In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
Abstract: This paper discusses the validity of both creation and evolution and examines whether they can interact with each other. Besides doing my own research, I have chosen to interview four people extensively involved in either Christianity or biology. I specifically picked interviewees who strongly supported either evolution or creation to get both sides of the issue. Two of the people were from United Christian Fellowship (UCF): Andrew Larratt-Smith, leader of UCF, and Ricardo Dawkins, UCF small group member. I also interviewed two biologists: Paul Matsudaira, MIT Biology professor, and Bettina Bauer, a post-doctoral fellow in the HST department. Paul considers his religious beliefs in between agnosticism and Catholic. He was baptized in the Roman Catholic church but has not thought about God extensively. Bettina is neither religious nor anti-religious. She says that if God really exists, it would not change her life. From these interviews, I hoped to gain a better understanding of creation and evolution and examine whether they can co-exist.
Robinson, B. A. . "Evolution and Creation Science." ReligiousTolerance.org by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. N.p., 16 June 2007. Web. 1 June 2011. .
The theory of evolution by natural selection does not interfere with the Judeo-Christian view of god as the creator, based on multiple sources including statements from the Pope himself. Although throughout history there are many instances of conflict between people, science, and the Catholic Church, there has recently been a widespread acceptance for science and many even say it does not interfere with the Judeo-Christian view of god as the creator. This essay will discuss the different types of views there are on evolution and creation, as well as go in depth to prove how evolution by natural selection does not interfere with the Judeo-Christian view on evolution.
...esented in biology textbooks, the beliefs of Fundamentalists as well as the findings of Darwin fight head on to create an eternal battle. While advancements are being made to end the war between the two, the Scopes Trial has created a long lasting scar that shapes the world of science and religion in American schools.
Darwin's publication of his theory of evolution through natural selection had broad ramifications in the scientific world, and not merely for biology. Many people, scientists and non-scientists alike, saw Darwinian theory as the ultimate disproof of the existence of God. On this view, because Darwinism offers an explanation for the development of human beings from lower forms of life, a bel...
Caudill's arguments exhibit the court's inability to judge creationism justly (14). The main criticism expressed in the journal is the oversimplification of how each theory works. In order for the act to not violate the constitution, the court had to determine whether or not there was a 'secular legislative purpose' (20). Caudill believes that the court had “the presumption that creationism was wholly religious and the corollary presumption that evolution was not” (35) and this directly effected the...
One of the most visible critics of science today, and the progenitor of the anti-science sentiment is the religious community, specifically the conservative Christians. One can hardly read the newspaper without reading of one religious figurehead or another preaching on the "fallacy of science," pushing their own brand of "truth" on whoever would hear them. As Bishop writes "It is discouraging to think than more than a century after the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species (1859), and seventy years after the Scopes trial dramatized the issue, the same battles must still be fought."(256) And the loudest rallying cries to these battles can be heard issuing from the throats of the ranks of zealots and their hordes of followers.
"Reconciling Creation and Science." Rational Christianity - Christian Apologetics. Rational Christianity, Nov. 2005. Web. 04 Nov. 2011. .
The Scopes trial, writes Edward Larson, to most Americans embodies “the timeless debate over science and religion.” (265) Written by historians, judges, and playwrights, the history of the Scopes trial has caused Americans to perceive “the relationship between science and religion in . . . simple terms: either Darwin or the Bible was true.” (265) The road to the trial began when Tennessee passed the Butler Act in 1925 banning the teaching of evolution in secondary schools. It was only a matter of time before a young biology teacher, John T. Scopes, prompted by the ACLU tested the law. Spectators and newspapermen came from allover to witness whether science or religion would win the day. Yet below all the hype, the trial had a deeper meaning. In Summer for the Gods, Edward Larson argues that a more significant battle was waged between individual liberty and majoritarian democracy. Even though the rural fundamentalist majority legally banned teaching evolution in 1925, the rise of modernism, started long before the trial, raised a critical question for rural Americans: should they publicly impose their religious beliefs upon individuals who believed more and more in science.