For this blog, create your own discussion about this debate. Where do you stand and why? What critical criteria have you used to consider this issue (if at all -- maybe it's the first time you've thought about it)? Where does this issue stand among the issues of the day?

I'm sure I will get bombarded for this but I am not one who believes in religion, therefore I do not believe in creationism. However, I do understand the appeal and need for religion by the masses. Religion gives people a sense of community, belonging and guidance. Creationism is based off of religion and I have a hard time believing in anything that is built off of religion.

When you look at the Bible and it only goes back so many years and the fossil record goes further there is dilemmas in me excepting and believing in it. When the big bang theory defies genesis I have a hard time believing it. When the bible attacks certain people because of their religious stand, skin color, or sexual orientation there is a problem. When someone tells me that I'm a sinner when I have done nothing wrong there is a problem. When the bible gets rewritten because science or culture says otherwise there is a problem. One of my favorite reasons, when someone who rejects at least hearing theories about science and says it was put there by the devil to test our faith there is a huge problem. When............well you get the idea. As a logical person, I can not take into account all of these points and put all my belief and faith in it. Not to mention the total lack of real evidence supporting anything the bible portrays. Anyway, I personally do not believe in religion but accept it for the support it gives people. The bible itself has a lot of false things said but the idea of religion and the sense of community it supplies is great.

Changing gears into a partly more neutral area, Social Darwinism is not much better in my eyes. The belief is based off of religion and evolution combined to form the perfect example of pseudoscience. The belief is almost asinine yet at thee same time can not be argued with to the same extent as religion. While politics, Hollywood and other big money makers out there are based off of "old money" people who are smarter or better looking typically get into the field. If you try to say that they just know how to play politics then they are technically still smarter because they are capable of getting the job. However, the elitist ideas of social Darwinism is ridiculous. The idea that there is a superiority and hierarchy of the races is ridiculous.

What do you think of when you see the word “pseudoscience”? How do you understand the argument between evolution and creation, as Jacoby presents it? Please end your blog with at least one good critical question.

Having taken Philosophy, I have a decent understanding of what pseudoscience is. There are many things that fall into the vague category of pseudoscience; creationism, religion, pyschic abilities, etc. all fall into the vast category of pseudoscience. The science is one that has absolutely no substantial or reproducable evidence supporting it. Big Foot, for example, has a few pictures and possibly a foot print but none of it has been reproduced or the actual creature found. Therefore, Big foot falls into the category of pseudoscience because he has not been proven to actually exist. Pseudoscience does not neccessarrily mean that every belief and scientific theory falls into the group. Some of Einstein's theories have not been reproduced with scientific equations but because the equations and theory seem sound, Einstein's theories remain as theories and not pseudoscience. Opening the can of worms that is religion, religion is a pseudoscience because there is absolutely no evidence except faith and the idea does not appear to have any proof occurring any time soon. Therefore, religion falls completely into the category of pseudoscience.

Creationism falls directly into the category of pseudoscience because it has no real proof to support and can not be proven anytime soon unless with the use of faith- which can not be challenged because it is a personal belief. On the other side of theh spectrum, Evolution has real and substantial proof in the form of fossil records, carbon dating, etc. In Jacoby's view, Creationsim is a direct hindrence on the scientific community with the challenge and feud between religion with creationism and science with evolution.

Religion has been given credit for continuing any sort of intellectualism after the collapse of the Roman Empire. However, with relisgion's basis in pseudoscience it has a conflict with today's scientific beliefs and the advancement of the nation as intellectuals. Can religion ever take enough of a back seat not to hinder science and intellectualism? Keep in mind, I dont call for the end of religion because I know many people need the sense of something greater then worldly facts.