Religion Scientific Creationists Are Different Term Paper

Pages: 6 (2209 words)  ·  Style: MLA  ·  Bibliography Sources: ≈ 19  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Mythology - Religion


Scientific creationists are different than creationists in that scientific creation is based on scientific evidence while creationists believe in creation as it is told in the Bible. In the Book of Genesis there is a six-day account of creation, which includes Adam and Eve, God's curse on Earth because of man's sin, as well as the stories of Noah's ark and how certain languages came into existence. These stories cannot be backed up by scientific evidence. Scientific creationism also holds that there is a creation period, however, it cannot be pinned down to a period of six days.

Henry Morris believed that the Bible's account of the creation was both true and scientific; however, his claims can be explained in other ways. For example, Morris' so-called evidence to prove that the whole earth was once flooded is because so much of the earth's surface is covered with sedimentary rock or rock that is laid down by water. But this could also be because of land that rose up and being worn down for billions of years.

Buy full Download Microsoft Word File paper
for $19.77
Morris states himself that it is impossible to prove scientifically any particular concept of origins to be true (4). This is because of the fact that scientific method depends upon experimental observation and repeatability (4). No matter how brilliant a scientist is, there is no way, Morris insists accurately, that he or she could ever observe or repeat origins (4). While one can have an idea about how creation began, that is -- one can have a philosophy, it can only be a philosophy that is dependent on faith and not sight (4).

Morris, while he states that creation cannot be proved, neither can evolution (5). Creation happened a long time ago and so it is impossible to know how to come up with an experiment that could devise how this happened. Likewise, evolution happens to slowly to devise an experiment about it (5). He notes that even if a modern scientist was able to create life from non-life in a laboratory, this can't prove that the same changes happened at the point of creation (5).

Term Paper on Religion Scientific Creationists Are Different Than Creationists Assignment

The first creation account is also known as the Priestly ('P') account in Genesis while the second creation account is written by the Yahwist ('J') source. Genesis 1 tells us the number of days that God took to create everything, including mankind, which was created on the sixth day. Genesis 1 is much more structured in the sense that it gives specific days for the creation of certain things. Also, there are things that already exist -- like water and wind. There was land that already existed under the water, but God had to bring the waters together in order for there to be land to walk on. Though man and woman were created last, it is not clear if there was just one man and one woman. There are also numerous references to the cosmos, which is lacking in the second account. The second account -- Genesis 2 -- is less structured in style and the sun and the heavens aren't mentioned at all. There was already land and there were plants growing when God commanded the rainfall. Adam, the first man, is created from some dust of the Earth and Eve is created from his rib. In this second account, Adam is God's first creation while Eve is the last.

Hyers asserts that looking at Genesis 1 as natural history is wrong. Neither is it biological or geological, but rather, cosmological. Genesis 1, he insists, through form and content, has the purpose of being religious or theological as opposed to scientific or historical. To move to Genesis 2 after reading Genesis 1, Hyers insists that it is not just a different historical and literary context, but it is a different world altogether (115). The cosmos are not a concern at all in Genesis 2 (135) (unlike Genesis 1, which has cosmological meaning). Rather, Genesis 2 focuses on the creation of life as well as the topics of barrenness and fertility (126). While Genesis 1 focuses on the stars, the moon and the earth, the Yahwist account wants to focus more on living things and what creates life. Genesis two is more of a myth, according to Hyers (126), who says that the myth isn't unlike that of many other cultures in different parts of the world.

3) Stephen Jay Gould asserts in his book entitled Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life that science and religion can never be unified -- not even synthesized, but this doesn't mean that the two should be in conflict (4). He states that science covers the empirical realm (what the universe is made of -- fact -- and why it works the way it does -- theory); the magisterium of religion rules over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value (6). He points out these cliches: "Science gets the age of rocks, and religion the rock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven" (6).

One discovery of modern science is Darwin's discovery of evolution. While it disproves a literal translation of Genesis, it is a scientific principle and it doesn't disprove the existence of God because Genesis does not have to be interpreted literally; in fact, many people who believe in God do not interpret the Bible literally at all. The law of gravity is another discovery or modern science. If the universe arose spontaneously from chaos because of the law of gravity, then many would think that this also disproves God and/or his role in creation. Stephen Hawkins said, "Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions" (Halloway). If this be so, then there is no reason to think that the law of Gravity disproves God.

The Big Bang theory is another modern science discovery that has been used in order to try and disprove God. But what instigated the Big Bang? How can we scientifically disprove that it wasn't God? A self-starting universe could technically prove that the universe was able to start itself, but that still doesn't disprove God.

The theory of multiple universes is another modern science discovery. When there multiple universes, there is a good chance that one of those universes will have the conditions in order to produce life. However, we have never found another universe with human life and so we cannot say that this exists and thus God as the creator of human life on Earth cannot be disproved.

4) it comes as a sort of a shock that Newton was not only a devout Christian but he was also a student of the Bible. Newton, in fact, wrote more about theology, creation, and the Bible than he did about anything else, which was discovered after his death. So, what type of impact does his views on creation have on science -- if any?

Newton is considered to be one of -- if not -- the greatest scientists to ever live and he firmly believed that God was the creator of the universe. It wouldn't be unfair to say that many scientists believe that creationist and science do not work in harmony, but Newton disagreed. He says: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all, an on account of His dominion He is won't to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler" (Newton 426).

Newton asserts that the system including the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen if there had not been a design for it that was ordered by an intelligent and powerful being. The initial design of a powerful and intelligent God and the dominion of a powerful Being are required for the universe to be observed. There is a direct relationship, according to Newton, between the unity of God and the unity of creation. He argues that the placement of the stars at great distance from each other is another example of design and foresight, as this layout prevents the stars from falling together as a result of gravity (Snobelen 12).

Newton believed that the Bible revealed much about God, just as science reveals much about nature. Newton saw that there was something mechanical about the way the world worked. In thinking of the world like a clock, Newton believed that there was a creator that wound it and then left it to run on its own. That is to say that beyond the way in which the world worked, which was considered a mechanical order, there is something working those mechanics that is not mechanical.

5) Gould suggested that evolution and Christianity cannot and should not be intermixed. Darwinism, it can be argued, has had a detrimental effect on both the way we… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Buy full paper (6 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Psychological Benefits of Faith and Religion Term Paper

Existence of God for Years Essay

Scientific Creationism Term Paper

Science and Religion One of the Responses Term Paper

Catholic Tradition Essay

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Religion Scientific Creationists Are Different" Term Paper in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Religion Scientific Creationists Are Different.  (2011, May 5).  Retrieved June 2, 2020, from

MLA Format

"Religion Scientific Creationists Are Different."  5 May 2011.  Web.  2 June 2020. <>.

Chicago Style

"Religion Scientific Creationists Are Different."  May 5, 2011.  Accessed June 2, 2020.