The argument between creation and evolution has been mostly taken from a very technical scientific point of view. Not usually form a moral, philosophical stand point. Science states what can be observed and seen. It cannot tell how the earth was formed or why it was formed. In order to make these arguments make sense, one needs to understand the effect of morality in each of the two arguments. No one alive today can prove that either evolution is the right kind of science or that creation is the right one, by the sheer facts that science provides. The theory of evolution derives from the idea that all lifeforms started from a single ameba then reproduced over millions of years branching off into different lifeforms of different species. It says that there is no intelligent designer, but everything came to be just by chance and that very same chance created what is viewed today. On the other hand, the theory of creation comes from an idea from an intelligent being that designed this world to function a certain way. It states that some intelligent being created everything we see and feel, now
…show more content…
C.S. Lewis said it best when he said, “The moral law tells us the tune we have to play: instincts are just the keys.”(10) He continues on this topic in his book Mere Christianity, where he goes on to strengthen the moral argument by saying, “It two instincts are in conflict and there is nothing in the creature’s mind except those two instincts, then obviously the stronger of the two must win.” (10) Then he gives an analogy of some one having a choice to save themselves or save risk their own life and save another person. Right after that he says something very intriguing, he says, “The thing that says to you, ‘Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,’ cannot itself be the herd instinct.” (10) He strongly implies that there is an outside “force” pushing in on the decision to save oneself or risk it and save another
C.S. Lewis said it best when he said, “The moral law tells us the tune we have to play: instincts are just the keys.”(10) He continues on this topic in his book Mere Christianity, where he goes on to strengthen the moral argument by saying, “It two instincts are in conflict and there is nothing in the creature’s mind except those two instincts, then obviously the stronger of the two must win.” (10) Then he gives an analogy of some one having a choice to save themselves or save risk their own life and save another person. Right after that he says something very intriguing, he says, “The thing that says to you, ‘Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,’ cannot itself be the herd instinct.” (10) He strongly implies that there is an outside “force” pushing in on the decision to save oneself or risk it and save another