Science Vs. Religion : Harmony Within Discord

Robinson, in her essay, claims that while Creationism is owned by “Religious Right”, Darwinism is owned by “Irreligious Right”2. She writes that the differences between the two are meaningless and that the people who defend religion make religion seem foolish while the defenders of science attributed to objectivity. Many people believe that Creationism and Darwinism do not belong together and are about as similar as cats and dogs. Just as there are cat people and dog people, there are people who stick to one belief or the other in the creation versus evolution debate. Robinson disagrees, however, and says that Creationism is probably the best thing that has happened to Darwinism. Darwinism, she writes, is “the caricature of religion that has seemed to justify Darwinist contempt for the whole of religion”3.

DNA collection is a good thing not only can it help catch the person responsible for an illegal crime, but it can also clear up a suspect’s name. In the case of Maryland v. King on April 2009 Alonzo Jay King was charged for first and second degree assault for scarring a crowd of people with a shotgun, he was arrested and as a part of their booking procedure, they swabbed Alonzo Jay King for his DNA. Kings DNA sample later resulted to be a match of a DNA sample in the system “CODIS” of a rape victim by the name of Vonette W.’s Salisbury. Vonnette was raped on September 2003 but had not gotten justice for the crime against her since the only evidence was the DNA sample of the semen that was swabbed. No matches were found in the data base until Alonzo Jay King was arrested. By collecting DNA, it can help lead to an arrest of a suspect and to be able to close cases.

Dr. Connie Bertka’s essay, “A Primer on Science, Religion, Evolution and Creationism,” expands on Kingsolver’s idea that science and religion have cohabited by explaining how science and religion are formative elements that shape society and serves to contribute to the common good. The relationship between science and religion can be described as a conflict approach which means that “science sets the standard of truth to which religion must adhere to or be dismissed or religion sets the standard to which science must conform.” On the other hand, science and religion can form an interactive relationship in which ideas converge from a scientific and religious perspective. Dr. Bertka mentions that religion and science can be taught in a classroom, since their interactive relationship can constructively benefit from engagement, since they both lead to individual insight and communal discernment.

It would be an understatement to claim that the realms of faith and reason rarely conflict. Since the earliest days of scientific inquiry, these two spheres of thought have been locked in a vicious battle, only letting up as religion has gradually modernized to accommodate newer understandings of the universe. But, as is the nature of any age-old debate, the fires fueling this conflict have once again been fed, this time with the controversy surrounding the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. The proponents of this alternative “theory” to the origins of life claim that they have been silenced by the Darwinian establishment and support integrating their ideas into the classroom through such means as textbook disclaimers or

The Creationism/Evolution Continuum Personal Response Essay In her essay entitled “The Creation/Evolution Continuum,” Biological Anthropologist Dr. Eugenie Scott seeks to dispel the false dichotomy that is often posited between the proverbial “creationists” and “evolutionists” by differentiating the religious, philosophical, and scientific beliefs of several subgroups within this divide. The continuum, as illustrated in the essay, depicts a line separating “Creation” from “Evolution,” marked by eleven distinct viewpoints that are then individually outlined within the essay. The most dogmatic religious and scientific viewpoints occupy the poles of the continuum and represent an inverse relationship between belief in modern science and ancient

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

The theory of creationism versus the theory of evolution is a controversial topic worldwide. The topic delves further into whether creationism should or should not be taught in public schools. While evolution is a theory that says modern plants and animals evolved by a natural process over time, creationism is the belief that the universe and living organisms originated from specific acts of divine creation. Because evolution and creationism are both theories, creationism should be taught with as much validity as the teaching of evolution in public school. Since the early 1990’s creationism has become more and more a plausible theory. The historical events of creationism dates back all the way to the creation of mankind and the universe. Various evidence, such as the universe, point towards an intelligent designer and should therefore be taught in public schools.

