N
Now, itz your turn.
Guest
Hi, I'm doing an explanitory synthesis for my english course, this is what I have so far and I want to know if everything looks good as far as grammar errors, spelling, word-choice etc. and if you have any suggestions on how to make it even better...
Title: Is Creation Science Possible?
_____Is Creation Science plausible enough to be taught in school settings? Biology professor, Micheal J. Behe states in his book, Darwin’s Black Box, that “[d]esign should not be overlooked simply because it’s so obvious” (Orr 686). Since Darwin’s theory of evolution, the controversy against intelligent design has been an on going conflict amongst Darwinists. Intelligent Design characterizes life’s detailed, complex design as evidence of a creator. Although the theory doesn’t exclusively undermine evolution, proponents of creation science completely deny the Darwinist’s idea of spontaneous development being fully responsible for life’s complex nature. Referring to the “molecular revolution” and “new mathematical findings” professed by many advocates of creation science, Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture aim to refute Darwinism, insisting that it is highly unlikely for natural selection to sustain the great degree of complexity life-forms contain (Orr 684). However, biology professor H. Allen Orr maintains the likelihood of Darwinism by reminding that its primary purpose is showing “how fantastically complex features of organisms—eyes, beaks, brains—could arise without the intervention of a designing mind” (Orr 684). Clearly, neither theory is without doubt. Nevertheless, does creation hold a conclusive argument against Darwinism?
_____“Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes,” Pennsylvania Republican, Senator Rick Santorum states (Orr 683).. Biologist professor at the University of Rochester, H. Allen Orr sheds light on the creation movement, while more than twenty states have considered proposals of evolution, “a bill was introduced into the New York State Assembly calling for instruction in intelligent design for all public-school students” (Orr 683). According to Orr, supporters of intelligent design want school teachers to challenge Darwinism. Christoph Schonborn, Catholic Cardinal-Archbishop of Vienna argues “Evolution in sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense—an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection—is not” (Stonborn 680). However, Orr mentions after The Origin of Species was published, by 1870 nearly all biologists agreed that life had evolved. Added, by 1940, majority of biologists sided with Darwinist’s theory agreeing that natural selection was the primary cause of evolutionary changes. Micheal J. Behe, another biology professor and creation supporter denounces that Darwin’s theory does not effectively explain the evolutionary origins of cells. In addition, William A. Dembski, mathematician, philosopher, and theologian argues “a complex object must be the result of intelligence if it was the product neither of chance nor of necessity” (Orr 688).
Title: Is Creation Science Possible?
_____Is Creation Science plausible enough to be taught in school settings? Biology professor, Micheal J. Behe states in his book, Darwin’s Black Box, that “[d]esign should not be overlooked simply because it’s so obvious” (Orr 686). Since Darwin’s theory of evolution, the controversy against intelligent design has been an on going conflict amongst Darwinists. Intelligent Design characterizes life’s detailed, complex design as evidence of a creator. Although the theory doesn’t exclusively undermine evolution, proponents of creation science completely deny the Darwinist’s idea of spontaneous development being fully responsible for life’s complex nature. Referring to the “molecular revolution” and “new mathematical findings” professed by many advocates of creation science, Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture aim to refute Darwinism, insisting that it is highly unlikely for natural selection to sustain the great degree of complexity life-forms contain (Orr 684). However, biology professor H. Allen Orr maintains the likelihood of Darwinism by reminding that its primary purpose is showing “how fantastically complex features of organisms—eyes, beaks, brains—could arise without the intervention of a designing mind” (Orr 684). Clearly, neither theory is without doubt. Nevertheless, does creation hold a conclusive argument against Darwinism?
_____“Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes,” Pennsylvania Republican, Senator Rick Santorum states (Orr 683).. Biologist professor at the University of Rochester, H. Allen Orr sheds light on the creation movement, while more than twenty states have considered proposals of evolution, “a bill was introduced into the New York State Assembly calling for instruction in intelligent design for all public-school students” (Orr 683). According to Orr, supporters of intelligent design want school teachers to challenge Darwinism. Christoph Schonborn, Catholic Cardinal-Archbishop of Vienna argues “Evolution in sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense—an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection—is not” (Stonborn 680). However, Orr mentions after The Origin of Species was published, by 1870 nearly all biologists agreed that life had evolved. Added, by 1940, majority of biologists sided with Darwinist’s theory agreeing that natural selection was the primary cause of evolutionary changes. Micheal J. Behe, another biology professor and creation supporter denounces that Darwin’s theory does not effectively explain the evolutionary origins of cells. In addition, William A. Dembski, mathematician, philosopher, and theologian argues “a complex object must be the result of intelligence if it was the product neither of chance nor of necessity” (Orr 688).