Evolution vs. Creation research paper?

Question

I have 2 topics, but am not sure which to use. Please tell me what u think. If u have any other possible topic ideas, i'd love it if you'd share. Thanks.

#1. What characteristics in animals prove they were created rather than they evolved?

#2. How does the unique design of humans and animals rule out the idea that everything evolved from a common ancestor?

This is for an Honors Anatomy and Physiology class for High School. I go to a Christian High school, so obviously I have a creationist view.

Answer 1

Wow, you have to write a paper on Evolution/Creationism in an ANATOMY CLASS. If this is not propaganda all the hisoty classes i ever took went to waste. The only way you should be disscussing evolution in an ANATOMY class is comparative anatomy and vestigal organs. (Both of which show evolution) This is obviously your "Christian" High School making sure your all "christain" You should not have to write this paper in THIS class. This paper does does not even belong in biology class. The paper should be in a Philosophy, Political Science and maybe even Physcology depending on the material in the essay.

How about you write a paper on the microevolution of Human Anatomy. Tallness, jaw size etc. That would be a good one. Or you could write one on Comparative Anatomy.

Also just a hint, when writing a Research Paper (At least on a subject like this) NEVER quote or sciete a Religous text(unless showing that evolution differs from some religous beliefs), a site such as AnswersinGenesis or TalkOrigins. If they give you links use them and make sure those links are CREDABLE. (another hint one of these sites doesnt have credable links)

Answer 2

Please tell us ... what class is this for? What grade level?

>"This is for an Honors Anatomy and Physiology class for High School. I go to a Christian High school, so obviously I have a creationist view."

Melissa, thanks for that honest information!

I'm afraid that your teacher has set you up for a rather hostile reaction in a science forum like this. These questions aren't just anti-evolution ... they are anti-*science*.

For example, the wording of the first question ... that word "prove" is a *HUGE RED FLAG* to people trained in science. Specifically, real scientists talk about *evidence*, not "proof." They understand that you can never "prove" anything in science, but just gather evidence. To even talk about "proving" something is bad science.

This is the same error that leads people to say that evolution is "just a theory." It is the misunderstanding that a "theory" can be simply ignored because it is "unproven." In other words, if it cannot be shown to be 100% "proved", that it can then be treated as if it is 100% *disproved* ... which is glaringly BAD logic, and BAD science.

This is the problem with hard-core creationism. It starts from basic lack of understanding of how *science* works, let alone how *evolution* works.

Incidentally, when you say "I go to a Christian High school, so obviously I have a creationist view." ... this is yet another piece of misinformation you are getting ... namely that all Christians are creationists.

It is simply NOT true that all Christians are creationists.

There are millions of good Christians, including ministers, preachers, deacons, clergy members, priests, bishops, and Popes ... and a *lot* of scientists ... who do *NOT* subscribe to creationism ... and in fact feel that this conflict between faith and science is (in the words of the current Pope, who represents over 1.1 billion of the world's 2 billion Christians) "absurd."

See my source for the Clergy Letter Project (signed by over 10,800 Christian clergy members). It's a beautiful, and very short (only 2 paragraphs) letter expressing a Christian perspective on evolution and creationism.

Answer 3

Sounds like you're starting from a conclusion and looking for evidence to support it. That's not how science works. You look at the evidence, and see where that leads you. And you've obviously followed it in the wrong direction.

There are no characteristics in animals that prove creation - and plenty (such as vestigal organs and junk DNA) that would suggest there was no thought behind these animals.

The only unique design behind humans and animals is the vast amount that we have in common - through our DNA. Look up retroviruses to find out why we are certain that humans and animals share a common ancestor.

Answer 4

A better topic (and a more intellectually honest one) would be: "It Is Logically Nonsensical for a Creationist School to Offer Science Classes."

Start out by looking at the evidence for common descent (what your teachers call "macroevolution"). Let's take endogenous retroviruses an an example.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

In brief, these are viruses that infect the sex cells (sperm and ova) in vertebrates, and their genetic sequences get passed on to succeeding generations as part of the genome. The genetic sequence will occur in the same place on the chromosome, which would not be the case if the species were infected separately (even assuming a single retrovirus could infect so may different species).

