# data[].attributes.body
What did you learn about the topic that most surprised you?

I don’t know that I really learned things that surprised me, this is a topic I read about all the time and quite enjoy debating about. Although in doing the research for this, I was very surprised to see the amount of “stuff” all over the web supporting the idea of creationism. The surprising thing about it all was the complete lack of any real evidence that existed on a large majority of them, so much so that it became challenging to find a site that did not seem like I was being bias about a view. The simple fact is, the idea of creationism is more a thing based on beliefs and ideals then it is something based upon that of fact.

Provide a real-life example of how this topic is relevant or interesting for you.

The relevancy of this topic is negligible at its core. However, the interest to me lies in that I have many friends and family who are avid church goes and believers in god. I also converse with and am friends with a priest of the Christian faith who obviously is a very firm believer that the world was created by god. It is always a hot button topic when I bring up the science behind evolution versus the lack of science or real concrete evidence supporting creationism. The most interesting part is that no matter the person’s age they all seem to have the same arguments, which then lends itself to the idea that the only thing that has any truthful information about how the world was created is held within a piece of fictional literature… the bible. I do not hate or discriminate against people who are avid believers in the bible, however, I do believe that the bible is the oldest and longest running game of broken telephone. I find it hard to believe that a book that is thousands of years old, who also has over 40 authors has never been altered, fictionalized or skewed to support a person’s interpretation of a story they have heard from another persons or author of the book.

Which research did you find most interesting?  Why?

The most interesting piece of research I found was the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. The reason is because there are two if the leading people in their areas of belief. They are both very well educated and knowledgeable people so the ability each one must explain and support their views is staggering. Although, as stated throughout my work, it always seems very hard for Ken Ham to argue with Bill Nye with facts, he tends to fall back on to the “Do you believe” argument which is unfortunate.

What are you most likely to remember from this research?

I don’t know that there is any one thing I might remember more than the others. This is a topic I enjoy reading about all the time, perhaps the fact that a large majority of the sites supporting creationism contain little to no factual information supporting the idea. This to me is the most alarming thing, it is hard to gain supporters in a belief when there is nothing to really sway their beliefs in your cause.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is God Real.... To believe in him, is to believe in Creationism

# data[].attributes.subject
Is God Real.... To believe in him, is to believe in Creationism

# data[].attributes.body
This picture comes with many examples from our lesson "Here be Dragons". Red Herrings, Ancient Wisdom, Confirmation Bias, Ideological Support. All of these can be applied to just this picture. Nobody alive today knows of someone who has, or has personally met God. It is impossible to read this picture and logically think that is is truth, people who use this idea to support their belief in creationism simply don't have any other facts to support it. It is a theory that you simply have to just believe in, there is nothing to actually prove it nor show and logical reason to believe it happened.

# data[].attributes.body
This quote from Napoleon is both clever and also very real. People in today's society spend a very large amount of time giving believers in the bible, or books alike a very hard time for it. Personally I am a believer in the theory of evolution, however, I have read through portions of the bible and Quran, and can certainly see where people can belive in a god and that he created the world. I think people should try to spend more time questioning everything instead of just hating on the select few who choose to oppose them.

# data[].attributes.body
Comical look at the idea of creationism, which in turn supports the belief in Noah's Ark. When you look at the idea of the ark critically it is really hard to prove or realistically explain how certain animals ended up in the different parts of the world, but remains of these creatures are not found in any other places as you would expect.

# data[].attributes.body
In this final web page the author takes a philosophical approach to this debate. This site is one I agree with more than either of the theories combined. The reason for this is I think that a persons ideals, or beliefs in something of this nature is very much influenced by things like their up bringing or their religion. From the time we can speak and understand out surrounds begin to mold who we are as people and how we think. This in my opinion is where the entire basis for our beliefs in these topics beings and is shaped for our future existence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Creation vs. Evolution - A Question of Origins
The creation vs. evolution debate is a question of origins. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? Does it even matter?

