The 's Theory Of Evolution

In the beginning God created the heavens with the Earth along with man in his own image. For over 1500 years, Christian followers were heavy believers of the bible, seeing it as the primary source for knowledge. Then came the scientific revolution in the 1500s, a movement which challenged the Christian view of the universe. It was a time when people were looking for a new way of thinking about the world. Since then and to this day, there has been several instances in which scientific inquiry and religious belief have collided in their ideologies.

Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.

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.

The conflict between science and religion is often seen as a clashing of ideologies, rather than a power struggle over public authority, due to the generalization and lack of clarification among the common people regarding the nature of the conflict. As mentioned in Viney’s lecture, individuals important to the field of science, such as William of Ockham, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Galileo Galilei, were not attacked by the Church for their views on creation, but for the threat their scientific findings posed towards the Church’s authority.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the world, based on facts that have been frequently confirmed through observation and experiment or is often just speculations. Is evolution just a theory? Evolution is considered a valid scientific theory as it cannot be expressed in a concise mathematical equation so it is referred to as a theory, which does not make it more accurate than a law. Natural selection, comparative embryology, comparative anatomy, DNA and scientific contributions all support the theory of evolution.

The relationship between religion and science is indubitably debated. Barbour describes four ways of viewing this relationship (conflict, independence, dialogue--religion explains what science cannot, and integration--religion and science overlap). Gould presents a case in which religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), that the two entities teach different things and therefore do not conflict. The subject of this essay is Worrall, who says that religion and science does conflict, and that genuine religious beliefs are incompatible with a proper scientific attitude. The former half of the essay will describe his argument, while the latter will present a criticism of his argument.

For both science and religion are concerned with the problem of being and reality. But where science attempts to approach that problem through rigorous observation, analysis, modeling, and experiment, religion approaches that problem in the presumption of its own timeless, absolute grasp of its eternal truths. Observation and calculation are the handmaidens of truth in the scientific realm; but faith, personal experience (and perhaps we should say, introspection) are its makers in the religious. Neither can be replaced with the other, however, it can be said that both are concerned with reality, why it is here, and how. And as examples of Galileo or the Scopes Trial show, it is this point of overlap between science and religion—this central concern with reality that both have at their core—that becomes the main area of contest between the two. So there is an overlap between these two magisteria, but outside the overlap the two begin to radically separate.

What is evolution? (Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth). Charles Darwin was the original founder of evolution. There are many theories out there that scientist have came up with and have come to believe through research on ancient organism remains, similarities of embryos, fossil records, and chemical and Anatomical similarities.

Charles Darwin was the creator of Darwinism which is, “the theory of evolution by natural selection” (Junker 1). In school we are often taught that natural selection is survival of the fittest or the strongest wins. What seems to be a simple topic is actually one of the leading theories on the side of evolution in the highly controversial debate on Darwinism vs. Creationism. Darwinism states that certain genes in a population change through individuals. These “strong” genes are then produced more and are better able to survive making them the fittest. According to natural selection this process of evolving “usually takes place over many years, but in fast-breeding organisms it can occur rapidly, for example the spread of antibiotic resistance in some bacteria” ("Natural Selection” 1).

One of the most controversial discussions in human history is between the topics of science and religion. This discussion spans most of human history with far-reaching effects. It has even stretched into our modern times, leaching into schools and politics. But before one can decide which side to take, and what views to align with, they require knowledge. Society must understand the similarities and differences between science and religion.

Evolution is the process in which organisms descend from ancestors. Evolution is responsible for some of the various similarities seen through biological life, and it also explains all of the diversity in organisms and species. There are various components of evolution: descent, mutation, natural selection, genetic variation, genetic drift and coevolution. All of these components are extremely fundamental to evolution because Darwin's theory of evolution states that all species and organisms have arisen and developed due to material stemming from natural selection of petite inherited variations that can increase the ability for said organism to survive, reproduce, etc. This theory states that the changes that have occurred through mutation is beneficial, harmful, or neutral. If changes in an organisms DNA is harmful then the odds of that organism surviving/reproducing/ etc is unlikely. Some may think of this concept as survival of the fittest. Mutations tend to make the evolution process speed up which means that new genes are added to a species' gene pool. This is beneficial to an extent when it comes to organisms that have many dangerous genes and factors that can cause their offspring to mutate and continue to reproduce organisms with less than mutations. Those who are deemed

What made thing's the way they are today? How did we become the dominant species on this planet? For thousand's of years we have been trying to discover answers to questions like these. Scientists went hard at work to discover new things about the origins of our species. The theories of evolution theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.(Britannica) Understanding our origins can allow us to understand why the world around us is the way it is. According to Websters, Evolution is defined as

Eighty-seven percent of American scientists believe that a series of random chemical and biological events produced mankind. However, the philosophical "theory" of evolution has no solid evidence, whereas creation can be proven. Science is supposed to be based on observation, right? The best theories satisfy the test of experimentation. No one can test if evolution happened. Non one can prove that evolution actually happened. But what evidence can we place against evolution?