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/dna_virus.html

http://vwxynot.blogspot.com/2007/06/endogenous-retroviruses-and-evidence.html

The interesting part is that we can use this to trace the evolutionary tree. If two species share an ERV "insertion," then all species descended from their last common ancestor (LCA) will also share that insertion.

For example, there are ERVs which occur only in humans; in humans and chimps; in humans, chimps, and gorillas. However, there are no ERVs which occur in humans and gorillas but not chimps. This is because the human/chimp split occurred after the human-chimp/gorilla split. The LCA of humans and gorillas is also shared by chimps.

If an ERV insertion is shared by humans and mice, it will also be shared by all other species descended from the LCA of humans and mice.

Scientists, of course, reach the obvious conclusion: Species which share an ERV insertion also share a common ancestor from which they inherited that insertion.

Creationists, on the other hand, can only say that God did it. For reasons of His own, which we do not understand, God placed these genetic sequences into various "created kinds" in the same chromosomal location.

OK, fine. But there are *thousands* of these things. This isn't a matter of the occasional miracle which science can ignore. This is continual interference by the Deity in the normal operation of the natural world.

Scientific investigation can only proceed if the universe operates according to regular, comprehensible principles. However, to dismiss the evidence for common descent, creationism must posit that the universe operates at the whim of God, that God constantly intervenes, and that if some principle seems to obtain, it is only because God has not yet decided to change the rules. If God continually, for reasons which passeth understanding, places DNA sequences in genomes, maybe tomorrow he will decide to suspend gravity, or Bernoulli's principle, or molecular cohesion.

What is the creationist response? "Oh, no, God only intervenes in ways that will allow me to dismiss the evidence for evolution"?

End your paper with an impassioned plea for your school to stop bothering with this "science" nonsense and devote its budget to more important things.

Silly? Of course. But nevertheless, this is the logical end of creationist thought. Creationism and science are incompatible. You must choose.

Answer 5

I am not sure why you are asking a question like this in the science section. Creationism is NOT science, and even when you use the trumped up term "intelligent design" it is not science.

You are starting with the conclusion that evolution is false and then asking us, people who understand the science behind the theory, to tell things that debunk it (which is impossible, the evidence points to evolution whether you like it or not). This is a very illogical thing to do.

If you want to write such fiction, you need to go talk to the people in the religion area who will tell you what you want to hear. If you want to use some facts, however, come back and rephrase the question, there is a lot of info out there.

Answer 6

Speaking as a believing Christian, I think evolution is a pretty good attempt to explain the development of life. The nutters who call themselves creationists do not speak for the bulk of the church worldwide - catholic, protestant or orthodox. They just yell very loudly, and confuse spirituality with a refusal to consider any way other than their own peculiar (and historically very recent) one of reading scripture as if it were meant to be a scientific textbook. And "intelligent design" is a transparent intellectually dishonest attempt to get creationism in by the back door. No one is fooled. That said, I think it equally intellectually dishonest of Dawkins & co to speak and write as though all Christians are creationists, and conclude that defeating this stuff is the same thing as disproving theism.

Answer 7

Did you think up these topics yourself or are you in a creationist school that forces you into this?

You don't say what year of schooling you are in, but how about this topic: Evolution moves very slowly and most of us can't see it happening in larger life forms. But, it is happening in our everyday lives as bacteria evolve more antibiotic resistant characteristics.

Answer 8

Well you can think what you like....I have way too much faith in my God to think it incapable of creating an evolving system.

I guess you gotta go with what makes you feel better.....to my own private view believing we just magically popped into existence by God's will is a cop out that shows very little, if any, faith.

I would think God would be a craftsman....and any marvel of craft takes time to come out OK...you don't just pop em out....especially not in a world that is in constant change..because then your life form cannot survive since you have made it unable to adapt.

Anyway like I said...go with what you believe...just don't be upset+surprised when you are not offered a job as head of a real lab.

Answer 9

#1. There are none.

#2. All the evidence indicates common descent.

Try this topic:

Why is there a fundamental lie in every argument that Creationists use?

Answer 10

You have to write a pro-creationist paper? I'd personally refuse.

To answer your question, you will find no evidence whatsoever to help you with either topic.