This caused an incredible crisis between the pious religious and the scientific world, especially in the Western world where Christianity dominated society, and where these scientific discoveries were being made. It was difficult for people at first to believe in God and at the same time except these new scientific findings that negated many things that religion had told them. Astonomer Kepler During the scientific revolution many religious issues were taken up. One was the issue of the earth being the center of the Universe, which the Christian doctrine held up as the truth. Through the work of astronomers like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, much was learned about our universe.
He would have asked penetrating questions and obviously the religious answers he got did not satisfy his inquiring mind. However, if the Bible was inspired by the same person who created the universe, it should be able to answer this query to some satisfaction. But what if what we always thought we knew about the Bible was nothing like it really is? And though Christianity and the Bible have always been portrayed synonymously, what would happen if we discovered they are not the same??? Although depicted mostly as a 'religious' book, the Bible is really more a book of 'science'.
The bunch of proofs that science has supplied, has put humanity in doubt and has unbalanced the belief of the origins of life. Religion and science have always been seen as two different fields. Some people are inclined towards religion while others opt for science. This essay will explain the differences between scientific and religious creationism. Both of the creationisms are theories.
Many philosophers, however, have different conclusions. In the article, "Science Finds God" (Newsweek 1998) it was recognized that although theologians and scientists differ sharply in their views and do not see any type of middle ground between the two fields, others feel that religion and science do not contradict each other, but compliment each other. Science discovers more of God's creations and the intricacy of which the world was created and God provides the explanation of the complexity and wonder of the natural world. He fills in where science leaves off. With Darwin's idea of evolution came the greatest controversy between science and religion.
Such a breakthrough for a scientist that is a strong believer in God would call for an occasion of worship. He made it known that the belief in God is completely a rational choice and faith is paired with the fundamentals of science (National). But the real question is should faith and science be separated? Many scientists believe it should be separated simply because they don’t believe in God and they have theories that prove just that. Jennifer Sexton and Laura Finley, from an Ebsco host article made an excellent point and stated, “Religious believers argue that the presumption of God's existence is based on reason, and that the proof of God's existence is in the unanswered questions about the universe, which remain unaddressed by science” (Sexton).
Many philosophers and theists have offered their views concerning the ongoing battle between science and religion. Reconciliation between science and religion is impossible, because the claims made by religion and the evidence provided by science are so extraordinarily different. The advance of science has caused many theists to compromise traditional religious beliefs in order to facilitate scientific evidence, thus proving that scientific explanations of the universe are more plausible than the rationales offered by religion. An excellent example of this can be seen in the question of the age of the planet Earth. According to religious theology, the Earth is less than ten thousand years old.
There are a number interpretations one can find because the Bible is often general and simplistic; Galileo suggests that the best way to find the true meaning is to disprove the false conclusions by finding contradicions in nature, as determined by accurate experiments rather than fervent meditation. It is a job of scientists to examine nature and it is
They are explanations of facts. That species evolved from other species is considered by 99.99% of the scientific community to be a scientific fact. How spec... ... middle of paper ... ... act unscientifically, to be dogmatic and dishonest. But the fact that one finds an occasional oddball in the history of science (or a person of integrity and genius among pseudoscientists) does not imply that there really is no difference between science and pseudoscience. Because of the public and empirical nature of scientific debate, the charlatans will be found out, errors will be corrected and the honest pursuit of the truth is likely to prevail in the end.
Nowadays people believe that if a scientific view is false, then by continuing study and research the truth may be discovered. one may conclude that if no one presented new ideas, then intelligent thought would have no place in a society like that. Scientists like Darwin accepted the risks involved in presenting new ideas. Voltaire also was a revolutionary thinker. Although, he presented ideas of his own, he decided to satirize science and religion.
Although atheist will try to make claims of pessimistic views that are proved false in reasoning, we can find creation reliable because evolution is flawed, scientific discoveries point to creation, and the action of one thinking is the evidence of creation and the founding of it through Gods intelligent design. Atheists believe we were created randomly out of nothing and evolved through a process called biological evolution. This thinking is not sufficient ... ... middle of paper ... .... 9 Apr. 2014. Kass, Leon.