Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

WAS  CHARLES  DARWIN  CRAZY?  
ð

REPORT    

BETHANY  SEWELL  

Was Charles Darwin Crazy?
*FOR – Yes, he was crazy
...

For centuries the theory of evolution has greatly
been debated among many people
...

Despite Darwin’s Christian
background,
his
theory
suggests
against
an
intelligent designer (as
Christianity implies), and
instead tells us about how
over many generations
the
organisms
change
into
something different
...
Turner 1934, p
...
This theory of
evolution has become widely accepted all over the
world and regarded as fact rather than a theory in
many cases – for example today evolution is taught
in schools as a subject
...


However, there are still a vast majority of people
who believe in an intelligent designer (or God)
...
So we ask ourselves today, “Was Charles
Darwin crazy?” In order to answer this question,
both sides of the argument must be considered and
the evidence must be weighed up for a conclusion to
be reached
...
So in this report I will only be including
evidence that strongly supports or contradicts the
theory of evolution that the average person can
understand, without having to dedicate their lives
into the study of evolution
...
The topic is
“Was Charles Darwin Crazy?” – In other words, is
his theory of evolution feasible or not? All of the
evidence will be weighed up in order to come to an
equitable conclusion
...
If there are any parts of a theory
that cannot be proved, or can be disproved, science
itself claims that it cannot be taught as fact – So in
this report we will look at the faults, and also the
evidence that strongly supports his theory in order
to determine whether or not it could be true
...
Fact is defined as a “thing that is
known to be true” (Gerorge W
...

250) – In other words it has been proven
...
as the
information was just definitions
...
He writes about the
relationship between science and religion and
Christianity and evolution
...
Enns claims not to put his faith in science,
but he accepts it and does so by working out his
faith in the bible
...
He speaks

about a scientific consensus and how science gives
us the ability to peruse knowledge and answer
questions beyond what the bible tells us
...

Enns is merely explaining how he accepts both
“faith in science” and “faith in the bible”
...
Since Darwin did not
suggest any other process for how the world itself
came into existence, I won’t be discussing any other
theories (e
...
The “Big Bang Theory”) and solely
only consider what Charles Darwin himself, has
said
...
However, Darwinian evolution is the
topic at hand and since Charles Darwin’s aim was
not to explain where life first began, but instead
how it came to be, we can look past the fact he can’t
explain how it began
...
, present
that a protein compound was chemically formed
ready to undergo still more complex changes”
(Stephen D
...
In 1953 scientists, Stanley Miller and
Harold Urey recreated Darwin’s “soup”
...
After a
week of testing, the scientist discovered that more
than ten types of amino acids had formed
...
Again,
in 2008 another experiment was conducted with
better equipment and over twenty types of amino
acids were found
...

Darwin’s suggestion of how life began is definitely
possible and probable
...


Review and Evaluation of Articles:
(Articles AGAINST “Was Charles Darwin Crazy?”)
Life’s Origins: The article on Life’s origins by
Stephen Montgomery gives in detail the scientific
explanation for how evolution began, and how
natural selection works
...
There has been no misuse of language or
emotive language
...
This article is not a “for or
against” argument; instead it is an informative
article that tells us about how Darwin’s theory is
possible
...

In Charles Darwin’s first edition of the Origin of
Species, he estimated that the earth would have
been a few hundred million years old, which was
long enough to allow all of the species to have
evolved
...
However, it turns out both estimations
were wrong
...
6 billion years old
according to the radiometric timescale (Pau S
...
This scale was adopted in 1962
and it concluded the controversy on the earth’s age
...
6 billion years old, but could there be a
problem with todays methods of dating? – To find
this out we would have to look more deeply into the
dating method used
...
Andrew A
...
If this well-known
fact that the is proven wrong, or is not proven to be
100% true, this leaves Darwin’s entire theory of
evolution hanging by a thread
...
6 billion years old,
everything we have been taught in schools must be
incorrect
...
23:78-88)
...
Radiometric dating is
now considered to be the principal source of
information about the age of the earth
...
However, this is not important
to know at the moment
...
Scientists could use any method of
dating, say that it’s accurate (despite the fact that it
cannot be proven) and people believe it
...
In many
cases scientists have moulded information around
what they want it to prove, like the Coelacanth fish
(explained later) – This comes to show how having
expert power (which is ability to influence other
parties based on expertise and knowledge) can
cause people to believe facts that are deemed to be
true, even if they cannot be proved
...
For example, with regard to the
volcanic lavas that erupted, flowed, and cooled to
form rocks in the unobserved past, evolutionary
geologists simply assume that none of the daughter
argon-40 atoms was in the lava rock
...
In 1996 a rock
sample was taken from a volcanic crater that had
formed and cool just 10 years prior (in 1986) and
this sample contained so much argon-40 that the
radiometric scale showed the rock to be more than
350 thousand years old
...
Ngauruhoe that are
aged up to 3
...

