Landy Razafindrabe. Review Of Brand & James, Beginnings.

In chapter 6, Richard opens up with ultimate origins. He suggests that the theistic view should be considered in the work of scientists to probe the origin of life in the distant past. Richard speaks of Pasteur’s demolition of the spontaneous generation theory, which created a problem for those who saw the world from a naturalistic perspective. Pasteur stood on God being the creator as the only alternative. There seemed to be a battle between scientific reasoning and the theistic view. Yet, scientific reasoning involves faith as well. Some of the major problems with scientific views are: questions of oxygen being present in the atmosphere; the lack of geological evidence for the primordial soup of organic compounds or protocells; the high degree of investigator interference in prebiotic simulation experiments; and difficulties in imagining the jump from biopolymers and protocells to the first living and reproducing cell. Scientists Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen states a distinction

From the beginning of modern age of philosophy, there has been an argument whether or not religion and science can work together and not in conflict. At the beginning of this discussion is faith and human reason. In Measure for Measure, both Isabella and Angelo display this across a variety of scenarios, including both the good and bad side of this balancing act of beliefs. The decisions that they make put both faith and reason into consideration. Both Isabella and Angelo show that they sway one way or the other on each decision, showing the true unity these vastly different concepts share.

In this paper, I will discuss how three influential scholars in this order: Augustine, Aquinas, Galileo, delimit science or the bible and the ways their beliefs overlapped or didn’t.

Through the analysis of the major televised debate, held February this year, between the popular science communicator, Bill Nye, and the US-based Australian creationist, Ken Ham. It has come to light that through careful analysis and research it is my belief that scientists should not be involved within any debates “scientific” or otherwise regarding topics pertaining to creationism or any other religious perspective. The inappropriate use of the loose definitions of science and religion lead to the intertwining of the two subjects that are extremely different in methodology, leaving the audience up for misinterpretation. While the debate did bring about the topic to the forefront of the public, which in itself was a positive, I do not believe that the post debate result was a win for science. Bill Nye’s derogatory demeanour represented post debate towards Ken Ham was in turn a representation of institutional science. Leading to which the validity of the debate and post debate could be brought into question.

The Old Testament of the Holy Bible gives many examples which provide modern man with guidelines for the use of scientific method. Millam (2008) explains that there is an underlying order in nature demonstrated by the patterns and regularities of God’s creations. These regularities can be seen in the forces of nature and are stable throughout space and time (Millam, 2008). The original classification of species, use of precise measurement, and even the first account of scientific research, are all included in the Old Testament of the Holy Scriptures. God gives scientists some clear frames of reference for seeking knowledge and truth in science.

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.

This concludes that even though the ideas of the Bible is true in many ways, they cannot compete with the flawless scientific reasonings of an

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

Too much of the Christian worldview’s attention is focused on reconciling the Bible with science and archaeological discoveries when it should be focused on redemption. The theme of the Bible could be summarized into four categories Creation,

Due to the "highly subjective nature of most scientific theorizing... [we should] let the Bible speak for itself and modify our scientific view of origins accordingly." (as cited in Downey, D., & Porter, S., 2009).

In Creation Science is not Science, Michael Ruse argues that Creation science is not science and in Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern, Larry Laudan opposes this view by arguing that Creation Science is science, but that it is false. In this paper, I argue that Michael Ruse had the better argument and that Creation Science is not science. First, I explain Ruse’s argument for why creation science does not meet the criteria for science. Second, I consider and explain Larry Laudan’s opposing view that creation science is false science. I then argue why I believe Ruse has the better argument.

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

The article, “A Matter of Scale,” urges the audience to observe the small and extraordinary components of the biosphere and acknowledge its genetic variations as explained by Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, Kelly’s essay, “Evolution: An Article of Faith,” considers Darwin’s theory as a “false religion” suppressing God’s ability to create the “work of intelligence.” (Evolution) The heated debate over the credibility of Darwin’s theory of evolution has led to the division of scientific and religious groups. Devoted, religious people discover two major flaws with Darwin’s theory of evolution regarding the inaccuracies of the fossil record and the contradicting phrase “survival of the fittest” that has passed on harmful mutations to next

Science “aims to save the spirit, not by surrender but by the liberation of the human mind” (Wilson, 7). Both religion and science seek to explain the unknown. Instead of surrendering reasoning with the traditional religion, a scientific approach one takes full authority over it. Being an empiricist, Wilson takes favors the scientific approach to the question: “why are things the way they are?” This question can pose two meanings: How did this happen, and what is the purpose. Traditional religion answers this question with stories, many of which are impossible to prove or disprove, making them arguments of ignorance. These explanations entail the adherent surrender reasoning and put faith in the resolution. According to Wilson these are always wrong (Wilson, 49). Science is the most effective way to learn about the natural world. Religion is merely speculation.

Since the dawn of mankind religion has been one of the most significant elements of a society’s social and cultural beliefs and actions. However, this trend has declined due to the general increase in knowledge regarding our the natural sciences. Where we had previously attributed something that we didn’t understand to the working of a higher power, is now replaced by a simple explanation offered by natural sciences. While advocates of Religion may question Natural Sciences by stating that they are based on assumptions, it is important to note the Natural Sciences are based on theories and principles which can be proven using mathematical equations and formulas. Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data