Creation Science Versus Evolution Science
One of the most debated subjects in our society is the issue of evolution science verses creationism. The debate of Ruse versus Laudan gives an overview of the major issues between the two topics. While Ruse and Laudan both argue against Act 590, which, states that a balanced treatment of creationism and evolution science should be taught in the public school system, they drastically vary in viewpoints.
The aim of creation science is to provide an explanation for the Book of Genesis and to disprove some scientific theories such as evolution. Multiple claims concerning life and the creation of the world have been postulated as well. These claims include the sudden creation of the universe, energy, and …show more content…
The first of the five criteria’s is that science has to appeal to the natural laws and regularities. However, the according to creationism, the world was created out by ways that are outside the normal laws of nature. Secondly, it has to allow for explanation and predictions about the world around us. Ruse argues that creation science fails to make connections with the natural laws and the origins and development of life. Thirdly, a scientific theory has to meet the demands of testability, confirmation and falsification. Ruse claims that creation scientists do not try to disprove creationism theories, rather they attempt to disprove evolution science in order to benefit their own views. Fourthly, a scientific theory must be tentative. Essentially, creation scientists must be open to the possibility of their theories being proved incorrect if conflicting evidence were presented. And lastly, creation scientists must uphold scientific theories with integrity. Ruse believes that creation scientists do not treat evolution science fairly by not upholding it to the same standard they do with …show more content…
An example of this would be Chargaff’s Rules which, states that DNA from any cell of an organism should have a 1:1 ratio of pyrimidine and purine bases. When this claim was first made in 1950, it was not proven until many years later. Ruse counter-argued this statement by claiming that scientific explanations appeal to laws. “We are not, however, contending that a departure from the antecedent course of physical events cannot be traces in the introduction of man.” Therefore, creation science explanations are either non-lawful scientific explanations or non-scientific explanations. In addition, while in the past non-science played a part in the explanations of science, in modern times this is extremely
One of the most debated subjects in our society is the issue of evolution science verses creationism. The debate of Ruse versus Laudan gives an overview of the major issues between the two topics. While Ruse and Laudan both argue against Act 590, which, states that a balanced treatment of creationism and evolution science should be taught in the public school system, they drastically vary in viewpoints.
The aim of creation science is to provide an explanation for the Book of Genesis and to disprove some scientific theories such as evolution. Multiple claims concerning life and the creation of the world have been postulated as well. These claims include the sudden creation of the universe, energy, and …show more content…
The first of the five criteria’s is that science has to appeal to the natural laws and regularities. However, the according to creationism, the world was created out by ways that are outside the normal laws of nature. Secondly, it has to allow for explanation and predictions about the world around us. Ruse argues that creation science fails to make connections with the natural laws and the origins and development of life. Thirdly, a scientific theory has to meet the demands of testability, confirmation and falsification. Ruse claims that creation scientists do not try to disprove creationism theories, rather they attempt to disprove evolution science in order to benefit their own views. Fourthly, a scientific theory must be tentative. Essentially, creation scientists must be open to the possibility of their theories being proved incorrect if conflicting evidence were presented. And lastly, creation scientists must uphold scientific theories with integrity. Ruse believes that creation scientists do not treat evolution science fairly by not upholding it to the same standard they do with …show more content…
An example of this would be Chargaff’s Rules which, states that DNA from any cell of an organism should have a 1:1 ratio of pyrimidine and purine bases. When this claim was first made in 1950, it was not proven until many years later. Ruse counter-argued this statement by claiming that scientific explanations appeal to laws. “We are not, however, contending that a departure from the antecedent course of physical events cannot be traces in the introduction of man.” Therefore, creation science explanations are either non-lawful scientific explanations or non-scientific explanations. In addition, while in the past non-science played a part in the explanations of science, in modern times this is extremely