Science And Religion Are Incompatible By Jerry A. Coyne

“Darwin and Evolution” and “Creationism and Intelligent Design,” Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction (pp. 58-103) by Thomas Dixon

In Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?, Alvin Plantinga argues that proponents of naturalism, like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, tell us that, according to the theory of evolution, neither God nor any other agent has designed or created the living world, and that evolution, therefore, clearly contradicts the central tenant of theistic religion (which Dennett labels “entirely gratuitous fantasy” ). If what these experts say is true and we must understand evolution only in the context of naturalistic, unguided evolution, “then evolutionary theory is deeply incompatible with theistic religion, whether Christian…or Jewish.” However, Plantinga stresses that evolution does not need to be interpreted in this way, and that, because of this, religion does not have to be held in such opposition to science at all. Christian and Jewish doctrines require only that “God intended to create creatures of a certain kind…planned that there be creatures of that kind…and acted in such a way as to accomplish this intention,” and such a claim is clearly consistent with evolutionary theory in that naturalism is not a necessary requirement of the theory itself. In this paper I will explore the positions of the Jewish faith with respect to the question of evolutionary theory, and, more explicitly, will draw comparisons between Judaism and Christianity to investigate whether popular religion is as staunchly opposed to evolutionary theory as Dawkins and Dennett propose. If the work of

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.

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.

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.

The late Stephen Jay Gould, a noted paleontologist who once described himself as an “agnostic leaning towards atheism,” wrote the classic treatise Evolution as Fact and Theory for Discover magazine back in 1981. His distinguished career and scientific achievements did earn him respect amongst his peers, but to the general public he is best known for his popular science writings and, to smaller circles, as a champion of evolution. As his treatise was written for a non-academic, science themed magazine, a basic understanding of science, and specifically evolutionary mechanics, was assumed of his audience. The treatise itself is on the often overlapping distinction between “theory” and “fact”; two words, he asserts, that creationists

With the rise of modern science over the centuries came a vigorous attack on Christian theology; most universally recognized is Darwin’s theory of evolution. Although it has been taught throughout schools across the country since the 1960’s, recent legislature entitled “academic freedom” bills has encouraged skepticism of Darwin’s theory due to the inherent contradictions of it. Still, some people challenge Christianity on the basis of a lack of evidence, yet they’ll turn to theories of evolution which lack empirical support without enquiry.

In recent years, the political and religious movement that sought to integrate theories competing with the theory of evolution into the curriculum of various schools in the US. The theory that was offered was the theory of “intelligent design”, which even though not explicitly religious, makes for a theory much more compatible with religion than evolution. The danger of this move was that it was trying to dismiss a legitimate scientific theory as just one among the existing theories – an equal rival in pursuit of true explanation. However, what the advocates of this measure were actually doing is to equate scientific theory with a vastly inferior narrative about the world. It was, therefore, necessary for an author like Coyne (2009) to

Summer for the Gods concentrates on the Dayton, Tennessee Scopes trial, or "Monkey Trial," of 1925. The trial was over a Tennessee law that banned teaching evolution in public schools. The American Civil Liberties Union protested the law with teacher, John Scopes, who agreed to help. The"trial of the century" brought together two famous political enemies, William Jennings Bryan, who led the anti-evolution crusade, and Clarence Darrow, who was known as the best criminal defense lawyer and evolution supporter. The author presents the history of controversy that led to the trial. Fossil discoveries, the rise of religious fundamentalism, and increased attendance in public high schools influenced the anti-evolution movement due to the

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.

The debates illustrated how despite scientific evidence, people still continue to believe what they choose to believe. The implications of these trails regarding evolution emphasize the complications between scientific arguments and religious

And then, a bold English naturalist and geologist dares disturb the peace by publishing a 502-page piece of scientific literature that introduces us to the scientific theory of evolution through natural selection. The culprit’s name is Charles Darwin, the book in question is titled On The Origin of Species, and some people see this as an attempt at proving that God does not exist.

I distinctly remember sitting in my 9th grade Biology class as Mr. Shorba projected the classic picture of an ape progressively evolving into a human, and explained to the class Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, being raised in a conservative Christian home, I did not listen to one word of the evolution lecture, as I had already made up my mind as to what I believed in. Although I still believe in creationism, my take on learning about evolution has drastically shifted as I have realized the importance of understanding this popular theory. In Jonathan Well’s book, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth, he dissects well-known evolutionists arguments with explanations as to how they are falsifiable.

Charles Darwin’s book sparked large debates across the world, large numbers of reviews, critiques and negative responses were published. When Darwin released the book “The origin of species” he was more worried about the effects it would have on his fellow scientists than the public. “Through all this, Darwin largely kept his nose out of things, safely hidden in the comfort of Down House, trying to tease out what reviewers thought of his science amidst all the politics and rhetoric.”(“Chalres Darwin & Evolution” (2009).). Darwin kept on with his work, publishing the evolution in plants, animals (including humans), adding to the large amount of evidence he had collected over the years. As the scientific world started to come to terms with evolutional theory, Darwin collected more and more evidence which started to go in his favour.

Since the dawn of man, humans have struggled to explain the many mysteries of the universe, and to justify their existence in it. Throughout this journey of self-understanding, numerous standpoints about human existence have evolved and merged into a complex, abstract manifestation called religion. Advances in science and technology have yielded a new breed of human thought that has disturbed and shaken the foundations of religious ideology. The new, scientifically-grounded understanding of the universe has unfolded a plethora of answers to age-old questions, which are antithetical to the explanations offered by some religious beliefs. The Bible has answered the questions: how