Ok, first couple of sections incoming...
(Would have posted them separate, but I am the "last poster" so I cannot post again until someone else does. I will fit as much as I can in this post. Feel free to only review parts if you don't feel like reviewing the whole thing.)
Introduction
There is no greater force on Earth than humankind's natural curiosity. It has led us to face the most desolate places on Earth. We have braved the harsh cold of Mt. Everest, just to say we could. We have dug deeper, flown higher, traveled farther, and built bigger and better structures. Why you might ask? Our innate curiosity is the driving force behind much of what we do. The questions we ask, the answers we seek, are all fueled by the insatiable need to know. If you were to perceive the world as one big question, inevitably you would settle on the most important question of all, how did we get here? Why do we as humans need to validate our existence by solving the roots of our beings? This simple question set has led many a curious person into the fringes of the known. It has provided the fuel in which the rockets of curiosity can fly with. Now with a goal to accomplish, curious humans have been proposing answers to the question of, "where do we come from?" Over the course of human history, many ideas have been proposed, ideas that would explain the first step in human history. The two most notable ideals come from opposite ends of the spectrum from each other. One suggests that we were put here by a higher being. The other suggests cataclysmic events unfolded at the dawn of time, and started an evolutionary process in which humans "grew" over millions of years. I speak of the debate between Creation and Evolution. To the common man, choosing a path to follow is one of the more defining moments in his life. The answer a human finds to the simple question of where I come from can shape the rest of their life. Therefore, it is paramount that a human being chooses not the right path, but the path that offers them the most fulfillments. For me, it was an easy choice. I chose to follow the proven path. The path that can be explained using data, examples, theories, experiments, and testing. I chose Evolution. Shortly after I chose to let "science" guide me, I had doubts. What is science? What if I am missing the bigger picture here? Before solely devoting myself to one side, I needed to define science, I had to weigh whether Creation and Evolution, are in fact, sciences at all.
Body
The definition of science, much like the definition of intelligence, is under a lot of debate. Dictionary.com (science) describes science in seven different parts:
1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. Any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. Systematized knowledge in general.
5. Knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. A particular branch of knowledge.
7. Skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Through many definitions I looked through, I found a couple of common words in all of them. The words "natural and physical" appeared in almost all of the definitions I've found. To me this means that science deals with the tangible, the touchable, the provable, and most importantly the process in which physical anomalies are solved. This is only one definition from one source however. If you were to read multiple descriptions, you would find that, one; many of the definitions are biased and written by people trying to prove their point of view. Two, you would find that the context in which science is described, is ever changing, due to the application of scientific processes in much of what we study. To further corroborate the fact that science deals with the physical aspects of life, another definition states that, "Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions," (Railsback, 2008). Think of science as an equation. We try to balance each side of the equation, one side being the theory, and the other side being the evidence or proof. Without proof and evidence, science falls flat on its face.
