Cambridge. 1983. Mayr, Ernst. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Harvard University Press.
Lennox and Bruno would have the same argument but Dawkins and Bruno does not belief the same thing, where Dawkins belief that the universe was created by evolution or in other terms natural selection.  4. Own point of view on the topic debated by Lennox and Dawkins. I feel that Lennox has the right approach. God did create everything but God was not created He is eternal.
His first proof dealt with the mover and... ... middle of paper ... ...as St. Thomas's proofs of Gods existence and other teachings on the existence of God, but even empirical science. The more scientists discover, the more many of them are realizing that the reason for things goes deeper than what science can explain. For those who already believe in a God, science may even strengthen their belief, not weaken it. Even things that seem like they might have been proven by science, that may completely deny biblical teachings, may still have their origins in a God. Even if Darwin's theory of evolution is true, perhaps this only gives insight into God's nature.
At first glance, this seems like a logical, non-controversial topic, but Creationist believe that “…all species were created by God and had not changed biologically” (Hirschberg 321). This is where the conflict comes in to play. Darwin believes that genes can mutate and change over generations to better adapt to environment. This belief has since been overturned by modern evolutionists. Hirschberg put it this way: “Today, evolutionists believe that mutations in genes produce the variations that natural forces select for survival.
Besides criticizing evolution, Creationists are seeking scientific evidence of their own, to support the creation account in Genesis. They only problem with this is that Creationists are crossing the boundaries between religion and science by trying to entwine these two origins which isn't an effective pairing because religion doesn't require proof but science does. Scientists are now doing the same because at first they were staying into their own realm but it after posing that the theory of evolution can be scientifically proven, scientists are going against the Bible. Therefore, scientists are also crossing the boundary. Creation science, which is a belief that God created the Earth and all the creatures in it, is not science because creation by God or another divinity does not give concrete scientific explanation of life's origin.
Can God and Darwin co-exist? The constantly mounting collection of evidence for evolution by natural selection is almost impossible to ignore. However, there is a neo-creationist school of thought, called "intelligent design," attempting to modernize the concept of a God to fit the challenge presented by a Darwinian explanation of life. Proponents of this theory, such as Michael Behe, claim that the cellular structures and pathways in living organisms possess "irreducible complexity," meaning that minus any one component, they become functionless. This implies that these components could not have evolved in a step-by-step process, but would all have to be present simultaneously.
Millions of Christians and non-Christians believe there is a Creator of the universe and that scientific theories such as the the theory of evolution do not conflict with belief in a Creator. However, fundamentalist Christians such as Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell, have co-opted the term 'creationism' and it is now difficult to refer to creationism without being understood as referring to fundamentalist Christians who (a) take the stories in Genesis as accurate accounts of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, and (b) believe that Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. Thus, it is commonly assumed that creationists are Christians who believe that the account of the creation of the universe as presented in Genesis is literally true in its basic claims about Adam and Eve, the six days of creation, and not an allegory. Creation science is a term used by certain creationists to indicate that they believe that Genesis is a scientific account of the origin of the universe. Reading the Bible as if it were a scientific text contradicts the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution.
To many scholars, the Bible is a figurative book of parables, not to be taken literally. The use of the Bible may be hindering, instead of supporting, the validity of the creationist’s arguments. It is clear that evolution is much clearer to understand and accept than the creationism theory. There will always be people who will still be curious as to how we appeared on the earth, and some people will oppose the evolution theory, therefore, the evolutionism/creationism debate will forever continue. Works Cited Creation Science FAQ http://www.clubs.psu.edu/origins/faqsci.htm Drew Thinks About Evolutionism vs Creationism.
Evolutionary Ideas and the Biblical Concept of Creation Creation and evolution come from two very different viewpoints. The main differences here are that in the story of creation in the beginning there was God, and in the theory of evolution in the beginning there was random chance. The conflict between the two is often referred to as "The Great Debate" because everyone asks the question "why are we here and how are we here?" they can either look to the bible or science for answers. They are completely unlike answers to one another but both agree on one thing - that the universe has not existed eternally.
The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985. Borgmann, Albert. Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life. A Philosophical Inquiry. The University of Chicago Press, 1984.