DOES SCIENCE MAKE PEOPLE ASIDE FROM RELIGION? Science does drive people away from their religion because it provides elucidations and makes people analyze what religion obligates to believe. People have to accept what the religion says with no opportunity to question it. Besides, science approves what religion does not, for example clonation, heliocentrism and the origin of life; also, the morning-after pill which was developed by the science and the religion is dissident about it. The bunch of proofs that science has supplied, has put humanity in doubt and has unbalanced the belief of the origins of life. Religion and science have always been seen as two different fields. Some people are inclined towards religion while others opt for science. This essay will explain the differences between scientific and religious creationism. Both of the creationisms are theories. Religious creationism might be considered as blind faith because no proofs are given but it focuses on what has been thought since always, instead, scientific creationism has proofs and explanations of what has been happening depending on Earth’s changes and the nature. Religious creationism starts with the inception of a supreme being also named God, and scientific creationism starts with the Hadean eon.
People who think that Earth was made by God believe in this because of their faith in him and his word. Religious theory of creationism is hypothetical since it is considered possible without having proofs to verify it. An example is the phrase "We walk by faith, not by sight." (I Corinthians 5:7). According to the most popular religion in the world, Christianity, the world was created in 7 days by God. In the first day, light and darkness (day and night) were mad...
... middle of paper ...
...do not totally agree with it because the possibilities of an accidental origin are tiny. Although I am considered Catholic, I do not believe in its theory of the creation because science provides explications, contrary to religion, which is based on believing what the bible and the church says. The scientific theories of creationism have a rational explanation step by step not including philosophical part, but the chemical coordination of the formation of the universe and life since its most minimum expression. Religion explains the origin of life in its own way by forcing people to believe in its principles without any discussion, therefore, humans’ logic rejects its impositions and to my point of view, what may be called their fantasies. On the other hand, both theories could be either real or false by the very fact that they are theories and are not ascertained.
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
Creationism and the study of evolution has been a controversial debate for decades now, leaving many people on one side or the other. Creationism argues that faith should take precedent over science, basing its beliefs on one book for guidance, the Bible. God created the earth and everything on it, taking six days. Evolutionists believe that the earth is much older than the Bible describes, and that plants, animals, and humans are a result of a natural progression called evolution. There were no common ancestors (Adam and Eve) from whom we came; it was a natural selection process, stemming from inorganic compounds and nature. For many people in the scientific world, it is hard to take a final stance on this issue since there is evidence of evolution, but that is where faith in God and what God has done comes into effect. According to a great medieval philosopher, Moses Maimonides, “conflicts between science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible”(Schroeder, 3). This paper will reveal some topics that these two groups debate about, along with their viewpoints.
Forty percent of the American population believe in Young Earth creationism. There are many different types of creationism. Young Earth creationism is the literal interpretation of genesis that states that the universe was created through an act of god 10,000 or fewer years ago. Whereas evolution is the theory that all life evolved from a single organism and the changes that take place in organisms. There are many famous debates over this topic as well.
In reading the article “The Origin of Old-Earth Geology and its Ramifications for Life in the 21st Century by Dr. Terry Mortenson, I discovered the different points debated by Christian and non-Christian scientists about how the universe was created. Dr. Mortenson says” Almost everyone living today takes for granted that the universe and earth are billions of years old” (Mortenson, 2003). I will discusses the author’s strengths and weakness in the article that affected my views on the theory.
For centuries people have believed in Creationism which is the idea that the Earth, its inhabitants, and everything in the universe was created and governed by a supernatural power. According to Branch and Scott, the biggest influence on this idea is the Bible and more specifically the Book of Genesis which presents “creation ex nihilo (“from nothing”), a world flood, [and] a relatively recent inception of the Earth” (27). Branch and Scott are of course referring to the Judeo-Christian biblical creation stories of “Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, the Flood and Noah’s Ark” which, in the seventeenth-century Europe, were “generally considered to by literally true” (Park 24). From these stories the idea that except for the “great flood, the Earth and its inhabitants were pretty much the same now a...
