered to be related at all. Convergent evolution offers plausible explanations as to why organisms with vastly different ancestors have the same characteristics, such as bats and birds having the power of flight, even though one is a mammal and one is not. Divergent evolution does the same in cases where creatures with the same common ancestor, such as monkeys, apes and humans, end up leading vastly different lifestyles.
Biologists do have numerous other tools at their disposal to support the theory of evolution. The main one is simple proof of the passage of time. When fossils and ancient human artifacts are discovered, two common methods of determining age are used, carbon-14 dating and radiometric dating. Carbon-14 dating2 is used mostly on more modern artifacts and remains, those dating back to about 50,000 years ago. Carbon-14 is radioactive, although not detrimental to life, and has a standard half-life of about 5700 years. It decays at a steady rate and is constantly replaced in living organisms through various chemical and photochemical reactions. All living organisms on earth have approximately the same percentage of carbon-14 in their bodies, but once the organism dies, the carbon-14 begins to decay and is no longer replaced. Another carbon, carbon-12, does not decay so by examining the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in organic materials, including cloth and other textiles, and comparing that to the ratios in a living creature, age can be determined with great accuracy. Radiometric dating3 uses the same principles of determining the presence of radioactive elements in a given fossil, artifact or even geological structure, but uses radioactive elements with longer half-lives that offer accuracy up to billions of years (this method of dating artifacts may lose relevancy for future scientists examining items created post-World War II due to the use of radioactive bombs). Stratigraphy4 is another time-based proof for evolution in which layers of sedimentary rock are studied to determine when and how they were deposited. Once a time line of deposition is determined, any fossil remains can be assigned to that period. Molecular structures, controversial biological ‘clocks’5, can also indicate times when divergent evolution occurred. The hypothesis of molecular clocks is that DNA mutations occur at a regular rate as long as the DNA maintains its original purpose (neutral mutations). Using backwards engineering, two divergent species that have the same mutation can then be traced time wise to a common ancestor. Molecular clocks are somewhat controversial because there is no solid evidence that all mutations occur at the same rate, and in the case of mitochondrial DNA (DNA passed from a mother organism to its offspring), mutations may occur far more rapidly. Mitochondrial DNA was once considered the perfect molecular clock for two reasons, one being that in asexual reproduction, it is a cloned piece of DNA and there would be no confusion from DNA inherited from the father of an organism created through sexual reproduction. The other reason was that it was once believed to only be subject to neutral mutations, but this has been proving not to be the case.
Creationism is a primary feature of almost all religion. Every religion seeks to know how life, the universe and everything around us began. Usually, creation myths involve a deity or some neutral intelligence that gets lonely or bored and begins creating astronomical structures, a life-supporting planet, and the life upon that planet. Concerning fundamental western Christianity, creationism is especially important because of the major Christian text, the Bible. Most fundamental Christian sects interpret the text of the Bible literally – that is, the words written come from their major deity himself as transcribed by various sages over the past few thousand years, and are one-hundred-percent factual in nature. Because of the missionary and evangelical nature of fundamental western Christianity and Catholicism, it is important to members of the religion to, not only; spread the ‘word and works of God and his son on earth, Jesus Christ’, but also to convert non-Christians and non-Catholics into the religions. By evangelism and conversion, most Christians and Catholics are thereby assured a place in heaven, their biblical afterlife. This nature is also reflected to some extent in Muslim societies, but only a few Muslim sects are as fanatical in their mission to convert others to their belief system.
Some supporters of creationism speak of the first book of the Bible, Genesis (which contains the biblical creation myth), as an allegory, stating that God spent millions of years over the course of each ‘day’. The chosen advocate for creationism in the famous Scopes vs. the State of Tennessee (more easily recognized as the Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’) court case, William Jennings Bryan, was one of the first to publicly speak of Genesis as this allegorical story and was later criticized and ostracized by other fundamental Christians for his non-literal interpretation7. William Jennings Bryan’s decision to defend the Bible and creationism was based out of his abhorrence for the popular connections at the time of evolution being a justification for eugenics and segregation.
Intelligent design originated in the theories of creationism, but its most well-known supporter was William Paley. He summed up intelligent design with what is known as the ‘watch-maker analogy’: if a person is walking through a field and finds a pocket watch, the finder does not automatically assume that the watch magically appeared in the field, but that it was dropped by someone, and furthermore, the person who lost the watch did not originally obtain it from thin air, but someone made the watch from pieces and parts8. In other words, it was intelligently designed by a human. Likewise, the universe, with its convenience for life supporting systems, should not be considered a random act of chaos, but an intelligent design – preferably that of the western Judeo-Christian deity known as God.
