Science And Christianity Similarities

The age of the earth has been debated for centuries. Many people believe in evolution that it took billions of years for everything and everyone to form. Others believe that God created the earth in seven days and that the earth is young. Secular scientist and Christian scientist both use different methods for determining how old the earth is. For example, Secular scientist look and use the layers of rocks to help them, while Christian scientist uses the Bible and look at historical data from other cultures to help them. Doesn't looking at archeological data seem more accurate than looking at rocks? If the earth is truly billions of years old, then why is there little sediment on the sea floor? Or how can secular scientist explain finding soft tissue in a fossil if the earth is old? The most logical explanation is that the earth is young. Many people believe something just because people say that it is true, sometimes it is good to investigate for yourself and see if it is good for you.

An evolutionist feels that there are no grounds for proof. However, the Bible should serve as some sort of written proof for the theory of intelligent design. It has been proven that this document has been passed down through many centuries and seems to be eye witness accounts of occurrences during the beginning of creation. Speaking from an Intelligent Design point of view, these theorists believe that the two theories should embrace the other?s belief. According to Dembski, a specialist of the belief on intelligent design, this theory keeps an open mind and it is entirely agnostic on the subject of religion. Dembski hopes to detect either a biblical god or an earlier race of aliens. Either will be acceptable to him. This theory simply states that it is not possible for the universe to implode out of nowhere. This universe had to begin with some sort of creator.

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.

Similar in certain respects to deism, theistic evolutionteaches that God began the creative process by bringing the first organism to life.

When comparing science and religion there has been a great rift. As long as humanity has believed in a creator there as always been thinkers trying to quantify and evaluate the truth behind religion, trying to disprove or prove a supernatural force.

Throughout the history of science and religion there has always been a feud. People have been always told that this feud has lasted for centuries. Since the beginning of the scientific revolution there have a countless number of times in which science has presented a new idea about life that seemed to conflict with religion, and it almost every case religion combats it and ends up being wrong. All of these claims are basically common knowledge in today’s current day and age. Yet, is this common knowledge true? Many times, these conflicts have just been told to people as children by their teachers and parents and the children just blindly believe in these ideas just like their elders did before them. However, once scholars did more research

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.

There is no objective evidence to demonstrate the existence of nature’s creator. If we were to think the design argument was reasonable, then one must also take under consideration the amount of ‘creators’ are required

Evolution and religion has been a disputable discussion over the decades. Religious believers simply discarded the idea that humans have came from swinging monkeys. Although it is a scientific theory, it is backed up by the heavy weight of scientific evidence. The first thing that one might consider is that religion is composed by thousands of individual memes, which supports myths, moralities, and complex ideas or memeplexes, which will never guarantee its authenticity. One can speculate over the idea of evolution and religious reasoning on how humans came about, but might only develop shaky synthesis and finally conclude the problem insoluble. Besides, at one time the

Stafford Betty and Bruce Cordell states that because it is so unlikely that our universe was randomly generated, there must have been an intelligent designer. Betty and Cordell point to the calculations of many renowned scientist to show that our unique universe could not have existed if the slightest detail were any different than the way it is now. They state, “At this point we must ask ourselves what is easier to imagine and thus to believe; that the cosmos’ entire history should have arisen from this self-creating and self-explaining surd; or that a pre-existing mind and power of vast magnitude should have created the ingredients of the universe and triggered it at the Big Bang? The second alternative seems a little bit more likely… (Betty and Cordell 223).” This argument goes off of inference of the best explanation in the sense that logically it makes more sense and easier to believe that an intelligent designer created the universe rather than a random explosion of matter that started to expand and our universe was formed. This point also creates an objection though, where did God come from and how did he create everything ex nihilo, or out of nothing. The theist should properly respond to this objection by pointing to the definition of God, a wholly good and omnipotent being. So by our human perspective God or the intelligent designer should not be able to create himself, but remember by omnipotent he can do all, for he is all powerful so there is

Advances in science which have been put forward by some to invalidate the idea of a designer god have on the contrary only confirmed the fact that we live in a unique universe whose specific features cannot be explained as the result of any random process, in which science is still trying to explain. The more we learn about the coincidences in the laws of nature which allow life to exist, the more the universe appears to be less of a coincidence, and more as if it has been fine-tuned for life.

Then we come to “The mixing of evolution and theology sometimes results in a theory called theistic evolution. The theory posits that through the process of evolution, God gradually developed life forms until finally they became human beings.” (Zinke, 2014) Theistic evolution is the proposition that God is in charge of the biological process. That God instructs the revealing of life and matter over a time span of millions of years.

What is the relationship between religion and science? In his book, Consilience, Edward O. Wilson aims to find a unified theory of knowledge. Consilence also seeks to show how science is superior to and can replace religion. In this paper, I intend to show how Wilson understands this relationship and science as well as how. as well as show John Stuart Mill would agree or disagree with Wilson.