Connie Bertka's A Primer On Science, Religion, Evolution And Creationism

In the article “Redefining Myth and Religion: Introduction to a Conversation,” Dr. Loyal D. Rue discusses how science, religion, and myth are related and how they coexist. Some people may argue that science and religion should not coincide and that they are opposites. However, Rue argues, “…In an ideal world, the vocabulary of science would inform the myth that binds together the culture.” In this statement, Rue claims that science can be used to help explain the supernatural phenomena that religion and myths describe. Science is not anti-religion; it helps us to explain religion in ways that humans can understand.

Science and religion have long been controversial topics of thought. Lawrence Krauss’ and William Lane Craig’s debate titled, “Has Science Buried God?”, explores both sides of the argument revolving around the question at hand. While both make strong cases, William Lane Craig gives his arguments without showing strong emotion, which can overall lead to a stronger case. That does not, however, mean that Lawrence Krauss’ arguments are weak, per say, but that his argument is more opinionated. Overall, William Lane Craig gave a more sophisticated and logical argument to the guiding question, “Has Science Buried God?”

Day to day, different theories of evolution are combated and criticized through the highly intensive backlash and ideologies that results from the conflict that arises between the tension of science and religion’s constant battle. The many different conspiracies that explore and analyze the conflict that surrounds science and religion, such as the “Monkey Trial” in 1925 to even the current debate about school teachers and the forbidding of teaching theories of evolution, have challenged the ways in which we view whether it is science or religion that has had a more influential factor in explaining and conceptualizing theories of evolution (Coyne, p.3). Many people assume the position of one who believes in accommodationism and the tolerance of both science and religion equally contributing to theories of evolution, however some bluntly disagree. Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible by Jerry A. Coyne is an enlightening book that aims and challenges the idea that science and religion are compatible as author Coyne believes that the methodologies, and ways of assessing the reliance of these methods that are used to generate knowledge about reality differentiate greatly between the realms of science and religion. In fact, author Coyne believes that many of the methods and ideologies that relate and support religion’s claims towards reality are falsely justified as evidence to support faith is difficult to produce. Many different readers of Coyne’s book have

Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those super personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

Within philosophy, there has long been a question about the relationship between science and religion. These two systems of human experience have undoubtedly had a lot of influence in the course of mankind’s development. The philosopher Ian Barbour created a taxonomy regarding science and religion that has become widely influential. His taxonomy postulates that there are four ways in which science and religion are thought to interact. The four categories are: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. By using articles from a select few philosophers, theologians, and scientists, it is clear to see the ways in which these two systems of human experience are categorized in the four categories presented by Ian barbour. However, it will be apparent that the category of conflict may be seen as the most dominant in regard to the interaction between science and religion.

For most people of the modern age, a clear distinction exists between the truth as professed by religious belief, and the truth as professed by scientific observation. While there are many people who are able to hold scientific as well as religious views, they tend to hold one or the other as being supreme. Therefore, a religious person may ascribe themselves to certain scientific theories, but they will always fall back on their religious teachings when they seek the ultimate truth, and vice versa for a person with a strong trust in the sciences. For most of the early history of humans, religion and science mingled freely with one another, and at times even lent evidence to support each other as being true. However, this all changed

When dwelling into the explorations about science and religion, one can find it quite amusing. "If science and religion are to continue to coexist it seems opposed to the conditions of modern thought to admit that this result can be brought about by the so-called

The Pivotal Dichotomies of Science and Religion Science can help identify and elaborate upon the laws of nature, help humans ascertain an improved understanding of the universe, and enable people to acquire powerful thinking skills to generate innovative and beneficial ideas. However, in the recent centuries many scholars have addressed the numerous conflicts that have emerged between the fields of science and religion. Although certain similar factors can render science and religion compatible, many differences have caused a contentious divisiveness to permeate between the two fields. Many philosophers have contemplated and debated the relationship between science and religion.

The Dawkins chapter speaks about the debate between religion and science and how religious people refuse to even give science teachers and professors the time of day. Most of the time people will refuse to listen to what has been proven due to their religious beliefs. Evolution professors have even been threatened with the loss of their jobs. Even though, many professors have tried to explain that evolution is a fact and one of the greatest of God’s works, still their time is wasted. The pope and educated priests and professors of theology have been known to no longer have a problem with evolution because they understand that evolution is a fact and not intended to be an anti-religious study.

Whereas ideas and beliefs are generally stunted in their growth and often tend to be passed down from one generation to the next. Intellectuals should never become shackled by their beliefs to the point it stands in the way of their quest for academic wisdom. Being well educated, one should always explore learning beyond the boundaries of their individual views. One of the more dogmatic topics of debate has always been religion versus science. Galileo, “the father of modern science”, was ultimately condemned for heresy by the Roman Inquisition for his lust for knowledge. Fortunately, times have changed and science and religion have learned to co-exist. Nonetheless, there is still a sense of social stigma associated with some of the topics that teeter on religion, such as Darwin’s Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory. Some of the greatest contributions to our world throughout the ages have been fueled by free thinkers that dared to venture outside the scope of their

The conflict between science and religion has always been existed. In many religious institutions, especially Muslim and Jewish, belief in Darwinism or other scientific theories is forbidden (Ferngren, 2002). Therefore, scientific studies in faith schools subsequently differ from normal school one’s. For example, Dawkins (2006) argues that faith schools tend only to teach children in a religious way, avoiding such important curriculums such as science and humanism. Similarly, Cush(2005) states that faith schools provide limited choice of scientific and sociological subjects. The knowledge of science basics is compulsory for every decent citizen in the age of new technologies and scientific humanity progress.

I will be revising my Reckoning Essay which focuses on the coexistence of science and religion and how it can be incorporated in the education system. Mainly, my reckoning essay will emphasize these two questions: is scientific literacy at risk of extinction? What would happen if responsible science and religion were placed together? In order to revise my essay, I will be more specific about what aspects Kingsolver’s essay K.C. Cole and Kelley speaks to.

In our modern age of scientific revolution there seems to be a growing tension between the scientific and religious understanding of this world. This tension is not surprising as the two worldviews exist on different realms in many ways. The Christian faith, grounded in the revelation of God through Christ for humanity’s salvation, clashes with science on many levels especially concerning human nature, as well Divine authority, as compared to the scientific rational and mechanistic understanding of matter. However in this age of scientific revolution there has been a more concerted effort to develop ways to integrate the scientific and Christian

When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers or Partners? In the book, When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers or Partners? is written by author Ian G. Barour. Barour studied both science and religion then found a balance between them. The primary subject and purpose of the book is to explain the relationship science and religion.

1); also, science “confers no special authority to answer a nonscientific question” (pp.1). Scientists claim that science is attacked from two sides, the fundamentalism of Christianity, and the humanities. Nevertheless, for the humanities to respect and distinguish the sciences is not enough, they need, “the humanities to submit to the sciences and be subsumed by them” (pp.3). If God exists, is for philosophy to determine, not science. Traditional religions and cultures influence believer’s interpretation of understanding and are traditions of value. As a result, the relationship between value and fact in these traditions is so strong that values often overpower facts. The study of greater ideas about life are common in science, but these ideas cannot be only based or accepted completely on scientific grounds; a scientific viewpoint may not be as broad as many think. Scientists cannot note the way natural sciences and humanities differ, since humanities would have to be explainable by science. Besides, humanities do not advance, progress, or study the way sciences do, the humanities are a study of the sciences inwardness. The central goal of scientism is the transformation of non-scientific dialogue into scientific dialogue. Meanwhile, respected