Science And Religion


Published on

Published in: Spiritual, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Science And Religion

  1. 1.   William Paley -The Watch Maker              Nicole Bonar University at Buffalo LAI531 Science and Religion
  2. 3. <ul><li>There were at least two major disputes between science and religion that had a lasting impact on both disciplines. </li></ul>
  3. 4. <ul><li>The conflict between Galileo and the Pope over </li></ul><ul><li>the church's belief that the earth was the </li></ul><ul><li>center of the universe. </li></ul><ul><li>The conflict between Charles Darwin and </li></ul><ul><li>religion about the origin of the different species </li></ul><ul><li>of animals, including humankind. </li></ul>
  4. 5. This seems to be the major source of contention between opposing sides
  5. 6. <ul><li>With the advent of the telescope, Galileo’ s astronomical observations led to his support of Copernicanism. It was his foothold in Helicentrism coupled with the views of his most famous work, “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, that ultimately resulted in separation from the church. </li></ul>
  6. 7. <ul><li>According to Darwin's theory, the whole history of life is the outcome of random variations and survival of the fittest. </li></ul>
  7. 9. <ul><li>God created the cosmos with a plan in mind. This affirmation is among the most basic in all of Christianity. And that plan included human beings as the final outcome of the creative process: we are created in the image of God. (Book of Genesis) </li></ul>
  8. 10. EVOLUTION/CREATION: A Glossary of Terms
  9. 11. <ul><li>The belief that the creation story in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible of Genesis is literally true and is akin to a scientific explanation for the creation of the Earth and the development of life. </li></ul>
  10. 12. <ul><li>A movement that has attempted to uncover scientific evidence to show the biblical creation story is true. </li></ul><ul><li>Some in the creation science movement, known as “young Earth creationalists,” reject not only evolution but also the idea that the universe and the Earth are billions of years old </li></ul>
  11. 13. <ul><li>The theory, first articulated by Charles Darwin, that life on Earth has evolved through ‘natural selection,” a process through which plants and animals change over time by adapting to their environments. </li></ul>
  12. 14. <ul><li>The belief that life is too complex to have evolved entirely through natural processes and that an outside, possibly divine force must have played a role in the origin and development of life. </li></ul>
  13. 15. <ul><li>A belief that Darwin’s evolutionary theory can be applied to human society and that groups of people, just like in the wild, are subject to “survival of the fittest.” </li></ul>
  14. 16. <ul><li>A statement or principle, honed through scientific observation, reasoning and experimentation, that explains a natural phenomenon. </li></ul>
  15. 17. <ul><li>A belief held by some religious groups, including the Catholic Church, that God is the guiding force behind the process of evolution. </li></ul>
  16. 18. In the past few years the Evolution/Creation debate has been refocused within the Life Sciences as an Evolution/Intelligent Design debate by a group of scientists defending their religious beliefs. This strategy has not been as successful as the originators would have liked.
  17. 20. <ul><li>A similar Pew Research Center poll, released in August 2005, found that 64% of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in the classroom. </li></ul>
  18. 21. <ul><li>This view is not shared by the nation's scientists, most of whom contend that evolution is a well-established scientific theory that convincingly explains the origins and development of life on earth. Moreover, they say, a scientific theory is not a hunch or a guess but is instead an established explanation for a natural phenomenon that has repeatedly been tested through observation and experimentation. </li></ul>
  19. 22. <ul><li>It is said that Science sets the rules of engagement and refuses to accept discussion on the concept of God claiming that His existence is improvable in “scientific” terms. </li></ul>
  20. 23. <ul><li>Michael Behe, supporting the argument of intelligent design, contends that most scientists refuse to consider the obvious hypothesis that molecular machines could conceivably appear to look designed because they really are designed </li></ul>
  21. 24. <ul><li>In his book Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), biochemist Michael Behe claims that many biological systems are &quot;irreducibly complex&quot;, that in order to evolve, multiple systems would have to arise simultaneously. He claims that such systems exist in biology and that the existence of &quot;irreducible complexity&quot; argues for an intelligent designer. Behe describes in detail several biochemical systems and alludes to others, claiming that they are &quot;irreducibly complex.&quot; </li></ul>
