Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Concept of worldview
What is a worldview and why is it important
Concept of worldview
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Concept of worldview
According to Edward Wilson, the desire of mankind to explain their origins has led to three dominant worldviews that attempt to explain human existence and present condition. These three worldviews are God-centered religion, political behaviorism, and scientific humanism. However, these views fail to recognize another increasingly popular worldview known as Intelligent Design. Because the theory of Intelligent Design hinges on the premise that human existence is the direct consequence of a supernatural “intelligent designer” who designed the world and all of its complex organisms, that in turn are made up of complex parts designed purposefully by this “intelligent designer”, Wilson has lumped this theory in with the God-centered creation worldview (par. 12). However, proponents of Intelligent Design differ from traditional Creationists in the idea that they are attempting to put a scientific stamp on their theory. Proponents of this theory conduct scientific research to ferret out facts that scientifically support their theory. As Intelligent Design attempts to meld Creationism and Darwinism, it certainly should be addressed as an independent worldview from those examined by Wilson. As individual principals go, there are none so staunchly supported and stubbornly held to as those regarding the beginning of life. Because religion relies on the blind faith that mankind epitomizes God’s creative power and our present condition has likewise been guided by his hand, political behaviorism relies on the theory that humans are simply blank slates, free from the bindings of religious dogma and evolving genetic imprinting and are able to be molded and imprinted with the “best” political ideals, and scientific humanism relies on the ...
... middle of paper ...
...elligent Design. While it is reasonable to associate Intelligent Design with Creationism, the two differ in the fact that proponents of Intelligent Design seek to explain existence not only through the existence of a natural designer, but also through scientific research and supporting evidence. Because the theory attempts to merge God-centered religious based views and scientific views, it should be assigned an independent world view. That being said, it remains that there is no common ground between the three worldviews and because both political behaviorism and Creationism have no scientific basis for explanation they are wholly incompatible with science. As long as the scientific community continues to recognize that “the battle line is, as it has ever been, in biology”, as Wilson states, there can be no compatibility between the three world views (par. 23).
The Dover Area School District of Dover, Pennsylvania is seeking approval from the General Assembly of Pennsylvania House to include the theory of intelligent design in the instruction of biology. Intelligent design, also known as I.D., is a theory that seeks to refute the widely-accepted and scientifically-supported evolution theory. It proposes that the complexity of living things and all of their functioning parts hints at the role of an unspecified source of intelligence in their creation (Orr). For all intents and purposes, the evidence cited by I.D. supporters consists only of the holes or missing links in evolutionary theory; it is a widely-debate proposal, not because ?of the significant weight of its evidence,? but because ?of the implications of its evidence? (IDnet).
In 1986, Richard Dawkins suggested that Paley's "design" argument might have been the best explanation in the 19th century for the existence of God and the intelligent design of the universe in his novel The Blind Watchmaker. Although Paley succeeded in making his argument, Dawkins argued that it had one major defect; the explanation itself. “Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong.” (Dawkins : 606) Paley gave the traditional religious answer to who our designer is: God.
Jones states that intelligent design is a religious view, based of creationism and not a scientific theory. He adds that the Dover school board’s claim to be examining an alternate form of science is simply, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom. After the judge decision the school board, consisting of newly-elected, pro- science members. The federal courts have ruled that creationism, creation science, and intelligent design are not science, but instead endorse a specific religious belief. Therefore, these topics are not appropriate content for a science classroom. Neither Intelligent design nor any other form of creationism has met any of the standards of science and cannot be tested by the scientific method. On the other hand, evolution, like all other sciences, is founded on a growing body of observable and reproducible evidence in the natural
John Polkinghorne’s The Universe as Creation does its best to not convince the reader of Intelligent Design, but rather to dissuade the reader from the notion that although the is intelligently designed, but in this way, it has made science possible.
The 1982 court case McLean vs. Arkansas put in the public spotlight just how important drawing the distinction is. In what has become a landmark case in the creation/evolution legal debate, the Arkansas legislature passed without debate a bill mandating that the state redraw its science education standards so to include in the state's public high school curricula the body of ideas known as "creationism" - the notion that Earth and its inhabitant life forms were formed in the same forms as they are seen today - alongside evolution - the mainstream view of biologists holding that life developed and diversified gradually over millions of successive generations.
Humans have asked questions about their origin and their purpose on earth for eons. The Bible tells humans that God created them and explains their purpose. However, since the Renaissance, humanism answers questions about origins by naturalistic means and science has been redefined in the process. Most institutions of higher education and many individuals have adopted the naturalistic theory of evolution to explain human origin without considering its effects on faith. In contrast to prevailing thought at Goshen College, a literal six-day creation is foundational to the Gospel message. Combining evolution and Christianity makes one’s faith less logical and opens one’s science to new quandaries.
