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). As Christians our world views should strongly relat... ... middle of paper ... ... to my understanding that the reason why most scientists have turned atheistic and secular is because they are not strong believers in God to begin with. The powerful observations made in the science world are indeed believable but as Christians we underlie God’s power that exhibits the results we see. Secular scientists don’t believe that God has that much power and that is why this great controversy continues today and will continue throughout our life. However as a High school biology teacher I will be forced to keep my faith and beliefs to myself and teach what I am required to.
Some scientists will tell you that discovering things about the Earth does not mean that God didn't create it. And some scientist will tell you that discovering things about the nature of the Earth does not prove that God doesn’t exist. A lot of religious scholars can tell you the same thing. Both will tell you that if God loves us as much as the Bible says so, then He doesn't want us to forever remain ignorant. If you find things in the Bible and read them literally to justify your refusal to use the reasoning abilities that God has so graciously provided for you (the same reasoning used in science), then you are the one going against God, not the scientists.
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.
Galileo didn’t understand the conflict, and pointed out that scripture is very old and is meant to ... ... middle of paper ... ... science, and who feel that the bible should be taken literally. On the same hand there are many people in the science community who read the bible literally and announce there could be no God since the facts of the bible are so far removed from what scientific discovery has told us. There will probably never be day when science and religion completely agree, and there are no conflicts between the two sides. It is natural for men to question discovery, and when something tells you that thing you have believed in are wrong, it is natural to reject these things. Still, there have been considerable advancements in the understanding between religion and science.
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.
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.
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.
I know that there is a higher power and that he has a plan. I do not always see that plan but believe my faith to be true. I do not believe in the theory of evolution and believe that evolution is completely incompatible with religion. Merriam-Webster defines religion as: “a cause, principle, ... ... middle of paper ... ...ffiliation: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/science/conflict.htm Singham, M. (2010, May 9). The New War Between Science and Religion.
Both of the creationisms are theories. Religious creationism might be considered as blind faith because no proofs are given but it focuses on what has been thought since always, instead, scientific creationism has proofs and explanations of what has been happening depending on Earth’s changes and the nature. Religious creationism starts with the inception of a supreme being also named God, and scientific creationism starts with the Hadean eon. People who think that Earth was made by God believe in this because of their faith in him and his word. Religious theory of creationism is hypothetical since it is considered possible without having proofs to verify it.
Up until the Enlightenment, mankind lived under the notion that religion, moreover intelligent design, was most likely the only explanation for the existence of life. However, people’s faith in the church’s ideals and teachings began to wither with the emergence of scientific ideas that were daringly presented to the world by great minds including Galileo and Darwin. The actuality that there was more to how and why we exist, besides just having an all-powerful creator, began to interest the curious minds in society. Thus, science began to emerge as an alternative and/or supplement to religion for some. Science provided a more analytical view of the world we see while religion was based more upon human tradition/faith and the more metaphysical world we don’t necessarily see.