The fact that recent lava flows are able to
yield more argon-40 than expected, tells us that the
ancient lava flows of unknown ages could also yield
excessive amounts of argon-40
...

Number three: Scientist have measured the decay
rate of parent radioisotopes for more than 100 years
and have found this rate to be fairly constant, thus
leaving geologists to believe these rates have been
the same for billions of years - This is an enormous
extrapolation over such a long span of unobserved
time without any proof that this extrapolation is
correct
...
These assumptions are
faulted, leaving the results unreliable
...
This does not make Darwin crazy – He
only estimated the time taken for the evolution to
take place
...
Having so many faults in
such important information however, makes you
question the reliability of scientists today
...
He wrote an article on
Darwinism and the age of the earth, where he
speaks about the estimations by many different
people on the Earths actual age
...
He
explains how Thomson uses a thermodynamic scale,
which gives the earth a very young age
...

There is also no bias; but what Stenger concludes,
suggests against Darwin’s ideas being crazy, or
improbable (Stenger is supporting Darwin’s ideas
with factual information)
...
Andrew A
...
In knowing this, there is
the possibility that the earth is much younger than
the radiometric scale suggests
...

Snelling uses a lot of scientific language to describe
how the radiometric scale works
...
He says
“Radiometric dating is often used to “prove” rocks
are millions of years old” – By putting the word
“prove” in brackets, this suggests he doesn’t agree
...

Ken Ham & Bill Nye Debate: Ken Ham is
definitely bias in his debate as he is a very strong
believer in creation
...

Natural Selection
Natural selection was Darwin’s most revolutionary
idea
...
Natural selection can be
broken down into five steps: Variation, inheritance,
selection, time and adaptation
...
This variation would spread through the
population, eventually resulting in a different kind
of species (Stephen D
...
This same process over
millions of years (along with many other factors) is
supposedly what Charles Darwin calls evolution
...


Darwin’s Finches
One of the most famous examples of this is
Darwin’s finches
...
The

We should also find new species forming in the
wild today
...

The Coelacanth fish:
Fossils of the Coelacanth (BELOW) fish were
supposedly evidence of a fish developing lungs and
legs – If
just this
one
piece of
evidence
were true,
then
natural
selection
would be

relevance of the finches on this island was that due
to the island being too far away, finches from other
islands could not interbreed
...
The finches were the key to
the development of Darwin’s theory
...
However, you are still left with a moth, it
hasn’t changed species
...

There are those that argue if the Darwinian theory
were true, we should have found fossil records
showing clear evidence of one species developing a
completely new characteristic of another species,
suggesting that Darwin’s’ finches do not provide
sufficient evidence of this – This is a fair suggestion
...
However, in 1938 (just 100
years after the first fossil was found) a live
Coelacanth fish was caught in a fisherman’s net –
its structure being identical to that of the 65 million
year old Coelacanth fish that was claimed to have
primitive-lungs and half-developed legs
...
The
fossil remains of this fish were supposedly strong
evidence showing a major transition between two
different species and was used for almost a century
to prove Darwin’s theory – but after this “evidence”
was disproved, not only did the idea of natural
selection seem less plausible, but also shows how
scientists can bend their findings in order to support
their idea, whether it’s true or not
...

A similar mistake was made when scientist
found a tooth and claimed it was that of a prehuman fossil that was millions of years old – From
this information in the tooth they sculptured the
entire ape-like skeleton
...

Mutations
Mutations are caused by chemical/radiation damage
or errors in DNA replication and are the physical
and behavioural changes that make natural selection
possible at a genetic level
...

Random Mutations:
How do random mutations and natural selection
form complex biological features? And how do
these features develop ion the first place? Surely the
perfect wings of a bird would not just appear due to
some sort of mutation within an individual - Natural
selection can’t possibly suggest this
...
This theory is flawed - What
makes the stumps beneficial in the first place so that
they give the individual and advantage over the
others? Why would these small mutations that have
no use or function be so advantageous to such an
extent that over many generations it makes the
individuals with stumps more likely to survive and
reproduce than those without? It is merely illogical
to suggest this
...
Charles Darwin himself agrees that “to
suppose that the eye… could have been formed by
natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in
the highest possible degree” (Charles Darwin 1872)
– He is admitting that the random mutations seem
unlikely to be the answer
...
truthinscience
...
uk/ gives
us informative information about the finches on the
Galapagos island’s
...
Also, Minimal scientific
language is used to explain how the evolution of
these finches occurs and what significance it has on
Darwin’s theory
...
One
point in particular used minimal scientific language

to explain transitions between species
...
g
...

