This is always a tricky discussion, but Jacoby presents some sharp arguments about the debate between evolution and creationism. For this blog, create your own discussion about this debate. Where do you stand and why? What critical criteria have you used to consider this issue (if at all -- maybe it's the first time you've thought about it)? Where does this issue stand among the issues of the day?
I was raised Catholic, forced to go to Catholic school. I was raised to believe in creationism. It was not until I was in high school that I began to start questioning my beliefs. I started to do very well in science classes and was introduced to the idea of evolution. I then formed the concept that evolution happens everyday, we evolve into the people we are today. Once I understood that concept, I began researching and discussing with other the idea of evolution and natural selection. Today, it does not even seem fathomable to even think for a second that creationism makes any logical sense. I do not have faith. I don't even think anything really happens after death or before birth. We are animals, just like birds and dogs. They don't revolve their lives around worships something that have no idea is real or not. They live day to day trying to survive. I believe in the concept of survival of the fittest. Those that are the most equipped have higher levels of success, no argument there. I have thought long and hard about this subject and the discussion could go on forever. Today I stand by science. I have faith in things that are real and tangible, things that can be proven. The only issues my recent beliefs bring me are that some friends, coworkers and various other people do not agree with me. They stand by their religious beliefs and sooner or later they cut off contact with me because faith rules their life. I see believing in God as the same concept as believing in Santa clause or the tooth fairy, it just seems bogus. I do have an open mind to the concept of a higher power, but not in God or creationism.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Pre-Reading Blog #2
What do you think of when you see the word “pseudoscience”? How do you understand the argument between evolution and creation, as Jacoby presents it? Please end your blog with at least one good critical question.
When I think of pseudoscience, the first thing that comes to mind are diet pills. Pseudoscience is supposed to be fake science or a claim that appears to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence and does not adhere to the scientific method. In Jacoby's book, she presents a clear argument between evolution and creation. Jacoby suggests that intellectuals think, therefore they side with evolution and that fundamentalist, anti-intellectuals, believe, therefore they side with creation. Jacoby presents the notion that evolution is based from scientific data and can be modeled time and time again with the same results; whereas, creation is based from belief and storytelling. The theory of creation has no scientific background, cannot be tested and is completely intangible. However, evolution can be tested with the scientific method and one is able to see the same results every time. The argument between creation versus evolution is extremely controversial and many factors play into one's argument of favor. Jacoby suggests that if one is intellectual, then one will side will evolution and that if one if an anti-intellectual, one will side with creation.
If it has been thousands of years since the bible has been written, why do people follow the bible word for word even though times and living conditions have changed dramatically?
Why do people still have faith in things that has never been proven or tested?
When I think of pseudoscience, the first thing that comes to mind are diet pills. Pseudoscience is supposed to be fake science or a claim that appears to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence and does not adhere to the scientific method. In Jacoby's book, she presents a clear argument between evolution and creation. Jacoby suggests that intellectuals think, therefore they side with evolution and that fundamentalist, anti-intellectuals, believe, therefore they side with creation. Jacoby presents the notion that evolution is based from scientific data and can be modeled time and time again with the same results; whereas, creation is based from belief and storytelling. The theory of creation has no scientific background, cannot be tested and is completely intangible. However, evolution can be tested with the scientific method and one is able to see the same results every time. The argument between creation versus evolution is extremely controversial and many factors play into one's argument of favor. Jacoby suggests that if one is intellectual, then one will side will evolution and that if one if an anti-intellectual, one will side with creation.
If it has been thousands of years since the bible has been written, why do people follow the bible word for word even though times and living conditions have changed dramatically?
Why do people still have faith in things that has never been proven or tested?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
