The Different Views of the Origin of Life that Exist in Religious and Scientific Communities Around the World You are a journalist working for the Sunday Times newspaper. Your
editor has asked you to write a piece entitled 'Where did it all
begin?' The aim of the article is to discuss the different views of
the origin of life that exist in religious and scientific communities
around the world. As a part of your task, you must comment on why
people have these different views, what scientific evidence exist
Sunday Times – special article of the creation of the universe…
By our amazing correspondent
So, where did it all begin? By ‘all’, I mean of course the universe
and life. Who created earth and mankind? How did earth and the
universe come about? Was it a huge accident – or was it a coordinated
creation? There are many views on this matter, many by different
religious sects and scientific communities. I didn’t know where to
start at first, but thought it wise to start off with a scientific
review, assess its evidence, and then look at other creation beliefs
of other religions. The school’s astrology club seemed a suitable
place to begin my search for the most logical creation story. Of
course, I was very reluctant to go to inside the dreaded lab, where
the rejected schoolchildren dwell, but I was forced to and nothing
could deter me from my determinedness.
I asked some members of the astronomy club what they though about the
creation of the universe and life. They all agreed that it was a
theory called ‘the big bang’ that was most reasonable. This is the
mos...
... middle of paper ...
... experience the
jealousy, desire, and misery of a physical existence (this is the
period in which we are living). In time, the world dissolves,
returning all creatures to the soul-life and beginning the cycle once
again.
The immense diversity of creation stories, each as logical as the one
before, has confused me further. I could not decide which one was the
‘correct’ creation story. One could only look at their faith and
decide if they want to believe that creation story. And it is only
natural that people would strive to justify their religion’s creation
story, for they have grown with that religion. As yet, there is no
total scientific proof to asses the validity of these creation
beliefs. With nothing but bamboozlement gained from this report, I
have decided that these matters should be left to time to prove.
There are different viewpoints on the question “what is the universe made of?” I think that both science and religion offer their own explanation to this topic and they sometimes overlap, which creates contradictions. Therefore, I do not agree with Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial, which claims that there is a fine line separating science from religion. That being said, I think the conflict between science and religion is only in the study of evolution. It is possible for a scientist to be religious if he is not studying evolution, because science is very broad and it has various studies. In this essay, I will talk about the conflict between religion and science by comparing the arguments from Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. I argue that science and religion do overlap but only in some area concerning evolution and the cosmic design. Furthermore, when these overlaps are present it means that there are conflicts and one must choose between science and religion.
Christian Beliefs in the Origins of the World “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. ” A Description of Christian Beliefs About the Origins of The World Christians believe that God created the universe. In Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, we are told that God creates both the universe and everything that is in it.
The Native Americans and Europeans had many influences that affected their outlook when they first encountered one another. These influences have different stories and views that pertain to the origin of life and how the earth was created. For example the Native Americans had stories that were passed down from generations that would be reshaped in different tellings. On the contrary the European Christians obtained their stories from books that had been written in earlier years such as the bible and Aristotle’s work. Despite their differences all of their beliefs were affected by the accounts which then made their encounter with each other and the relationship with human beings.
Ross, H. (1997c). The Shell Game of Evolution and Creation. [Online]. Available: http://www.reasons.org/resources/papers/shellgame.html. [Oct. 1997].
Scientific Naturalism and Christianity are possibly the two most contradictory worldviews that are in our culture today. They are also the two most difficult to understand by one another. There is very little about these two worldviews that they have in common. They are a vast amount of ideas and beliefs held by adherents of each that are different. In order for these two worldviews to successfully co-exist in society, it is important to understand, accept, and learn from each one.
Young Earth creationists believe that Earth and everything on it was created by God between 5700 and 10000 years ago (Numbers, 2006). They believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible in terms of the age of the earth. They differ from old earth creationists who interpret Genesis metaphorically and believe that the Earth is 13.798 +- 0.037 old (Scott, 2000). Young earth creationists also interpret the passages in the bible of the flat Earth literally. They reject modern astronomy, physics, the big bang theory, the age of Earth and chemistry. They also reject biological modifications that happened throughout history. Young Earth creationists believe that God created every genetic variation in all living creatures on earth. Henry Morris was one of the biggest influences of young Earth creationism in the second half of the 20th century (Scott, 2000).