The Genome
Despite the facts that cannot be proven, there a still
many undeniable facts that support Darwin’s
theory; One of these being the similarity between
the DNA of different species
...
From one person to the next our
genes are approximately 99
...
Similar to
humans, other mammals like cows, lions, pigs and
elephants also have around 25 000 genes
...
It is amazing that 99%
of the genes of animals like a mouse or a
chimpanzee are identical to that of a human (Steve
Potter 2011), and even more so that one third of a
chimps DNA codes for the exact same proteins as
humans
...
In one test a fruit flies DNA was
altered so that the fly grew legs where its antenna
should be; then similar alterations were made to the
human counterpart of the fly gene to produce the
same results
...
DNA sequences show not
only common design of species, but also common
decent – this agrees perfectly with Darwin’s
predictions
...


"By comparing the human and chimp genomes, we
can see the process of evolution clearly in the
changes (in DNA) since we diverged from our
common ancestor" said Robert Waterson, who is the
director of genome sciences at the University of
Washington (Tom Paulson 2005)
...

There is however, another side to this
argument
...
Don Batten explains in an article he
wrote that such similarities in the DNA of humans
and other mammals don’t suggest common decent,
but instead, a common designer
...
Batten goes on to
explain how the biochemical capacities are common
amongst all living things – therefore we share
similarities in DNA sequence with all living things
...
Don Batten mentions that a chimpanzees DNA
sequence is not even fully sequenced, yet somehow
scientist still manage to tell us how similar our
DNA is to theirs
...

Don Batten 1997)
...
There is minimal
scientific language used in this article
...
There is emotive
language used also; The reader can see how Potter
uses words like “amazing” and “extraordinary”
when discussing the science behind the DNA – This
makes us know that he is definitely for Darwin’s
idea, so he could be slightly bias in what he says
...
He also
uses some scientific language to support Darwin’s
theory
...

He is mainly using quotes from a professor of
genome sciences and explaining what the professor
means
...

Don Batten is a creationist, so there is bias in his
article; he is anti-evolution and it is obvious when
you look at his writings
...
Batten also uses a lot of scientific
language to explain in detail how the genome does
not actually prove evolution as people believe
...
Most websites used however, were
University articles, which are generally very reliable
...
The
magazines used were from National Geographic’s
and are also quite reliable
...
These websites could have
been written and altered by anyone
...
A lot of the
information used in this report however, has been
backed up on many articles and is valid information
...
In was rumoured
that he may have suffered from illnesses that may
have affected his sanity, but this was not true; he
was definitely sane
...
In fact, his theory was
quite good – for a theory, as a fact not so much
...
Darwin’s
Idea that life began in a primordial swamp under the
perfect conditions was tested with recent technology
and proven to be true
...
Despite all
of the faults in natural selection (that Darwin never
could have identified with limited technologies at
the time), there is still evidence of microevolution
occurring throughout specie like the Finches on the
Galapagos Islands
...
Darwin himself didn’t class his theory as
factual (he hoped someday evidence could be found

to support his theory), but he did open up the
doorway for many scientists today to look into his
theory, which was actually quite amazing for a
person with limited technology
...
If you look from a
Christian perspective he would in fact be crazy to
deny the Bibles teachings
...
Set aside all bias, with the amount of
technology available, Darwin’s theory was quite
plausible – He proved to the best of his ability all of
his theories could be true
...
With Christianity, their belief is built upon
faith, just as evolution
...


The End
...
,
present
that a
protein
compound
was
chemically
formed
ready to
undergo
still more
complex
changes”

In 1953
In 1953
scientists,
scientists,
Stanley
Stanley
Miller andand
Miller
Harold Urey
Harold Urey
recreated
recreated
Darwin’s
Darwin’s
“soup”
...
The
aimaim these
of of these
scientists
scientists was
was to make
to make the
the perfect
perfect
atmosphere
atmosphere
that possibly
that possibly
existed
existed
millions of of
millions
years ago,
years ago,
when lifelife
when
supposedly
supposedly
first began
...