In my opinion, there are many subsets to science. Meaning it can be broken down into different specializations. A few of these specializations I have devised are Observational science, Experimental science, and Interpretative sciences. Observational science is the act of watching a part or a group of parts, to come to a conclusion about how something works or behaves. Many scientific processes stem from this first method. In order for one to devise a hypothesis, one needs to have observed a process, and formulated a question about those observations. Experimental sciences deal with the physical proving of a hypothesis, or physically disproving it. As the name suggests, this method entails getting down and doing the dirty work. Experimental science, in my opinion, is the most crucial, because that is when concepts are proved true or false. Once we have a definitive answer to a question, we can move on to expanding and applying that concept. The third science I mentioned is Interpretative sciences. To me, this type of science is the act of coming to a conclusion. Either through experimental or observational processes, we invariably find answers to be confusing, or jumbled. It is said in computer programming that data is raw, unprocessed. Information, what we strive to gain, is derived from processing data, and giving the results some meaning. That is what Interpretative sciences are to me. The act of processing the data returned from either an experiment or an observation. Once again, in my personal opinion, a solid scientific project uses all three of these methods. By incorporating these three methods, one can cause what is known as "data redundancy," or having multiple accounts of similar data. One method can be used to validate the data retrieved by using a different method. Think of it as Democracy's checks and balances system. First you observe, and then you prove that observation by experimenting. After experimenting, a scientist must interpret the data yielded by that experiment. If it reinforces or proves the observation, then it is a successful experiment, and the observation can be treated as a fact. This trinity of methods, when used properly and in conjunction with an unbiased mindset, can define a truth or a constant. Take for example mathematics. Mathematics is a great example of the scientific process. Humans do not make the world go round; we merely attempt to make sense of the driving forces that already exist. The basic truths of math cannot be refuted. If I have one orange, and I obtain one more orange, then I now have two oranges; this equation is undeniable. Through observation we see that one orange added to one orange makes two oranges. Through experimentation we can surmise that because one orange and one orange equals two oranges, maybe one apple added to one apple equals two apples. After we have experimented with the apples, we then experiment with coconuts, then with rocks, and so forth until we are satisfied with the consistency of the results. From there we can interpret data we have found, and apply it to other circumstances. If the data further proves the observations, then we can determine that one of a part added to one of the same part, gives us two of that part. We can also surmise that, based on the consistency of the results, this information holds steady as a universal truth. That is what science seeks to accomplish. Through watching, testing, and applying, science seeks to unravel the shroud of mystery covering the truths that already exist.
Now that we have a basic understanding of what science is, we can apply the concept to Evolution and Creation, to see if either of these ideals are science at all. A simple description of evolution, courtesy of An Introduction to Evolution (Berkeley, 2008), suggests it is "decent with modification." This means that with each progressive generation of a being, genetic changes take place to help that being adapt to the environment around them. First proposed by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species in 1844, evolution was a bold new way to look at the progressive history of the Earth and its inhabitants (AMNH, 2008). This theory gave way to thousands of spin-off theories and experiments, and would start the largest and longest running debate in history. So how do the theories and observations of a sea-faring man come to be one of the most plausible explanations for the history life? The ideals put forth by Darwin sparked a scientific revolution that still burns in the hearts of most people today. Throughout the years countless numbers of people have put his evolutionary theory to the test, both religious minded and science minded people. There seems to be an intense need to prove it true, or an arguably stronger desire to prove it false. After many years, evolution has been popularly classified as a science, and some have gone as far as to say that evolution is the most important science. I personally don't agree with that statement, but I digress. This presents a unique problem however. Can the authorities that propose evolutionary science, prove this claim with evidence and the scientific process? This question in itself presents a whole new problem to be solved. How can an observation of what happens over the course of thousands of years be proved with tangible evidence? By using modern technologies and the scientific process, we can now prove predictions made by Darwin, which further solidifies the integrity of his theory.
There are many ways in which we seek to prove evolution. Interested parties have used methods that span from following the genetic progression of flora and fauna, to comparing and contrasting rock beds to determine their age and time period (Lindsay, 2005). The results from each experiment done are irrelevant in the context of this writing, however it should be noted that the results must be conducive and replicable to the observations. This is to ensure that the scientific trinity is fulfilled. Because evolution is such a controversial topic, the results produced are required to be provable. Each experiment and test done must have data that can be corroborated, dissected, replicated, and well documented. If a concept is claimed to be an answer, or a definitive truth, you can be sure that there will be someone out there that will claim it is fraudulent. As I mentioned before this is because evolution is such a radical idea, much like Copernicus and his heliocentric theory of a sun-centered solar system. Evolutionary theory, in its most basic form, is faith in the known. Faith in evolution is derived from evidence, and evidence is derived from the scientific process. This leads me to my final conclusion on the question of, "is evolution science?" Ironically, my personal opinion, given the evaluation above, is that evolution in itself is not science. It uses science to prove its existence. Evolution is a belief system that borrows testing methods from scientific practices. I suppose you could say Evolution is the exact same concept that Creation follows. However, the defining difference between the two is the means in which each side is accepted.