Despite great efforts to convince the opposing side, a battle still brews amongst creationists and evolutionists over the beginning of life and the universe, but neither opinions’ palpability can be firmly upheld through scientific manners. Since science can only prove hypotheses that are testable and based on current observations, neither creation nor evolutionary concepts can be proven with irrefutable evidence. However, regardless of the inability to prove either concept, most public school systems promote evolution as a scientific fact. Many students who lack firm beliefs about the origin of life believe what they are taught without giving any personal thought to the matter. Instead of robotically absorbing biased information,

At the beginning of the essay Gould made a clear reference to a dear friend, Kirtley Mather, who “was a pillar of both science and Christian religion in America” (Gould, 1981). Comparatively, this appealed to the emotions of the reader, unlike most scholarly works—Gould reminded the reader of his humanity. Often, Christians relate evolution as being the work of a devil, or some form of subhuman, out to misguide their faith; therefore, the reader assumed this was Gould’s way of facilitating a viable connection with biased readers before undermining creationism. Darwinism is known as the theory of evolution, and creationists repeatedly utilize a mistaken vernacular of the word “theory” to denounce evolution. Although, a theory is “part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess” (Gould, 1981).

The debate over the origins of the earth and of life has captivated and divided America since the late 19th Century. Evolutionists and creationists have battled in courtrooms , churches , academia , and public schools over the course of the 20th century and continue fighting, or attempting to make peace over, this culture war today. The debate has changed between the time of the Scopes Trial and the present in several important ways. First, creationists have developed many more diverse arguments, and employ not only biblical and moralistic arguments, but scientific evidence, logical arguments, and political rhetoric to counter evolutionary theory. Second,

IN fact, during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, it was found that it is “unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because it is a religious viewpoint that advances ‘a particular version of Christianity,’” (Goodstein 1) And what is more, it is morally wrong to teach a science that we know to be false to the future generations of our country. Many people argue that Evolution is “just a theory” and “has large gaps” while failing to realize that a scientific theory is considered valid fact, especially when it is as broadly accepted as Evolution. Furthermore, the theory of Evolution has physical evidence, regardless of how Creationists like to interpret it, which is more than can be said for Intelligent Design. Fossil records, carbon dating, rock superposition, and DNA relations are all superb and examples, to name only a few. Many other Creationists would argue that it is “unfair” to teach one theory and not the other. Besides the obvious constitutional problems and the problem with Intelligent Design being deemed an illegitimate science, this statement is still a tough pill to swallow. Essentially, these people are saying that regardless of one’s religious beliefs, all students need to be

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 riddle of the origin of man has been subject to many ponderings and theories for thousands of years. In America, two theories concerning this timeless question have driven a spike through the general populace. These two beliefs, Evolution and Christianity, have driven a riff through the American populace and fueled several debates and conflicts over which is the truer theory. Incidents such as the decision of the Kansas school board to ban schools from including the Evolution Theory from their curriculum are becoming a tragically frequent and threaten to escalate if not checked soon. However, there is a growing belief in America today in the possibility of believing that evolution is an inescapable fact while still

“A delusion is something that people believe in, despite a total lack of evidence.” Richard Dawkins. Intelligent Design and Evolution have long been at odds, from laymen arguments to some of the prestigious minds in the world, all have been debating over this scientific rift. However, the question that has fraught even the most intellectual person; is Intelligent Design a religion or is it science? This issue has held the public school system back since the rising call for Intelligent Design to be in science textbooks. In the scientific field, there is a myriad of convincing evidence for Evolution and because of this many people believe that Intelligent Design is simply a religion. Since Intelligent Design is merely a religion and not a scientifically supported subject, adding it to

Throughout history, one of the biggest, deepest, most contested topics have roamed the minds of everyone since the beginning of time - creationism. Although many of you are probably going, “Ugh, not another religion debate,” my argument with a classmate really stuck with me and made me come to certain realizations about creationism and other peoples’ beliefs. When you talk about creationism, certain questions pop into your mind… Why are we here? Who created us? Who created the universe? Though I have my personal thoughts on faith and religion, I have come in contact with some people that persecute me for having such beliefs.