And so, as a conclusive demonstration, Drummond places the Bible and Darwin side-by-side, a symbol of the internal search for truth. His half-shrug and half-smile signal an acceptance of his own ignorance (Lawrence and Lee 2.2.79). Through Drummond’s actions, Inherit the Wind proves that a skeptical nature is far more valuable than mere
that if one asserts something then one must deny something. He then goes on by
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
Question 1) C.S Lewis like many of us was skeptical about several arguments made by intelligent design alone. After many years of research, he came up with arguments that demonstrate the world was not created by a divine intelligent design alone.
Modern debates over religion, more specifically God, focus primarily on whether or not sufficient evidence exists to either prove or disprove the existence of a God. Disbelievers such as biologist Richard Hawkins tend to point to the indisputable facts of evolution and the abundance of scientific evidence which seem to contradict many aspects of religion. Conversely, believers such as Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith describe the controversial aspects of science, and how the only possible solution to everything is a supreme being. However, mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal refused to make either type of argument; he believed that it was impossible to determine God’s existence for certainty through reason. Instead, he suggested that
Does God Exist?C. S. Lewis once remarked that God is not the sort of thing one can be moderately interested in. After all, if God does not exist, there is no reason to be interested in God at all. On the other hand, if God does exist, then this is of paramount interest, and our ultimate concern ought to be how to be properly related to this being upon whom we depend moment by moment for our very existence. The official motto of the United States and the currency in America is inscribed stating “In God We Trust. If this is true then there must be some existence of GOD in order for our great Constitution to be established. Critics have always questioned the existence of God or a supreme being and several advocates of separation of church
Aylmer's book of experiments and their results is a metaphor for how scientific discovery only leads us to find more questions not answers. In Aylmer's book, it shows that all his great achievements and discoveries were merely accidents and by-products of his original goals that failed to achieve conclusive answers: "his most splendid successes were most invariably failures, if compared with the ideal at which he aimed" (51). It becomes apparent to the reader that all of Aylmer's attempts were merely futile and in
The first step of the argument outlines the need for “ an adequate explanation of the unity of the system as whole, how each of the parts is correlated with the others to from reciprocal laws, and then connected with the whole (Clarke 224).” The universe is a complex system that demonstrates interacting parts whose actions are dependent on each other. The cause of the whole system must have come before all these parts and is independent of the system entirely. After considering, the complexity of manipulating interacting elements in such a vast system, the second step argues, “such a cause can only be one possessing intelligence (Clarke 225).” Organizing multiple elements to work together cohesively and adhere uniformly to the same set of laws not only on the individual level but also on the scale of the universe would require the perspective of a guiding agent. Clarke argues this guiding agent is God. However, biologists interpret evolution as the universe’s guiding agent. Clarke embraces evolution but he notices it’s limitation as a great play of chance over time. There must be a stable set of background laws to lay the foundation for evolution to play out. The intelligible designer created the stable guiding rules and then allowed evolution to shot chance into life, making it unpredictable. Clarke views God as the intelligent designer that brought unity to the
In 1968, H.J. McCloskey, an Australian Philosopher wrote an article titled “On Being an Atheist” which is an attempt for his personal reasons to reject the belief in God. In the article McCloskey criticizes against the theistic proofs, which are cosmological argument and the teleological argument. Majority of the article is focused on the evil issues and catastrophic events to innocent people in a world that is supposedly designed by an omnipotent and loving God, which McCloskey believes is a valid case in his arguments against cosmological and teleological arguments as well as his assertions that evil is proof against God’s existence. But, it still remains that the most reasonable explanation for the creator of the universe
Samuel Clarke's status as a great english philosopher and theologian is one that has obtained great achievement and dedication. Clarke has focused a significant amount of his life to both science and religion. Science and religion have both been one of many 'water does not mix with oil' scenarios since the earliest beginnings and foundations of science. Clarke has studied in both fields and has obtained physical evidence, as well as spiritual evidence to many testable theories and beliefs. Through Samuel Clarke's views and discussions on newtonianism, anti-naturalism, rationalism, and his other studies and philosophies, Clarke's ideas on theology and metaphysics are all crucial to modern-day
Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.
The existence of God has been in question for as long as mankind has existed and thought logically. Many questions have plagued the human mind in regards to God, and there have been many arguments drawn with the hopes of proving the existence of a supreme being whom we know as God. The “God” question has been presented to every individual at some point in their lives. It is a topic that will bring forth never-ending questions and an equal amount of attempted answers. Many philosophers have formulated different rationales when examining the topic of God, some of which include how the word itself should be defined, what his role is in human existence, whether or not he loves us, and ultimately, if he even exists at all. Mankind cannot
ABSTRACT: Curiously, in the late twentieth century, even agnostic cosmologists like Stephen Hawking—who is often compared with Einstein—pose metascientific questions concerning a Creator and the cosmos, which science per se is unable to answer. Modern science of the brain, e.g. Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind (1994), is only beginning to explore the relationship between the brain and the mind-the physiological and the epistemic. Galileo thought that God's two books-Nature and the Word-cannot be in conflict, since both have a common author: God. This entails, inter alia, that science and faith are to two roads to the Creator-God. David Granby recalls that once upon a time,
Karl Popper was critical of inductive methods used in science. He argued that there is a chain of justifying arguments that could never be complete, therefore an original statement that is made can never receives the justification that it needs (Popper 505-506). He was a firm believer in the concept of falsification, emphasizing that we can never be sure that a theory is true but we can be sure that a theory is false. He continues to explain that all inductive evidence is limited: we do not observe the universe at all times and in all places. Popper identifies that no matter how many observations are made which confirm a theory there is always potential for future observations to refute the claim (Popper 426). For example, if millions of white swans were observed, using inductive reasoning, we could come up with a theory that all swans are white. However, no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this information does not provide us with justification for the conclusion that all swans are white (Popper 426). Therefore induction cannot yield certainty. For scientists to continue to rely on inductive reasoning to
Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat