] English 9 Honors Research Paper (400 Points)

~v~~ent

1t~D~~tJfilieSisstatem~~~ 1!J'~~~'tf;;ent, relevance and e ployment of II ~ 3 AJ 5 . /. . .. _ _

~otations from text to support analysis ~ ~. ~~~ 1x20 = /'10

o~r=o':-~-1t~t/I&t///M~~

~~7/;;:Z;jJZ!~ ~/~~1 2 30)5f!f! OMItp ~.~ (J?lP(O 1tJ'/'cY~ 9xl0~_'fI11-~~ ~ ~ a,tl1tu1tdzf>~

Gramm;;an~ce structure~~ - ~;za/ 1 2 6) 4 5

p~tuation and capitalizatioR- ~ 1 2 @J 4 5

Minimum Requirements for paper 1 2 3 4 @Minimum of 1,500 words, 10 parenthetical citationsfive sources(at least 1 primary)

MLA form in paper- ~ HZ ~~

Citations consistent with Works Cited --/04.123@5

1 2 3 ~ 5

/1/0

~!~Y -;

Scienceand creativi~ fpposites that havefoundthemselvesin the sameargwn~ince its

p~science hasbeenthe cornerstoneforprobl~ng. However,moderndayproblems

~ areproving~ardnons for scienceto bandl~ particular;man's evolntion.Thepath for

the evolution of humans has eluded scientists for deA~7lmost centuries. Lucy, the illustrious

first fossil sign of early human life, started it all ~he fossil made scientists and science itself,

question what had happened to man that made the species ~~lve so rapidly. Since Lucy's

results of a sy-ence generator.The program changed an entire 28 character sentence and if

resultedin tbl, ,:;heprobabilityof randomlygenerating[the]targetsequenceis [abont~ ?[taking] longer than the universe's eXistenCe"(DeSig~. Evolution). Mathematically proven the

chances of achieving a randomly set sequence is next to impossible. If the sequence was reached

A /41it would most likely have taken longer than time itself has existed. In this case sCienceeJ'ro,<§

y? b ~~ its own dOwnf~arlY this shows that such a complex piece of ~ ~ fiiIimpossible. If it was calculated to have taken about 2728 number of tries to complete a 28 letter t

dJ!:1sequence, imagine how long it would take to generate a DNA sequence billions of characters-;k. 7:!NY

long. Not just once, but multiple times. This would undonbtedly @impossible to occur yY'randomly. Because science reduced its own possibilities to form comPle~ DNA, it does,

not have@'plve man's eVOIUtiorr.f~st~tten also stated in his (

paper on intelligent design that, ''tere is zero possibility of two alike proteins [to1 form beside ~'1each other ... a minimal flagellum requires six proteins"(Science Behind Design). For ~ans, ljfJ/\

or even animals to evolve from a single, simple cell ~d require a ~ :'vement.

But h~ explained by Dawkins, any DNA sequence would be virtually impossible to

b!fcells cannot move to acquire molecules necessary for survival. This shows that if the first form of jjXPflife did evolve from one cell, it would have died because it lacked flagellum to move. It lacks a . ~

flagellum because there can never be two random and naturally formed similar proteins next to

each other, let alone six alike proteins. Since science cannot prove how the first cell formed, it

has no evidence to support not only man's evolution, but any evolution at all:'1"iiiie'and time ~/

again science has proven ~ downfal d fails to support its theories about evolution fJl!I. iJJofm/~~ ~~u ~

At the same tnne~ science textbooks contradict ~entists' field Ob~d

therefore ~lead@Udents. Embryologist Jonathan Wells states in his article on evolution

that when he rereadhis college and high school textbooks on reproduction that, ''1be [embryo].-

biology J athan Wells noticed that what his profession taught and what his old textbooks

exprei d goagainsteachother.Meaningthat students~~e textbookare~alselY ~

leadfrms canbe interpretedin differentways.But accordingto~e textbooksare Wwron ' . This matters because science either does not know of the mistake or it will not change it

becauseit knowsit is wro IJ. Furtherin hispape a~s that, "Wy] interestin the

emb awings was revived when Biologist Michael Richardson published his study of actual

embryos. [He] was quoted saying, 'it looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous~-/ ~~ 7/tDJ- - -

eJ.'~ Fellowscientists.J alsonotiC@what~ hadnoticea1lecausehe said

that his interest was 'revived', e~had most likely forgotten about his fmdings with the

ryo drawings or he had simply dismisse his matters because now o~e~ sci~9tistsnoticedana <1'». ~ - - .that textbook embryo drawings are incorrec ~ ~ ~

Moreover, characteristics that have been lost in evolution always leave tra~ ~

existence. As proposed by Charles Darwin, humans ony had gills. However there is no proof.. IIi, I~

M .. h" h' . .[:". 1 . /~h . uI~I/§,any SCI~ VIews t ISm lancy, a most esotenc ways~nce agam

QUtS all of t~~rds into . , pIe m y saying, '~an embryos never [had] gills, notu.l/ _

even [basic] ones' (Wel .). Witho~~-s ofgil like structure~ere can be no proof humans. . f

everhadgillsat all.Thismatte~use)- =thz?"~s.:z~ ~ .Jw{-rIfromanyseacrea~ showssciencedoesnot haveanyevidenceto supporthowman~ ~

evo '" In addition, Jo~ Wellshas also discovered the reason Darwin had proposed the~/J1Cl5

~ost~ theory. He says that, "Darwin relied on biologist Ernst Haekel, who produced