Creation vs. Evolution - Reason vs. Religion
The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, if you disagree with the stereotype, you're condemned and "exposed" as a religious fanatic who is secretly trying to pass religion off as science or, even worse, trying to disprove science in order to redeem a ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview. The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution). Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith. And while the recognition of design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon religious premise - it's based upon empirical observation and logic.

Creation vs. Evolution - Why Does It Matter?
Why do we even squabble over creation vs. evolution? Does it really matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. Our views on morality, justice, purpose, self-worth, humanity, obligation, and destination are all closely tied to our views on human origins. For example, without affirming or denying the veracity of evolution theory, let's take a moment to consider what the theory of evolution teaches about human origins and what impact this teaching has had upon human behavioral patterns.

Evolution teaches that as species evolve they eventually reach ideal population levels. As species advance, superior species eliminate inferior species -- "survival of the fittest." Weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminated for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essential resources. "Nature" doesn't desire "the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow." [1] "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." [2] And as humans are merely a species of animal, we have no intrinsic value and are therefore by no means exempt from "the war of nature." Thus, we have Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) asking the rhetorical question, "should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?" [3] Hitler, of course, is remembered for murdering more than 6,000,000 individual human beings, all of whom he deemed to be inferior members of the species. Was Hitler wrong? Did he misinterpret and misrepresent the theory he claimed to cherish so much? Apparently not. Renowned British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955), who was knighted in 1921, came to Hitler's defense, "Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions" [4] Keith reassured us, "The German Fьhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." [5] Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), another ardent evolutionist, surpassed even Hitler in zeal, murdering at least ten times as many "inferiors" (estimates range from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 people). Was Stalin wrong? What about Pol Pot? Well, not if you subscribe to the evolutionary worldview. In fact, to the philosophically consistent, uncompromised evolutionist, Hitler and Stalin ought to be considered role models.

And so we see how a worldview can impact human behavior. Here, we see murder, a most disapproved human behavior, not only condoned, but encouraged. So, does it matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. However, even more important than what we believe to be true is what actually is true. Someone might not believe in gravity, for example. Nevertheless, if that person were to step off a tall building, that person would splat on the ground below, regardless of what they believed. And so, once again, we have the question: are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? Don't rely on hearsay. Investigate the evidences for yourself.

Explore More Now!

Footnotes:

1. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1924, p. 286.

2. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859, p. 400.

3. Adolf Hitler, quoted in Joachim Fest's, Hitler, 1974, p. 679-680.

4. Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947, p. 14.

5. Ibid., p. 230.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Creation vs. Evolution - A Question of Origins The creation vs. evolution debate is a question of origins. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents?

# data[].attributes.body
In contrast to the belief of creationism is the thought the science can explain the creation of human kind. Often times people rely on the theory of evolution, which was created by Darwin and published in 1859. The idea is supported by years of studies and scientific breakthroughs, However, there is also a large amount of "Appeal to Authority" that goes on, The reason for this is people are far more likely to lend credence to an idea if a name like Darwin, or Bill Nye is attached to it than they are with someone they have never heard of or seen on TV.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring.

Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.

The theory has two main points, said Brian Richmond, curator of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. "All life on Earth is connected and related to each other," and this diversity of life is a product of "modifications of populations by natural selection, where some traits were favored in and environment over others," he said.

More simply put, the theory can be described as "descent with modification," said Briana Pobiner, an anthropologist and educator at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., who specializes in the study of human origins.

The theory is sometimes described as " survival of the fittest," but that can be misleading, Pobiner said. Here, "fitness" refers not to an organism's strength or athletic ability, but rather the ability to survive and reproduce.

For example, a study on human evolution on 1,900 students, published online in the journal Personality and Individual Differences in October 2017, found that many people may have trouble finding a mate because of rapidly changing social technological advances that are evolving faster than humans. "Nearly 1 in 2 individuals faces considerable difficulties in the domain of mating," said lead study author Menelaos Apostolou, an associate professor of social sciences at the University of Nicosia in Cyprus. "In most cases, these difficulties are not due to something wrong or broken, but due to people living in an environment which is very different from the environment they evolved to function in." [ If You Suck at Dating, It's Not You - It's Evolution]

In the first edition of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open:

"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale," he speculated.