On the other end of the spectrum we have Creation. Creation is, as defined by Ken Ham in The Relevance of Creation (Ham, 1983), "...a belief system about the past which describes the way in which the evidence in the present came to be." The belief system that creation is based on is one of a belief in God and His Word, The Bible. In Genesis, the first chapter of The Bible, the author defines that the Heavens and the Earth were created on the first day. The subsequent five days consisted of God shaping the rest of the universe, along with mankind (International Bible Society, pp. 1-30). Being that the Bible is the most popular book in existence, I will spare you the rest of the story, as I am assuming you at least have heard of it. According to The Bible, the Earth has been around roughly six thousand years. This presents a unique problem for any evolutionary minded person, as the time table listed is not at all conducive with the results of scientific tests for evolution. Because The Bible has been around for thousands of years, and is widely considered as a record of the beginning of time, evolutionary results are often met with disdain and disbelief. This is the main reason Evolution must scientifically prove its claims. Creation however, has been accepted as religious truth, and is followed by many on the basis of "faith". Faith, by definition, is, "belief that is not based on proof." (faith) For thousands of years this was an acceptable to describe a supernatural occurrence. "Oh, I have faith that God created the Earth," is an example of a statement, used as a definitive truth, without offering supportive evidence. The Bible never claims you need evidence in order to believe in the Word of God, and in light of this, many religious minded people have accepted that at face value. It does, however, state in The Bible that you must share the Word of God with "non-believers," and "non-believers" have a hard time accepting the role of faithful without evidence. This has led some evangelical scientists to start offering Creation Science as a viable alternative to debunk the "evolution myths." By appealing to a population's logic first, and then their heart, it makes accepting a different perspective easier. An interesting article I found on the internet offers a very religiously and scientifically correct theory on the old argument of, "Light traveling through space would have taken billions of years to reach Earth, yet The Bible states that all stars were created four days after the Earth was created." Robert Newton, the author of the article Distant Starlight and Genesis: Conventions of Time Measurement, claims that by using the mathematical equation of distance = time*speed, one can roughly calculate the time in which God created the stars. He outlines that observed time, or the time we get when we glance at a clock, is much different from the real time table space-time progresses on. The "real" time table, or the calculated time, is derived from the equation above, using the variable time as the observed time of star creation (or the fourth day of creation), and the variable speed as the speed of light or 1,079 million km/hr. His theory is further supported by using quantum calculation and astrophysics, but I won't get into that (Newton, 2001). This is but one example of the steps being taken by Creationists to scientifically back-up their religious claims. Running this theory through the scientific trinity I detailed in the above paragraphs, we can see that there are all three types of methods are accounted for. Observational science is represented here by observing and detailing space-time properties; most notable is the speed of light. Experimental science, although not mentioned in my summery, is shown by testing the equations used in his process against a constant argument (the seven day creation), and a variable argument (mankind's perception of how old the Earth is). Interpretive science is displayed by taking the results of the experiments and observations and applying them in a linear and non-linear fashion, in other words by satisfying all the arguments in connecting "Day Four" with the time needed for light to travel from distant stars to Earth.
