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.
We would still be using faith to comprehend occurrences in nature if it hadn’t been for the shift of power from faith in religion to human reasoning and logic. All in all I believe that while faith in religion and science may sometimes seem harmless and even beneficial, the risks are great and misconception as well as misrepresentation of facts has occurred several times in history. Faith in the natural sciences is not substantiated as natural sciences require the scientific methodology to make any assertion legitimate; however religion contrasts in the way that religion offers “Answers to mysteries” that cannot be found - and thus cannot be proved.
Thus, prosperous nations are becoming increasingly secular based on the driver of prosperity and away from faith-based norms. Religion’s dominant function as a societal safety net becomes unnecessary because socio-economic prosperity typically results in a decline of religion’s social significance. However, it seems no culture has been without religion in one state or another as a result of our physiological craving for justification of the world in which we live. How will religion maintain its relevance as a method of explanation in a world when Science is able to debunk religious myths? Nonetheless, growth of modern society is arguably wavered by religion’s ignorance of factual based findings, replacing doubt with unsubstantiated corroboration.
“Cloning is great if God made the original then making copies should be fine” (Doug Coupland).But many religious don't consider cloning just fine like Doug those. Cloning is the act of making a person thought genetic engineered instead of a natural process. The debate whether scientists are “playing God” has probably never been more real than now. Scientist advances have shaken religious beliefs to their roots repeatedly through the ages, but as much as religious leaders want to push scientists to think more about the morality of their work, scientists are pushing religious leaders back to the basic tenets of their faiths. Religion beliefs are the main reason for their opposition against cloning .
This relates to science because theories are reasons that have not yet been proven. A scientist expects for a person to believe a theory because it is a reasonable explanation, even if it is not a proven explanation. Scientists have been accused of saying that religion is only a belief, and that there is a scientific explanation for everything, but if this is true, how come all things in life cannot be explained (Hall 27)? Hall says, “Science cannot explain how a man can survive something when it is impossible to survive.” But can religion explain this? According to a theologian, a person who studies religion, there is an explanation.
On the other hand religion outlined a way of life and possibly another approach to the understanding of our existence. The question lay in the hands of the individual, do we allow science and/or religion to give us a value to our life or do we need to look further from the perspective of the masses. In “The Gay Science.” Friedrich Nietzsche outlines the evolution of mankind from religion to science and finally his ideal value of life. Nietzsche believes that neither science nor religion are adequate enough to live by. Nietzsches argument holds some consistent ground against science but does not fully refute it.
However, this issue is not the suppression of scientific innovation which supporters of ID claim it to be, but only a dismissal of an inherently religious pseudoscientific idea with no concrete evidence to scrutinize. This is not an issue of teaching the controversy, but teaching the facts. What exactly is Intelligent Design? Anyone with a subscription to cable television is probably aware of the role that this topic plays in the political climate of the day. With the recent resurgence of religious fundamentalism and the ever-present conflict between faith and reason, it’s no wonder that an idea so attractive to those in the Religious Right would be receiving so much attention and so much support for implementation into public schools.
Religion is a system of beliefs that consists of elements, which cannot be fully supported or accounted for by natural science. Of all areas of knowledge, it is perhaps the most contentious. While some people may embrace their religion as the ultimate truth in their life, others are indifferent to such possibilities. Some examples of religion include Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. Believers encounter emotional experiences, which help strengthen their faith to bridge the gap of knowledge in religion.
To the extent that evolution is similar to other "morality policies," the battle has symbolic meaning for the mass public as well as strong implications for the power of science as a "social institution" (486). The trouble with the battle between secularists and creationists today is that it is often seen as a divide between religion and science. Failing to acknowledge any validity in the creationist argument reveals ignorance and further polarizes the nation. At the surface level, separation of church and state is simple enough: remove creationism entirely from public schools to avoid conflict. However, the moral implications are far deeper.
In science we still have evidence and proof that can be backed up through their evidence and studies. Some religions don’t accept the fact that this earth was created through science and not the God, the all mighty. Religious people might take the stories that are told in their religion too literal. Galileo, a theist astronomer says, “…it may say things that are quite different from what its bare words signify.” The scriptures from one religion might say something that might be taken too literal while it really means something else. For