Most humans have a basic fear of the unknown. Anything that happens around them that is not immediately recognizable and knowable can be considered a threat. Some humans, for whatever reason, become stuck on a misleading or misguided theory, and since it becomes familiar, anything else presented to them as an explanation is then considered a threat to what they know or understand to be true. Many people, including scientists and logical, rational people, can be close-minded and fearful. Any threat to the basic concepts of creationism is seen as a threat to the guarantee of an afterlife in paradise, as well as a threat to what for some is a moral and ethical framework on which to base a life or raise a family. Someone who believes firmly in the theories of evolution is not going to readily accept the idea that a deity, invisible and unknowable, created the vastness of space, the wonders of earth, and life itself in only seven days, and that non-believer is going to be seen as another threat to the security a religion offers someone else.
Because of this fear, modern proponents of both creationism and intelligent design seem to suffer a major flaw when preparing arguments against evolution. Biologists, geologists, paleontologists and other scientists maintain a level of detachment from their subjects. They effectively remove their emotions from the subjects they present to the public, and can back up their hypotheses and theories with hard, solid evidence. Evolution becomes very appealing to those who are analytical, scientific and have some degree of logical thinking. Creationists and ID supporters’ arguments border on the hysterical. Packed with emotional pleas to support the teaching of their theories in public schools, they use no rational arguments and seem to focus on spreading misinformation instead of utilizing the scientific method.
Sir Isaac Newton could not see gravity, but he could see its effects on the world around him. In a way, he could be said to have faith in the hypothesis he presented to the world – that the earth holds everything onto its surface by the force of its rotations on its axle. Ancient humans did not know which plants or animals were safe to eat, but they could experiment and study the results. They also had faith that if they ate something while suffering an ailment and it made them well again; the results could be repeated on someone suffering the same ailment. Religion is, in its very essence, something felt rather than seen. Individual spirituality is not based in logic, but in emotion, and that upwelling of emotion is supported by the interpretation of phenomena that surrounds the believer. Both the lack of emotions in scientific writing and speech and the overemotional response of major religions to the implied threats of evolution can be daunting to someone just learning about how the earth and life on the earth was created. The extremes do little to meet at a common ground that shares both the hard evidence of evolution and the spiritual wonder of the existence of life itself.
____________________________________________________________________
Resources: (I kind of had to wing it w/the resources because, well, I knew most of the basics... my resources are reverse engineered - I wrote the paper & inserted relevant resources. I use my history book - Eric Foner's Give Me Liberty! for all kinds o' papers. It was truly a good read.)
1) General information on homologous, analogous, convergent and divergent evolution: article from Understanding Evolution, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php, a collaborative effort by the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_09 © 2007 by The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California.
2) Carbon-14 dating: article from www.howstuffworks.com, How Carbon-14 Dating Works by Marshall Brain, http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm. © 1998-2007 HowStuffWorks, Inc.
3) Radiometric dating: article, Georgia Perimeter College, www.gpc.edu. Radiometric Dating, http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm, Document created by: Pamela J. W. Gore, Georgia Perimeter College, Clarkston, GA. Document created February 4, 1996, last modified February 3, 1999
4) Sequence stratigraphy: article, USC Sequence Stratigraphy Web, http://strata.geol.sc.edu/index.html. Introduction to Sequence Stratigraphy, http://strata.geol.sc.edu/seqstrat.html. Copyright © 2005 University of South Carolina - Geology Department All Rights Reserved Last Revised: April 6, 2006
5) Molecular clocks: article, “Welcome to M.Tevfik Dorak's Website” http://www.dorak.info, M.Tevfik Dorak, B.A. (Hons), M.D., Ph.D. Molecular Clock, http://dorakmt.tripod.com/evolution/clock.html, © M.Tevfik Dorak, MD, PhD Last updated January 9, 2007
6) Mitochondrial DNA as molecular clock: article, “The Revolution Against Evolution”, www.rae.org, Upsetting Pet Theories: Surprising New Evidence that Molecular Clocks Can Run Very Fast by John Woodmorappe, last updated 6/5/1999
7) The Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’: Foner, Eric: Give Me Liberty!: An American History, vol. 2. Publisher: W. W. Norton, © 2005
8) William Paley & the watch-maker analogy: paraphrased from article, Natural History Magazine, www.naturalhistorymag.com. Republication of Special Report: Intelligent Design? http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html, prepared by senior editors Richard Milner and Vittorio Maestro. Copyright © Natural History Magazine, Inc., 2002
In other news, my feet are freezing.
