Civilizations development and species origin technologies. Вадим Валерьевич Корпачев

advocates believe that if one analyzes any process of change that possesses the global nature, one will find out that almost all such calculations will indicate the much younger age of Earth than is necessary for the life and man’s occurrence through evolutionary processes. Usually, young-Earth creationists consider this age to be approximately 6 or 7.5 thousand years. The old-Earth creationists on the contrary acknowledge modern scientific estimations of the age of Earth − 4.6 billion years and the Universe – 13.7 billion years.

      Creationists claim that certain evidences do not provide reliable information about the past. Radiocarbon analysis, which is based on a comparison of the stable carbon isotopes’ content in the materials with the amount of the 14C radioactive isotope, is the most often criticized one. In their opinion, radioisotope dating methods based on some isotopes half-life’s constancy may be inaccurate and provide unreliable results. However, independent methods have confirmed the radioisotope method’s accuracy, and some of these provisions have been defined more precisely during the method’s development. In addition to the carbon isotopes, there are a number of other isotopic elements that refine and correct the analysis results.

      On the contrary to the modern synthetic evolutionary theory’s advocates who make no differentiation between macroevolution and microevolution, considering one of them the continuation of the other, creationists claim that microevolution and super macroevolution are different. According to creationists, experimental evolution study used microorganisms and the data obtained cannot be transferred to more highly developed organisms. Such processes indicate the microevolution only, and thus, cannot be extended to macroevolution. The creationists do not deny the existence of microevolution, and it can easily be confirmed: its existence is indisputable on the example of the dog breeds’ variety of.

      Creationists have established museums in four countries of the world: 21 museums in the USA, 5 museums in Canada, one in the UK and one in Turkey. «The Creation Testimony Museum» was established by Carl Baugh in Texas. In the American city of Cincinnati, there is one larger museum of creationism, in which a special section is dedicated to the Flood, Noah’s Ark and the substantiation of the idea that the world was created no more than 10 thousand years ago. Creationism does not provide a satisfactory answer to the question about the causes of the very Creator or the Supreme Being’s occurrence and existence, postulating its eternity. In addition, the question arises: if the world has been created by God, then where has God himself come from? One has to assume that there is a creator for the very God («Who created God?»). This disputes the claim that God is the first cause of everything («chicken-and-egg problem»).

      According to Karl Popper’s criterion of scientific character, creationism is not a scientific theory; it is a metaphysical concept and religious faith, since the introduction of concepts untestable by scientific methods (such as the Creator God) does not meet the principles of verifiability / falsifiability.

      In 2011, 42 Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry, Physics, and Medicine wrote an open letter supporting the repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act, which actually allowed the school to teach creationist views instead of scientific ones. Creationists in Kansas demanded the evolutionary theory’s teaching in schools because of its controversial nature. In their view, students should be taught alternative points of view in secondary schools. Such a proposal was supported by the then US President George W. Bush. It served as the basis for the «Teach the Controversy» campaign, launched by the «Discovery Institute» public organization. The purpose of this campaign was to popularize the «Intelligent Design» doctrine. However, the US academic circles and judicial bodies rejected these arguments.

      On October 4, 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued a resolution titled «The Danger of Creationism in Education», which stated that «creationism in all its forms, such as «intelligent design» or «higher intelligence», is not a scientific discipline and is not subject to scientific study in European schools along with the theory of evolution or even instead of it». By this resolution, MPs called on the governments of 47 Council of Europe member states to «strongly oppose» the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline.

      1.6. INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY

      The earliest logical arguments for intelligent design’s substantiation were laid out as far back as 1806 by William Paley in the book «Natural Theology». The author proposed a «watchmaker concept,» which is called «argument from design». It is grounded on the following example: imagine that we have found a watch in a field. It would never occur to anyone to speculate that this watch had occurred itself as a result of a chain of random interactions of molecules. It is quite evident that the watch occurred as a result of the intelligent design, with a watchmaker as the author of it. The Universe and biological systems are much more complicated than watches. Paley argued that life obviously could not have existed if it had not been created by a «watchmaker» with an immeasurably more powerful mind than that of simple watches’ creator. The popularity of this analogy has prompted Clinton Richard Dawkins, an American biologist and distinguished Darwinist popularizer, to continue arguing with Paley in his book «The Blind Watchmaker». He showed that the blind process of evolution acts as the «creator» of complex organisms observed by people. Dawkins’s position is that natural selection fully explains the apparent practicality and complexity of biological diversity, and even if we draw an analogy with a watchmaker, we mean a soulless, unreasonable and blind watchmaker. In his opinion, the human genom «contains a huge amount of «garbage», idle and even deadly genes, such as, for example, oncogenes. Only a blind watchmaker but not a «wise» creator could create all this. «Dawkins turned out to be wrong, as the important function of this «garbage» has been defined.

      In addition, Dawkins’s findings in favour of evolution were criticized by Jonathan Sarfatti in his book «The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution» (2010).

      Stanislav Lem in his paper «Are We Alone in the Universe?» (Czy jestesmy sami w kosmosie? Nurt. Poznan, 1977, №. 5) noted that «The action of the forces of nature can explain, for example, the occurrence of a star, amoeba or thunderstorm can be explained by the nature forces actions, but not the occurrence of a watch. The watch would not arise «itself» if we had been waiting for this for billions of years.

      «The Intelligent Design» movement and theory’s modern founders are William Dembski, the American mathematician and philosopher, and Michael Behe, the American biochemist, Professor of the University of Pennsylvania at Lehigh and a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. They treat their views as a scientific theory, according to which certain features of the Universe and life are best explained by an intelligent first cause and could not occur as a result of natural processes without conscious control.

      William Dembski, the mathematician, philosopher and theologian, developed the notion of «specified complexity». In his opinion, if an object possesses a certain level of complexity, it is possible to prove its creation by the intelligent creator, as it could not occur due to the natural processes. For example, a letter of the alphabet makes sense, but does not have complexity; a sentence composed of a random set of letters has complexity, but does not make sense, while Shakespeare’s sonnet is both complex and definite. The same principle, in his opinion, is applicable to biological objects, especially to the DNA sequences. W. Dembski believes that systems with the too low natural occurrence’s probability belong to a «certain complexity». The point of view of W. Dembski regarding the relationship between the «Intelligent Design» theory and Christianity is the contradictory one. He argued that «Intelligent Design» does not stand for God, but may be of a cosmic origin: «It could be space aliens. There are many possibilities. «One of his books is entitled «The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World» (2009). At the same time, in a number of cases, he defined the idea as the Christian God’s plan and associated it with the Christian materialistic replacement. W. Dembski entitled one of his books as «Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science amp; Theology» (1999). In my opinion, the «Intelligent Design» ideas cannot be associated with the religious ideas about God, which are preached by creationists and modern theologians. If the «Intelligent Design» advocates the idea of God, they contribute to the Christianity’s false and harmful ideas. The creation of the surrounding world has deeper roots than bizarre religious ideas about God, his son and the Holy Spirit and all