“Creation science” fails two important tests of science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith. Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious.
In the last few decades, a movement called “creation science” has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require “no reliance upon biblical revelation,” but utilize “only scientific data to support and expound the creation model.” (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.
By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have re-raised the question of what “science” is. Philosophers of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria (produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists). To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value, must be coherent (or internally consistent), must …
… middle of paper …
…g Science by Phillip Kitcher and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. These books address specific and frequent creationist arguments and show how they are fallacious. Another thorough deconstruction of creation science can be found in the talk.origins FAQs.
1. Henry Morris, “Tenets for Creationism,” Acts and Facts Series, No. 85, July 1980.
2. Tom McIver, Anti-Evolution (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1992).
3. Andy Peters, “Welcome to talk.origins!” http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-welcome.html .
4. Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole, Quat. Rev. Biol. 60, (1985), p. 21.
5. A list of suspicious credentials at the Institute for Creation Research, along with other examples of blatant dishonesty, can be found at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Physician-Assisted Suicide is Morally and Ethically Acceptable
The long time debate over medically assisted suicide, the presence of a doctor at a patient’s suicide, resurfaced again with the conviction of doctor Jack Kevorkian. Kevorkian was convicted of second degree murder when he euthanized, or administered the injection himself, Thomas Youk on September 17, 1998. Dr. Kevorkian, an advocate and practitioner of medically assisted suicides, has many opponents on the issue. Opponents say that it is unethical and even with the consent of the patient that the procedure is still a homicide and not suicide. I plan to show that physician-assisted suicide is morally and ethically acceptable, that court cases and laws have proven it to be acceptable, and that it is better than other alternatives. It is only logical that through consent by the patient, that physician-assisted suicide is justified.
In the last decade there have been numerous cases regarding physician-assisted suicide. Many have been overturned due to technicalities. For instance, in the trial People vs. Kevorkian, Dr. Kevorkian was acquitted for prescribing the medication not knowing it would lead to death. The court ruled that if Kevorkian had knowingly prescribed the drugs in order for the patients to commit suicide, then he would have been found guilty.
Since the start of the debate there has been some initiatives voted on in states in order to deal with the issue. Currently, only one state, Oregon, has passed a law allowing physician-assisted suicides. The law, titled The Oregon Death with Dignity Act, allows physician-assisted suicides and not euthanasia. This law has sparked a huge debate on whether other states will follow Oregon’s lead and pass similar laws. It is also importan…
… middle of paper …
… Adam. “Showdown for Doctor Death.” Time 152 (1998): 46-7.
“Deathnet.” Online. Internet. 27 April 1999. Available http://www.rights.org/deathnet/open.html.
Detroit Free Press. “The Suicide Machine.” 1997. Online. Internet. 27 April 1999. Available http://www.freep.com/suicide/index.html.
Fields-Meyer, Thomas. “Exit Strategy.” People-Weekly 50 (1998): 58-60.
Foer, Franklin. “Death in Prime Time.” U.S. News