There is one major flaw in using The Bible as a source of data in scientific experiments however. The fact that The Bible is so old, and may be the only record of time before 3,000 B.C, makes corroborating the accounts listed in The Bible almost impossible. There is always the possibility that The Bible is, in fact, not an accurate depiction of Earth's progressive history. Because The Bible cannot be proved to contain 100% false or truthful material, all information derived from data in The Bible is speculative, and in true scientific fashion, cannot be accepted as fact. Instead, The Bible must be proved factual by using true data (data that can be collected in real time and life) to disprove Evolutionary Theory. Archeologists however, are beginning to notice repeating patterns in the dig sites they find. The aforementioned sites are being located by using references from The Bible, and they are finding relics conducive with the accounts in The Bible. Dr. Clifford Wilson, an archeologist specializing in Biblical Archeology, has said he uncovered black ash, Egyptian and Canaanite artifacts, Solomonic Walls, and god-like figures, all located around the area of Gezer (Wieldand, 1992). The Biblical history of Gezer states that it was burned down by the Egyptians, and then given to King Solomon as a gift for marrying the Pharaoh's daughter (International Bible Society, 1 Kings 9:16). Naturally, the implications and importance of a discovery of this magnitude are unparalleled. If the Bible is proved true, either through Archeology or some other means, it could possibly unravel the scientific world as we know it. However, to once again play the Devil's Advocate, there is always the possibility that the Bible is a perspective recording of history, and the events that transpired in the past (the burning of Gezer) may have actually happened, but the context in which the story is told is skewed. Simply put, the Bible could be an altered perspective on factual events.
Could the Bible be the truth? Yes. Could the Bible be fiction? Yes. Given the amount of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the data used to prove the Bible either wrong or right, a scientifically correct answer cannot yet be determined. Therefore Creation cannot be categorized as a scientific practice. Data inconsistencies aside, this author's opinion is that Creation still couldn't be considered a science. Much like Evolution, Creation is a belief system that uses scientific methods to attempt to prove it legitimacy. The actual term Creation Science is defined as, "The effort to provide scientific evidence supporting the account of the creation of the universe related in the Bible." (Creation Science) This further solidifies my opinion that Creation is not a science; it uses scientific methods to help define its parts.
Conclusion
After all is said and done, Evolution and Creation follow similar structure paths. Each side believes in their way and discounts the opposing perspective. Each side shares methods in which they attempt to prove their philosophies. Each side seeks to define why we are here, how we are here, and where we are going. I personally don't think either side is correct yet, but that is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people have an altered view on what science exists to prove. The simple answer is that science is a means to an end, a way to prove your theory, concept, idea, or beliefs. Science in the modern world has a negative (and inaccurate) connotation, and it is constantly being revoked for attempting to disprove religion; when in actuality, science just hasn't been applied to proving religious views up until recent years (in a relative sense of the time that the Earth has existed). In my personal opinion, a science is the process in which we determine how to understand what is around us. We use science to define Creation and Evolution, not the other way around. Does this opinion change the validity of the debate? Not at all. My findings merely suggest that neither Evolution nor Creation should be treated as sciences, but treated as a belief system that governs your individual view on the universe. With this perspective we can finally end the Evolution vs. Creation debate's sub-debate of, "Evolution is a belief in science, and Creation is a belief in religion," and focus our energy on using both science and faith to define the question, "Why am I here?"
REFERENCES!
AMNH. (2008). A Life's Work. Retrieved December 13, 2008, from Darwin:
Berkeley. (2008). An Introduction to Evolution. Retrieved December 13, 2008, from Understanding Evolution:
faith. (n.d.). Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary. Retrieved December 14, 2008, from Dictionary.com:
Ham, K. (1983, November). The Relevance of Creation. Retrieved December 14, 2008, from Answers in Genesis:
International Bible Society. (1984). The Holy Bible, NI Version. Chicago: Zondervan Bible Publishers.
Lindsay, D. (2005, May 07). The Creation/Evolution Controversy. Retrieved December 13, 2008, from Is Evolution Science?
Newton, R. (2001, April). Distant Starlight and Genesis: Conventions of Time Measurement. Retrieved December 14, 2008, from Answers in Genesis:
Railsback, D. B. (2008, September 04). What is Science? Retrieved December 13, 2008, from University of Georgia - Department of Geology:
science. (n.d.). Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. Retrieved December 13, 2008, from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1):
Creation Science. (n.d.). The American HeritageĊ½ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Wieldand, C. (1992, September). Archaeologist Confirms Creation and the Bible. Retrieved December 14, 2008, from Answers in Genesis:
Obviously, the formatting did not carry over from Microsoft Word, however I am confident at least that part is correct.