The idea didn't go over very well with the public. Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received that the swimming-bear passage was removed from later editions of the book.

Scientists now know that Darwin had the right idea but the wrong animal. Instead of looking at bears, he should have instead been looking at cows and hippopotamuses.

The story of the origin of whales is one of evolution's most fascinating tales and one of the best examples scientists have of natural selection.

The last shore-dwelling ancestor of modern whales was Sinonyx, top left, a hyena-like animal. Over 60 million years, several transitional forms evolved: from top to bottom, Indohyus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, and finally, the modern humpback whale.

Credit: NOAA

To understand the origin of whales, it's necessary to have a basic understanding of how natural selection works. Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called "microevolution."

But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species, known as "macroevolution." It can turn dinosaurs into birds, amphibious mammals into whales and the ancestors of apes into humans.

Take the example of whales - using evolution as their guide and knowing how natural selection works, biologists knew that the transition of early whales from land to water occurred in a series of predictable steps. The evolution of the blowhole, for example, might have happened in the following way:

Random genetic changes resulted in at least one whale having its nostrils placed farther back on its head. Those animals with this adaptation would have been better suited to a marine lifestyle, since they would not have had to completely surface to breathe. Such animals would have been more successful and had more offspring. In later generations, more genetic changes occurred, moving the nose farther back on the head.

Other body parts of early whales also changed. Front legs became flippers. Back legs disappeared. Their bodies became more streamlined and they developed tail flukes to better propel themselves through water.

Darwin also described a form of natural selection that depends on an organism's success at attracting a mate, a process known as sexual selection. The colorful plumage of peacocks and the antlers of male deer are both examples of traits that evolved under this type of selection.

But Darwin wasn't the first or only scientist to develop a theory of evolution. The French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck came up with the idea that an organism could pass on traits to its offspring, though he was wrong about some of the details. Around the same time as Darwin, British biologist Alfred Russel Wallace independently came up with the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Darwin didn't know anything about genetics, Pobiner said. "He observed the pattern of evolution, but he didn't really know about the mechanism." That came later, with the discovery of how genes encode different biological or behavioral traits, and how genes are passed down from parents to offspring. The incorporation of genetics and Darwin's theory is known as "modern evolutionary synthesis."

The physical and behavioral changes that make natural selection possible happen at the level of DNA and genes. Such changes are called mutations. "Mutations are basically the raw material on which evolution acts," Pobiner said.

Mutations can be caused by random errors in DNA replication or repair, or by chemical or radiation damage. Most times, mutations are either harmful or neutral, but in rare instances, a mutation might prove beneficial to the organism. If so, it will become more prevalent in the next generation and spread throughout the population.

In this way, natural selection guides the evolutionary process, preserving and adding up the beneficial mutations and rejecting the bad ones. "Mutations are random, but selection for them is not random," Pobiner said.

But natural selection isn't the only mechanism by which organisms evolve, she said. For example, genes can be transferred from one population to another when organisms migrate or immigrate, a process known as gene flow. And the frequency of certain genes can also change at random, which is called genetic drift.

Even though scientists could predict what early whales should look like, they lacked the fossil evidence to back up their claim. Creationists took this absence as proof that evolution didn't occur. They mocked the idea that there could have ever been such a thing as a walking whale. But since the early 1990s, that's exactly what scientists have been finding.

The critical piece of evidence came in 1994, when paleontologists found the fossilized remains of Ambulocetus natans, an animal whose name literally means "swimming-walking whale." Its forelimbs had fingers and small hooves but its hind feet were enormous given its size. It was clearly adapted for swimming, but it was also capable of moving clumsily on land, much like a seal.

When it swam, the ancient creature moved like an otter, pushing back with its hind feet and undulating its spine and tail.

Modern whales propel themselves through the water with powerful beats of their horizontal tail flukes, but Ambulocetus still had a whip-like tail and had to use its legs to provide most of the propulsive force needed to move through water.

In recent years, more and more of these transitional species, or "missing links," have been discovered, lending further support to Darwin's theory, Richmond said.

