Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories

[TheRealJoeFish]

Let's just take your first paragraph.

"The most pressing and controversial topic of all are the questions concerning where we came from and how we got here."

- Quite possibly true. Very important, of course, most would agree.

"One side insists that we came from a being or deity, while another advocates evolution and the Big Bang theory."

- This 1) is a false dichotomy (there are people who believe in both a deity and evolution, and people who believe neither in a deity nor in evolution), 2) assumes that belief in evolution and belief in the big bang theory go hand in hand (which they certainly don't), and 3) frames the issue as a dispute between two entities (sides). This last one isn't of itself a bad thing if you're discussing things like demographics and historical belief in science/religion, but in the context of a comparison of validity between two viewpoints, the things that should be compared are "Belief 1" and "Belief 2", not "the people who believe Belief 1" and "the people who believe Belief 2."

"Throughout history we have assigned various deities to our existence; however, it wasn’t until roughly two centuries ago that it was even questioned."

- The first clause here is certainly true. There have been a whole friggin' lot of gods. I don't believe that the second clause is correct, and without in-text citation I don't know if this is an unsourced opinion or is based on one of the sources given. I see what you're getting at and don't disagree 100%, but I think it could be far more precisely phrased as "until about 200 (or however many) years ago, the 'West' was socially and politically almost uniformly theistic..." or the like.

"Many scientists claim that the belief of a creator can be discarded based on the overwhelming scientific evidence."

- Again, this simply does not seem correct, or at least, useful. What is "many"? There are a whole lot of theistic scientists. I think that relatively few people state that there is tremendous scientific evidence against a deity; rather, the far more common assertion among both scientists and laypeople is that there is no evidence in favor of a deity, and that naturalism is far less extraordinary, inasmuch as, regardless of the number of things we can't explain, among those things we can affirmatively explain, 100% of them have confirmed natural explanations and exactly 0 of them have confirmed supernatural explanations.

"Although, there are many problems with the second argument, including: corruption of the publicized scientific community, the inability to explain the fundamental living blocks of life, humans’ tendency to change and/or omit scientific theories, the obvious inconsistent and desperate theories of modern science, and finally, the complexity of biological systems that science is unable to explain."

- Ah, here it is: the sort of laundry list of PRATTs/screed of irrelevancies that the slant of your paper suggested would appear eventually. We'll take these in order: 1) What evidence is there for "corruption of the publicized scientific community?" Do you mean, by this, a "conspiracy" or other unwillingness to publish "non-established viewpoints?" These viewpoints are not generally established because they are false and the evidence is not there. Scientific publications desperately want to print a novel viewpoint if there's even some good evidence for it; when things aren't punished, it's generally because the evidence is bad, or that they're really pieces of theology or philosophy cloaked in pseudoscientific language. Such things aren't appropriate for science magazines. 2) The inability to explain the building blocks of life is something we're working on. Everything is unexplained until it is explained. The scientific process is geared not to provide an answer but to provide the correct answer. 3) The tendency to omit or change theories is why science works. It's a process. That's the beauty of science: People argue that "science is a religion" or that "evolution requires a huge amount of faith," but that's just pure weapons-grade balognium, because EVERY THEORY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE IF IT IS LATER SHOWN TO BE INCORRECT. 4) What are the "inconsistent" or "desperate" theories you speak of? 5) See #2.