Justice Felix Frankfurter stated in his opinion in McCollum v. Board of Education, "We have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion. If nowhere else, in the relation between Church and State, good fences make good neighbors." (Moore 1) For the last century in America and ideological war has been fought in our legislatures, courts, and schools. Some parts of the fundamentalist Christian movement have tried repeatedly to prevent the teaching of the Darwinian theory of evolution in public schools because they see it as a threat to their religious beliefs. Darwin's theory posits that species evolve over eons of time, changing in ancestor-descendant relationships from one species to another. This is often perceived as standing in direct conflict with the Bible account of the creation of the world as told in Genesis, which states that the world is only a few millennia old and that god created man and all of the species of animals in a single epoch. The latest battle in this conflict is over the theory of Intelligent Design (ID). Robert Weitzel states that "IDers maintain that life is too complex to have developed solely by evolutionary mechanisms. They believe this complexity could only have been engineered by an intelligent designer. Strategically, they refrain from identifying the nature of the designer. This tactic is designed to give their notion of creation a patina of scientific credibility and protection from First Amendment challenges" (1). Intelligent Design advocates have pushed forward on many fronts to try and introduce it into school curricula all over the country and they are meeting with a measure of success and a good deal of popular support. While the ID movement enjoys wide support from the populace, especially in traditionally conservative areas, it is imperative that the teaching of Intelligent Design is kept out of public school curricula because of the separation that must be maintained between religion and state.
After Sir Charles Darwin had introduced his original theory about the origins of species and evolution, humanity’s faith in God that remained undisputed for hundreds of years had reeled. The former unity fractured into the evolutionists, who believed that life as we see it today had developed from smaller and more primitive organisms, and creationists, who kept believing that life in all its diversity was created by a higher entity. Each side introduced substantial arguments to support their claims, but at the same time the counter-arguments of each opponent are also credible. Therefore, the debates between the evolutionists and the creationists seem to be far from ending. And though their arguments are completely opposite, they can co-exist or even complement each other.
The "Intelligent Design" pbs.org. PBS, 5 Aug. 2005. Web. The Web. The Web. 21 Mar. 2012.
... 1959; Nagel, 1971). Some are able to bear the burden of absurdity. Others still feel “that nostalgia for unity, that appetite for the absolute illustrates the essential impulse of the human drama” (Camus, 1955). If scientific discovery can be used as a barometer for the zeitgeist of any particular moment, then the struggle between science and creationism is an indicator of a shifting paradigm. Science is alienating those who need a greater purpose and meaning in life. The threat is a personal one. To teach creationism is not only an infringement on religious freedom, it is also the promotion of intolerance and an advocacy for being afraid of existence. Religion is always there for those who need it. Science is there for those dedicated to truth and knowledge and are comfortable with facing the painful, anxiety-producing endeavor of exploring the unknown.
My personal worldview explains the way I view and live life through the assumptions and beliefs I hold in response to the world around me. I believe I was created for a specific reason and purpose.
The ongoing scientific investigation of how exactly evolution occurred and continues to occur has been an argumentative idea amongst society since Darwin first articulated it over a century ago. The scientific basis of evolution accounts for happenings that are also essential concerns of religion; both religion and science focus on the origins of humans and of biological diversity. For instance, in the reading “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth,” Pope John Paul II, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Science, discussed the matter of God as creator of man. The Pope explains that men cannot relate to animals because men are superior. The reasoning for that is because God created humans under his likeness. What the church is saying about mankind contradicts with the scientific evidence scientists have found on human evolution. By analyzing the different scientific approaches, one will be able to grasp a clear understanding that the theory of evolution by natural selection conflicts with the Judeo-Christian worldview of God as creator.
Talking on both sides of the debate, each side feels as though the other has no scientific reasoning come up with their theory. In reading the article written by Shipman, the evolutionists believe that intelligent design has no concrete evidence on how the world was crea...
On the very first page of his book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975), he argues that ethical philosophers severely lack credibility and must take the evolved nature of human minds into account: [Our understanding of good and evil] was evolved by natural selection. That simple biological statement must be pursued to explain ethics and ethical philosophers… at all depths” (Wilson 1975, p. 3). One of Wilson’s goals is to prove that scientific materialism is superior to religion and that it can provide a better code of ethics. In On Human Nature (1978), he explains that he wants to provide a solution to what he perceives as religion’s pervasive and erroneous domination of social life (Wilson 1978, p. 142). He asserts that the moral code found in the Bible is arbitrary and causes needless guilt and suffering among the human populace. Wilson desires to analyze religion from a sociobiological perspective, believing that an explanation of religion in terms of evolutionary biology would give scientific materialism a final victory over religion: “If religion… can be systematically analyzed and explained as a product of the brain’s evolution, its power as an external source of morality will be gone forever” (Wilson 1978, p. 201). Wilson is not only interested in examining human nature and human values, but also he’s also interested in prescribing values for mankind. In Sociobiology he suggests that “a genetically accurate and hence completely fair code of ethics must wait for further contributions of evolutionary sociobiology” (Wilson 1975, p. 144). In On Human Nature, he argues that “the principal task of human biology is to identify and to measure the constraints that influence the decisions of ethical philosophers and everyone else, and to infer their significance through neurophysiological and phylogenetic reconstructions of the mind… in
What is meant by Metaphysics? Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.