Fossil "links" have also been found to support human evolution. In early 2018, a fossilized jaw and teeth found that are estimated to be up to 194,000 years old, making them at least 50,000 years older than modern human fossils previously found outside Africa. This finding provides another clue to how humans have evolved.

Despite the wealth of evidence from the fossil record, genetics and other fields of science, some people still question its validity. Some politicians and religious leaders denounce the theory of evolution, invoking a higher being as a designer to explain the complex world of living things, especially humans.

School boards debate whether the theory of evolution should be taught alongside other ideas, such as intelligent design or creationism.

Mainstream scientists see no controversy. "A lot of people have deep religious beliefs and also accept evolution," Pobiner said, adding, "there can be real reconciliation."

Evolution is well supported by many examples of changes in various species leading to the diversity of life seen today. "If someone could really demonstrate a better explanation than evolution and natural selection, [that person] would be the new Darwin," Richmond said.

Additional reporting by Contributor Alina Bradford and Staff Writer Tanya Lewis, Follow Tanya on Twitter. Follow us @livescience, Facebook & Google+.

Additional resources

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has a presentation on whale evolution.

To read the theory in its original form, see Darwin's book, "On the Origin of Species."

For an overview of natural selection, check out this article.

To understand the difference between a theory and fact, see this National Academy of Sciences website.

Related:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a website dedicated to the belief of creationism. While it does have an over abundance of information the biggest problem is there is little to no supporting proof for any of it. It is mostly a very large amount of information to over encumber the reader into believing in the idea simply due to the large amount of information. This can also be referred to as "Proof by Verbosity" which basically means there is so much information on this site that there is no way it isn't true..... is it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Creation Science (creationism, to skeptics) realizes that The Scientific Mathematician has made our universe and has put His laws into place.

# data[].attributes.body
This is an extra, for optional viewing. In it Bill Nye visits the ark encounter, a life size re-creation of what is believed to be the ark Noah used to save the animals. This can be read in Genesis chapters 6–9. As the story goes God gave Noah instructions for building the ark. Seven days before the deluge, God told Noah to enter the ark with his household and the animals. The story goes on to describe the ark being afloat for 150 days and then coming to rest on the Mountains of Ararat and the subsequent receding of the waters. This same story can also be found worded differently in the Quran.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bill Nye tours Ken Ham's Ark Encounter located in Williamstown, Kentucky just outside of Cincinnati. Comment away! You're Welcome for taking out 30 minutes of Ken Ham preaching at the beginning and 30 minutes at the end.

# data[].attributes.headline
Does god really exist?? If it does, what is it? or he, or even she?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does god really exist?? If it does, what is it? or he, or even she?

# data[].attributes.body
Michio Kaku is an American theoretical physicist, futurist, and popularizer of science, he is also a professor of theoretical physicist. Among the things this man is, he is also a believer of god..... sort of. His belief of god is explained slightly in this film. It is a video that could sway some people on their beliefs in creationism or evolution. He raises very valid points for the belief in a god. While it is a short but interesting video I personally still struggle with the belief in something that is not seen, nor is there any actual proof that a god every existed in the understanding we have as to what god is.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a list of idea's that creationists usually jump too in order to try to debunk the theory of evolution. It is a sarcastic approach but a sound list of arguments all the same. The problem with a very heavy belief in creationism with regards to the debate over evolution is there is very little actual proof of a god, people are more or less forced to simply believe without understanding or having proof.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We hear the same Creationist arguments SO OFTEN, we decided to assemble our 10 favorites and address them here. Feel free to use this video as a response to the Creationists in your circle.

# data[].attributes.body
This is one of my favorite debates ever. In it we see avid believer in the theory of creationism Ken Ham debate against the ever popular and strong believer in evolution. It is a topic that is debated all over the world among people. Whether or not the world was simply created by a being (god) or if it was from a more natural idea, that being evolution. Wile both men raise very valid points I am personally a very strong believer in evolution. It is from my own readings and research that I feel it is far more believable that we came to be by way of evolution then by some unexplained occurance caused by a god of sorts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Creationism Vs  Evolution Debate Ken Ham And Bill Nye 2014[Full]