In Chapter 28 of DeWitt’s book, Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science, DeWitt builds on his previous discussion of what the theory of evolution is and the historical developments that were discovered during that time, by introducing the implications that arise with the theory. The two main implications that are discussed in this chapter are implications due to religious beliefs and morality and ethics. However, these two particular implications are not the only ones that arise with the theory of evolution, in fact there are a lot of implications involved with this theory.
During the Aristotelian era, God or gods played a huge part in understanding the movement of the heavenly bodies and other life processes. However, by the 1600’s, many scientists created new theories and hypothesis’s about how the world works. The observations and data collected from the experiments did not coincide with the belief that a God or gods needed in order to back up scientific findings. The experiments actually do the opposite and explain the world in natural terms. Darwin and Wallace’s theory of evolution was first theory that had bunches of empirical evidence to back up the theory. All of the empirical evidence poses a lot of different arguments depending on one’s religious beliefs.
Many scholars discussed in the chapter, do not believe that evolution and religion cannot go hand-in-hand. It is believed that if God plays a role in evolution, then it is no longer a process of natural selection. Another point that the scholars agree on in the chapter is the fact that humans cannot be viewed as products of evolution. DeWitt gives an example in his book when he looks at the extinction dinosaurs and how the asteroid impact...
... middle of paper ...
...er for the readers to understand the issues that arise with metaethics and evolution. DeWitt also mentions how trust and ultimatums play a role in metaethics. When looking at evolution and normative ethics, DeWitt looks at traditional arguments that have occurred with the theory of evolution. Naturalistic fallacy gives the best reason why evolutionary considerations cannot be related to normative ethics. DeWitt then goes into looking at the two different groups who either support or are against the evolutionary theory and look at who the two of them relate to normative ethics. If one tends to side with the scholars that don’t believe God and evolution can mix, then this person is giving up on the normative ethics. However, if a person sides with Haught and similar scholars, they are to believe that our morality is what makes up the universe and allows it to thrive.
In Dawkins’ novel, he aims to prove how the explanation is not a religious answer but a biological and cumulative natural selection. According to Dawkins, the theory of Darwinism is what changed the mystery of our...
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.
Further still Mayr makes the attempt at understanding the phenomena of why man cannot agree to having evolved from the same common ancestor as the wild animal the chimpanzee. It may seem that, according to Mayr, that man's own inability to come to terms with his own evolution, stems from a feeling of not wanting to be reduced to just another animal in the chain of life. For hundreds of years, as Mayr examines, religion after religion has always placed man on some sort of pedestal, superior to all other species. And when Darwin confronted the world with possibly another truth, he shattered man's perception of himself. Even today, a hundred years after Darwin first challenged the accepted order of man as a divine being, Mayr still raises controversy in the debate over man as being just another animal undergoing a constant evolutionary change like all other animals.
These days, most of the textbook only presents evolution theory as a fact to interpret the origin of life and the earth. More and more people get to reject creation unconsciously because they had no opportunity to compare and evaluate both worldview in same degree. I interviewed my three close acquaintances and heard a various responses from many people including my interviewees. Some of them had same belief with me, but some people had significantly different opinion with me. As a consequence of evolution theory’s monopoly in education, non-believers and Christians are unconsciously influenced by this secular worldview.
On Thursday 24 November 1859, Charles Darwin published and made available to the western world his magnum opus, On the Origin of Species, a compilation of some twenty plus years of research regarding the human biology and its advancement. Darwin proposed in Origins that all life slowly evolved, biologically mutated over a period of time, to its present day form. Expanding on prior research in the field of genetics, Darwin theorized a "survival of the fittest" complex which forced basic animals to evolve new advanced traits to survive in their respective environments, in the process theorizing that humans also evolved from lesser creatures. Darwin's theory of evolution was meet with critical response, mainly negative, at the time of its inception, but slowly gained support in the years following. In particular at the time of Origins publishing, the western world was undergoing a religious revival of sorts thanks to the rise of Evangelicalism. Due to conflicts of interest between Darwin's proposed theory of evolution directly contradicting the biblical theory of creationism, much controversy was generated by the publication of Origins. Creationism which stressed the belief of one omnipotent God creating the world and all its inhabitants was the most widely spread belief during this time period. Across the western world different assortments of clergymen attacked, or surprisingly stood in solidarity with the theory of evolution. This brings into question, why were the responses to evolution so disparaging? This can be explained that due to prior established beliefs and knowledge of respective individuals, the reaction to the theory of evolution was at first quite negative, but overtime became more and more accepting as people grew t...
The title of the book is misleading. Are science and religion compatible? Dennett and Plantinga both agreed that contemporary evolutionary theory is compatible with theistic belief, but Dennett believed that the probability is very low. The main argument turned out to be about Plantinga’s EAAN. Plantinga tried to argue that God could have guided evolution while Dennett believed evolution was unguided. Plantinga’s argument had five premises. He described that P is probability, R is the proposition that cognitive faculties are reliable, N is naturalism, and E is current evolutionary theory (17).
"Introduction to Creationism Versus Evolution: At Issue." Creationism vs. Evolution. Ed. Eric Braun. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 18 May. 2014.
Edward O. Wilson, in his essay Intelligent Evolution, diagnoses the gap between science and religion as “tectonic” (556), and predicts its continuous expansion. Obviously, the widest chasm appears in the field of biology: evolution versus creation. Evolutionary science sees life as a consequence of blind chances, while Abrahamic religion views life as a creation of God. After all, is it possible for evolution or creation to become the “correct” explanation, prevailing over the other? Wilson claims that evolution is the correct one, but I believe that there is no better or worse answer. Each authority is built on the different ground: either proof or faith. Hence, there is no common criteria to weigh them side by side and simply choose the answer.
...ryone who works with the theory of evolution (and has a good working knowledge of it) is on the same “team,” so to speak, and “finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune” (“Misconceptions” Para. 26), which is one final key example of Isaak's logical sensibility. By avoiding making harsh criticisms of opposing viewpoints and simply presenting the facts in an understandable way, Mark Isaak successfully reaches as close to a middle ground as possible in order to make the truth clear in such a polarized debate.
The information presented in evolution studies must be viewed with an open mind since there is no definite proof or law of evolution. The dilemma boils down to science vs. religion. God has been our creator since beginning of time, but the discoveries of recent science are sudde...
Anyone with even a moderate background in science has heard of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Since the publishing of his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, Darwin’s ideas have been debated by everyone from scientists to theologians to ordinary lay-people. Today, though there is still severe opposition, evolution is regarded as fact by most of the scientific community and Darwin’s book remains one of the most influential ever written.
What is a scientific theory? How does the scientific use of theory differ from common uses of the word theory? What effect does this have on public discussion about Darwinian Evolution?
The biological species concept is crucial to understanding both the reason why outmoded anthropocentrism is completely invalidated by Darwinian evolution and why Murdy's modern version is not only compatible with evolutionary theory but is an inevitable evolutionary phenomenon. It is important to no...
Gould, Stephen Jay. "Evolution as Fact and Theory." The Norton Mix. Editor Katie Hannah. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. 110-119.
Wiester, John L. 1993. The Real Meaning of Evolution. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 45 (3): 182-86.