Since the dawn of curiosity and exploration we have attributed all our advances to a supernatural entity christened “God.” As science moves forward, evidence suggest less the necessity for such a being; however, the religious still fight to keep The Bible within science. Obtruding their beliefs of a creation story as “True science” has confused many and halted science exploration, due to a false image of what science is. It is very apparent that some see creationism as a viable model of science but it does not meet the standard scientific requirements.
The basis of creationism is founded on anemic grounds, with a lack of data to support the claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old. ...view middle of the document...
Anyone who has a belief in creationism will usually have the concern in the efficiency of Carbon-14 dating. Even though there are many ways scientist use to date the earth, this is definitely a valid concern. Carbon dating is the most practiced method of dating fossils. “Carbon dating of biological tissues involves measuring the ratio of radioactive carbon 14 to those of ordinary carbon 12 in a sample(Science news p.405).” The problem that creationists have with carbon dating is usually that we don’t know how much C-14 the organism has when it dies, but we can estimate by measuring the main isotope of carbon C-12. By using C-12 to estimate where the animals C-14 levels were when it died, we can formulate a number close to the actual age. This eliminates the necessity of “being there” when the organism dies and allows us to date fossils with low margin for error.
The counterpart for young earth creation is evolution. The evidence that supports evolution also discredits creationism as a logical and scientific model of our origins. “Evidence of evolution can be observed in a number of different ways, including distribution of fossils of species both geographically and through geologic time. Evolution is a major scientific theory. As such, it has a tremendous amount of supporting evidence and no clearly contradicting evidence. If new evidence appears to refute it, then a new theory must be formulated. Any evidence requiring a totally new theory, however, would have to be staggering in its scope and strength(Lerner p.209).” Creationism is a model of our origins that argues the evidence, rather than gaining evidence to support itself as a theory. When there is evidence that supports another theory and contradicts your own, then the logical and scientific process is to scrap what you have and formulate a new theory. What...