7/tb-M- ek OMJ£'- d-~ j~ _/ttJ~ ~

drawings of embryos ... [ones] that vertebrate embryos n,tr~led eg gill~ ~

Darwin's theory failed before he even began 1<> theorize iL His embryologist ~ead bim ~

which resulted in his theory being wron. ISmatters because Itprovi es redibility Darwin. ~ ?f'

Jfhe had not been falsely lead then his theory would have eventually found it~h:fuln~ut 4 .•AA~ ;IJ ~ of /JlU ~ , lP}))r" ,

because Darwin's theory was faulty and remaine~here can be no physical evidence to ~.. !:' 1JJ)41. ) ~ ~-

prove his theories about man's evolution. /Ji4To emphasize, science has made its@n saying that ~ationism and~telligent ~sign is.-- ~

~

~ . 1 d 1" B' 1 . S R ;V( . >: hot y way re ate to re IglOn. 10 Ogist teve enner was tlooted;hAltS i'Cl'ortsaymg tat,

~ '~lligent Design is based on the scientific method, not faith"(Himma). Here Renner

acknowledges that skeptics accuse@telligent@isign as an extension of religion. However, he

~ makes a en drawing the line of religion away fronryltelligent@osign. This matters becansfi;(:

~I:Jt?now intelligent design and creationism are not considered forms of practicing religiO~~

rPr»V I there is no clashing religious views about whether~telligent ~ign should@tcluded in' -;y;--~ .~(

science curriculum. furthermore, National Academy ofScienceyrofessor Phillip Skell was'"'/ .

quotcd saying, ''J)Y collcagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with

~ the evolutionary theory ... they display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian

~ ~ iew"(Hinuna). Colleagnes of scientists are stubborn ~n they are c~~e theory ~ ~

~ of evolution. They don't accept any other theory for it, including intelligent design theories and ffVJ;f?~7 ~ ./

. religious theorie. learly science does to want to change 1 s But if It rules out religious ~ rrJ;Jf#

~esign wo/ the gaps in Darwin's theories and should be laugh ~"

alongside'. G. if . ~- P;«~ I- ~'Jd;;f~:J~ fthl~if~~~~~P;VF ~~h~~

Conversely, Charles Darwin suggests all s ecies evolved from a simple form of that species.

Part Of1:he<lri~arwin'S s lifi tl theory states that, "9.'1lanismswith the most?/

beneficial traits are more likely to survive and reproduce"(Haselhurst). The part of Darwin's rI'~rJP'fr

fittest' best communicates the concept. owever, the majority of imperious species today are not ~ ifnearly as intelligent as hnmans. Darwin's theory therefore fails to explain why humans evolvoo !f'I Ifastes ecause the theory is inCOmPlete,~telligent@ is ablree~an's hazy past---7' tt ~ (

ore Darwin's theory was simplified to sa~ f sexually reproducing species, generally no

two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant"(Haselhurst). The recognized father of I"

~ , [».1fu)UIt 7evolutioE~m thinking that variation frequently occur~eory has ~

itself immensely in the human populations and no two individuals are the sam~ /l

and clones. However, this does not show exactly why humans evolved fastest. (

In addition, scientists O"eco15threatenoo by intelligent design's growing supporters and M!have faked or exaggerated discoveries in relation to evidence of human evolution~ ~

a fuked diSCO& when a skull had been fouud in England in 1912 and, "[the sIiuJI] had been \ r)IfJ

chemically stained to giVl:.l the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed ~~

down"("Evolution Frau~')1~;;;;:e apparently has been afraid for arouu003c So afraid Wthat some scientists resortooe~ find in England. This matters because science is trying tl 'make its own finds about human evolution and manipulate them in its favor. Mainly because it }l!Olacks the evidence for the field. Furthermore, in ~iSh town in 1982 another alleged human .

ossil was found and, ~ was [said] to be from a 9,000,000 to 1.6 m~ion years ago ... police

l,ter admitted that it was the skull of a donkey"("Evolution Fraud~uch closer to current timeI

~~

sciences .s still exaggerating finds. This means that science is still creating its own finds and l ~

tring to make them seem like legitima1e discoveries about human evolution. I~Ultimately scieuce has beeu its own downfall in its attempt to prove man's eVOlutiO~ ~

the 1echnology of supercomputers and the brain-power of theorists, science bas provided its own Q ~~ Other theories for the evolution of species can be proven with physical./ ~

~ l evidence. Science has yet to find solid evidence to fill gaps in the theory of the evolution of an. ~~

a possible solution that would plug the gaps. School ~ ~

is where most profession preferences originate and where evolution is taught. But if science can qv"not even explain the evolution for a scientist's own, IlZIl!lO' "$.eriOniSm in science

ffi. 1 . /WMh- hW/hf.idfll/l . J.otAJ

hUJ1v d .

o ers a perspecllve on evo uuob. i ,t t at ,utrt;Jucuon s ,e '[; courses t en 10terest stu e ts 10

man's evolution. If not introduced interest would be lost, resulti~ f:(ltf./!;:f4~c~toplunge

Haselhurst, Geoffrey. "TheTheory of Evolution Charles Darwin." Space and Motion. n.d. W

Philosophy. N.p., 23 122003. Web. 13 Feb 2012.

"IntelligentDesign vs Evolution Theory."Life's Origin. Web. 2 Feb 2012. /

"The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory."Idea Center:'Web. 20 Feb 2012. tI.Wells, Jonatlum. "Survival of the Fakest." The American Spectator. 122000. Web. 20 Feb 2012. /tV'"/