Conflict between science and religion has been around way before Charles Darwin’s published book, Origin of the Species, came to be (“The Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Controversy”). Which is a book that is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology, featuring the idea of ‘natural selection.’ Some people believe that we as humans have evolved as the most intelligent and advanced species on the planet, while others think we have been placed here and designed for a reason. Many debates and court cases have come to be because of these two ideas of science versus religion. Although there are many debates between the two, the ideas overturn when the parties overlook the distinction between that which cannot be proven (faith), compared with that which has not been proven (theory) (Lipman, Robert M.). Theories, including evolution, can and should be investigated with appropriate scientific diligence (Lipman, Robert M.).
An example of this, dealing with the creation of this world by God, are the biblical creationists and the scientific creationists. While both parties believe that God formed this Earth with his own hand,
In the history of science vs. religion there have been no issues more intensely debated than evolution vs. creationism. The issue is passionately debated since the majority of evidence is in favor of evolution, but the creation point of view can never be proved wrong because of religious belief. Human creation breaks down into three simple beliefs; creation theory, naturalistic evolution theory, and theistic evolution theory. The complexities of all three sides create a dilemma for what theory to support among all people, religious and non-religious.
Creation science, which is a belief that God created the Earth and all the creatures in it, is not science because creation by God or another divinity does not give concrete scientific explanation of life's origin. Rather, it is an explanation consistent with their beliefs that an intelligent creator, God, exists and created the universe. Creationists try to verify this concept and other Biblical stories by evaluating on scientific grounds. Geologists, for instance, used to try to explain all the earth's geological features in terms of Noah's Flood.
Many theories regarding the initial creation of the Universe and the Earth have been disputed throughout history. Scientific theories such as the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution have been thought to disagree with religious doctrines such as Creation and Intelligent Design. Historically, many Christians have chosen to believe only in Creation, while the scientific community generally believes in only scientific theories. However, Catholic Popes disagree, stating that Creation can live in harmony with Evolution. In addition to this controversy, some fundamentalist groups insist that Creation or Intelligent Design also be taught in public schools. However, despite the proof that the theory of evolution does not conflict with Catholic
“Scientific evidence is consistent with the belief that the physical universe was designed by God.” There is lots of evidence for creation. Though, the Bible is our source for understandings the history of the earth, scientific “evidences” have some place.
While some people may believe that science and religion differ drastically, science and religion both require reason and faith respectively. Religion uses reason as a way of learning and growing in one’s faith. Science, on the other hand, uses reason to provide facts and explain different hypotheses. Both, though, use reason for evidence as a way of gaining more knowledge about the subject. Although science tends to favor more “natural” views of the world, religion and science fundamentally need reason and faith to obtain more knowledge about their various subjects. In looking at science and religion, the similarities and differences in faith and reason can be seen.
Understanding science and religion historically most individuals would assume that the two differ more than they relate. For decades, there has been the overwhelming debate about the differences between science and religion, and the issues that have set them apart from each other. However, personally, when it comes to the views, and goals of the two they share very similar ideologies and attributes.
The relationship between science and religion has been debated for many years. With strong personal opinions and beliefs, it is not surprising that no progress has been made in this argument. In my opinion, I feel as though religion and science have to be related in some way. There is no possible way people can separate two things that attempt to prove the same facts. My belief is that a metaphorical bridge has to be formed to connect the two. Personally, I feel as though science can be a compliment to religion, and that the scientific discoveries can and should be used to prove that God exists, not disprove it. If science did this, then the relationship between science and religion could be a friendly one. If that happened, people could stop debating and fighting over the two, allowing priests and scientists to talk and work together peacefully.
Up until the Enlightenment, mankind lived under the notion that religion, moreover intelligent design, was most likely the only explanation for the existence of life. However, people’s faith in the church’s ideals and teachings began to wither with the emergence of scientific ideas that were daringly presented to the world by great minds including Galileo and Darwin. The actuality that there was more to how and why we exist, besides just having an all-powerful creator, began to interest the curious minds in society. Thus, science began to emerge as an alternative and/or supplement to religion for some. Science provided a more analytical view of the world we see while religion was based more upon human tradition/faith and the more metaphysical world we don’t necessarily see. Today science may come across as having more solid evidence and grounding than religion because of scientific data that provides a seemingly more detailed overview of life’s complexity. “Einstein once said that the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible” (Polkinghorne, 62). Yet, we can still use theories and ideas from both, similar to Ian Barbour’s Dialouge and Integration models, to help us formulate an even more thorough concept of the universe using a human and religious perspective in addition to scientific data.