After a a week
After
week of
of testing, the
testing, the
scientist
scientist
discovered
discovered
that more
that more types
than ten
than ten
of amino
types of had
acids
amino acids
formed
had formed

PMI – Was Charles
PMI – Was Charles
Darwin Crazy?
Darwin Crazy?
Source
Plus
Minus
Source
Minus
For Plus
(yes)
For (no)
For (yes)
For (no)
Three
N/A
N/A
It was found
Radiometric
unprovable
Darwinism
that
Dating:
assumptions
and the with of that
Age
depending
Problems
Earth
on the shape
the
geologists
of the
Assumptions
must make
Victor Stenger every time
finches’
beak their
Dr
...
they use this
diets had
Snelling
radiometric
changed –
scale to tell
Birds with
us that the
thin, sharp
earth is
beaks were
billions of
specialised
years old
for eating
insects,
whereas the
same birds
with large,
sturdy beaks
ate nuts

Interesting
Interesting
In 1996 a
-One of the
rock sample
most famous
was
taken
examples of
from
a
this is
volcanic
Darwin’s
crater
that
finches
...

years too far
away, not
This is finches
from other
the
only
islands
instance; could
not
there interbreed
have
been
other
lava
flows
known to be
less than 50
years old on
Mt
...
5
million years
old
...

Mutations result in a
change in genetic
makeup
and
theoretically
beneficial mutations
are passed on through
generations,
and
harmful or neutral
mutations
are
rejected
...
Don Batten

Minus
For (no)

Interesting

From one person
to the next our
genes are
approximately
99
...

Similar to
humans, other
mammals like
cows, lions, pigs
and elephants
also have around
25 000 genes
...
It
is amazing that
99% of the
genes of
animals like a
mouse or a
chimpanzee are
identical to that
of a human

Interesting

chimps that
would mean a
difference in
120 million
base pairs

PMI – Was Charles
PMI Was
Darwin–Crazy?
Charles Darwin
Source
Plus
Crazy?
Source
Plus For
(yes)
For (yes)
Evidence
for N/A
Fifteen
-Found
Evolutionary
Proofs
living
Relationship?:
That Don Batten
coelacanth
Dr
...
)
Still same
species

Minus
For (no)
Minus

Interesting
Interesting

For (no)
similarities in chimps that
-Coelacanth
the DNA of -Research mean
would
fish as
humans and Cumhuriyet
a difference
intermediate
Bilim Teknik120
other
in
between fish
(article on base
mammals
million
and mammals
don’t suggestfossils)
pairs
(research)
common
- Research but
decent,
Darwin’s
instead,
a
theory with
common
finches on
designer
...

island
goes on to
explain how
the
biochemical
capacities are
common
amongst
all
living things –
therefore we
share
similarities in
DNA sequence
with all living
things
...

Don
Batten
mentions that
a chimpanzees
DNA sequence
is not even
fully
sequenced

PMI – Was Charles
Darwin Crazy?
Source
Was
Darwin
Wrong?
David
Quammen
National
Geographic’s
November 2004

Plus
For
(yes)
-N/A

Minus
For (no)

Interesting

-The
mouse
genome:
30000 genes &
99% having
direct
counterparts
in humans
-Bacteria
evolving
defense
against drugs
+ DNA uses
same genetic
code found in
humans

-Gallup poll
drawn from
more
than
1000
telephone
interviews
(Feb
2001)
>45%
believed in a
creator, 37%
believed
in
both and only
12% believed
in evolution
-%
digit
skeletal
structure of
the vertebra
appears
in
humans, apes,
raccoons,
bears
and
variously
modified
in
cats,
bats,
lizards
and
turtles…etc
...
patheos
...
ucg
...
christs
...
ac
...
php?page_id=f8 - Website

Age of the Earth
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

http://www
...
org/sb/show/darwinism_a
nd_the_age_of_earth - Website
http://www
...
com/article/h
ow-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/
- Website
http://creationtoday
...
VQ-rBI7LdrU - Website
http://exploringorigins
...
html Website
http://www
...
com/releases/2010/
01/100131221348
...
christs
...
ac
...
php?page_id=d3 - Website
https://answersingenesis
...
wikipedia
...
ajsonline
...
org
(https://www
...
com/watch?v=z6kgvh
G3AkI) - Documentary

Natural Selection
•

•
•
•

Bibliography:
•

darwins-god
...
com/2010/12/howproteins-evolved
...
truthinscience
...
uk/tis2/index
...
html - Website
http://www
...
org/a/10661 - Website
http://animals
...
com
...
com/2013/12/9scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of
...
earthage
...
htm - Website
http://humansarefree
...
html
Website

Genome
•
•
•
•
•

http://ngm
...
com/ngm/041
1/feature1/ - Magazine
http://www
...
nlm
...
gov/books/NBK21
112/
http://biologos
...
christiananswers
...
html - Website

*NOTE: Used Websites (17),
documentaries/TV
programmes
(1), encyclopaedias (1), Journals
(1), Magazines (3), Dictionaries
(1) – 23 different stimulus
material/articles *



---