Many people have tried to reconcile the differences between creationism and Darwinism but few have succeeded. Any religious debate is seen as a very sensitive subject and the discussion about the foundations of certain religions generally becomes difficult. Darwinism, in relation to religious beliefs can become controversial; some say they can coexist and some say they cannot. Darwinism was not intended to be anti-religious, but religious activist have criticized the belief since On The Origin of Species was published in 1859. Common ground between the two subjects is a very rough place, but it can be achieved. Reconciliation between the subjects has been achieved but few are standing by it because even the compromise is controversial.
Humans have asked questions about their origin and their purpose on earth for eons. The Bible tells humans that God created them and explains their purpose. However, since the Renaissance, humanism answers questions about origins by naturalistic means and science has been redefined in the process. Most institutions of higher education and many individuals have adopted the naturalistic theory of evolution to explain human origin without considering its effects on faith. In contrast to prevailing thought at Goshen College, a literal six-day creation is foundational to the Gospel message. Combining evolution and Christianity makes one’s faith less logical and opens one’s science to new quandaries.
The Comparison of the Creation of the Universe and Origin of Man and New Species
When the modern person ponders the formation of human beings, our mind automatically goes to Adam and Eve, whom were the first man and woman created by God according to the Book of Genesis. Before there was Adam and Eve, diverse cultures came up with myths about the construction of humans. These myths included: “The Song of Creation” from the Rig Veda, An African Creation Tale, From the Popol Vuh, and A Native American Creation Tale “How Man Was Created” Each one of these legends gives a diverse perspective on the creation of human beings.
Rust, Peter. 1992. How Has Life and Its Diversity Been Produced? Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 44 (2): 80-94.
At first glance, many facets of science and religion seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Because of this, I have generally kept them confined to separate spheres in my life. I have always thought that science is based on reason and cold, hard facts and is, therefore, objective. New ideas have to be proven many times by different people to be accepted by the wider scientific community, data and observations are taken with extreme precision, and through journal publications and papers, scientists are held accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their work. All of these factors contributed to my view of science as objective and completely truthful. Religion, on the other hand, always seems fairly subjective. Each person has their own personal relationship with God, and even though people often worship as a larger community with common core beliefs, it is fine for one person’s understanding of the Bible and God to be different from another’s. Another reason that Christianity seems so subjective is that it is centered around God, but we cannot rationally prove that He actually exists (nor is obtaining this proof of great interest to most Christians). There are also more concrete clashes, such as Genesis versus the big bang theory, evolution versus creationism, and the finality of death versus the Resurrection that led me to separate science and religion in my life. Upon closer examination, though, many of these apparent differences between science and Christianity disappeared or could at least be reconciled. After studying them more in depth, science and Christianity both seem less rigid and inflexible. It is now clear that intertwined with the data, logic, and laws of scien...
In today’s society, many topics create a very substantial amount of controversy between different groups of people. From abortion to the healthcare reform, there are countless topics of discussion. One of the major and ongoing controversial topics in the religious society is the Big Bang theory versus Creation. One side of the controversy is, predominately, the scientific community, with the other end obviously being the religious community.
The relationship between science and religion has been debated for many years. With strong personal opinions and beliefs, it is not surprising that no progress has been made in this argument. In my opinion, I feel as though religion and science have to be related in some way. There is no possible way people can separate two things that attempt to prove the same facts. My belief is that a metaphorical bridge has to be formed to connect the two. Personally, I feel as though science can be a compliment to religion, and that the scientific discoveries can and should be used to prove that God exists, not disprove it. If science did this, then the relationship between science and religion could be a friendly one. If that happened, people could stop debating and fighting over the two, allowing priests and scientists to talk and work together peacefully.