  22. 25. <ul><li>Behe says “by irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.” </li></ul>
  23. 26. <ul><li>A similar argument for the Creator model is an analogy known as the Watchmaker argument given by William Paley (1743–1805), an English clergyman. Paley proposed that if a person found a watch in an empty field, its obvious design would lead him to rightly conclude that this watch had a watchmaker. Likewise, the even more complex design of the world would then compels us to conclude there is a great Designer behind it. </li></ul>
  24. 27. <ul><li>Keith Robinson challenges this thesis in his review of Behe’s Black Box in saying “A system is labeled &quot;irreducibly complex&quot; if he cannot postulate a workable simpler form for the system. There is no way to prove such a claim. All we can do is look at the facts and logic presented, and judge whether it makes sense.” </li></ul>
  25. 28. <ul><li>Behe uses a mousetrap design to illustrate his irreducible complex theory, using the components of the mouse trap as interlinked pieces that without even just one, would render the trap useless. </li></ul>
  26. 29. <ul><li>Robinson systematically reduces the mouse trap theory by breaking it down step by step and showing how in fact, you could still have a fully functional trap devoid of a piece. </li></ul><ul><li>Robinson admits the inferiority of the design, but maintains its functionality. </li></ul><ul><li>He further states “This neatly illustrates the problem of &quot;irreducible complexity&quot;. It is simply a claim. Only as good as the logic and facts used to generate the claim.” </li></ul>
  27. 30. <ul><li>Behe’s response to this discredit is simply to state that another base (the ground) was substituted for the original wooden base that was provided, proving that the trap still can't function without a base. Which completely misses the point. The base-free mousetrap still functions; it simply uses a component of its natural environment in its workings. </li></ul>
  28. 31. <ul><li>In some aspects, this argument appears to reduce to semantics. Does changing the material, or the sequence render the subject’s irreducible complexity null? </li></ul><ul><li>In Behe’s mousetrap example, whether using the original parts, or an adaptation, isn’t the same goal achieved? </li></ul>
  29. 33. <ul><li>In another attempt to defend Intelligent Design, Behe takes on Dr. Ken Miller on his proposal of pseudogenes. </li></ul><ul><li>Behe’s claim was that Miller neglected to explain in a Darwinian step-by-step process the intricacy of the DNA design, nor point out any literature that may corroborate his findings, because the information was nowhere to be found. </li></ul>
  30. 34. <ul><li>“ The fact of the matter is”, Robinson says, “the answer can be found in almost any genetics textbook. There are two major mechanisms for producing such duplications in biology, and both have been demonstrated experimentally.” </li></ul><ul><li>He further states that Behe is apparently completely ignorant of the enormous amount of literature on tandem duplication, in which one copy of a gene spawns multiple copies. A common mechanism is unequal crossing over, due to the recombinational machinery misaligning two chromosomes. These can be shown to occur in the lab. </li></ul>
  31. 35. <ul><li>if evolution is as established as the theory of gravity, why are people still arguing about it a century and a half after it was first proposed? </li></ul>
  32. 37. <ul><li>Steve Donoghue reviewed Behe’s second book, Edge of Evolution, and has this to say: “ The Edge of Evolution is a deeply deceitful book, a screed for religion-inspired mental apathy masquerading as a disinterested inquiry into scientific truth. It lies to its readers on virtually every page, pumping out a noxious atmosphere of half-truths, leading assumptions, wheedling insinuations, and intellectual cowardice. If it were possible for mere text to be evil, this book would easily qualify.” </li></ul>
  33. 38. <ul><li>From Sickle Cell to Malaria, Donoghue disseminates each postulate Behe puts forth point by point using hard, provable facts and reinforces Darwinian theory </li></ul>
  34. 39. <ul><li>Behe writes: “Is the conclusion that the universe was designed—and that design extends deeply into life—science, philosophy, religion, or what? In a sense it hardly matters.” </li></ul>
  35. 40. <ul><li>Donoghues response: “It matters. In a world gripped in the greatest wave of dangerous religious zealotry seen in the last five hundred years, in a world every day engulfed in religious fundamentalism of all stripes, and saddest of all, in a world where a professor of biological sciences can dress religious fundamentalism in the sheep’s clothing of science and be warmly aided in doing so by a major allegedly secular publisher, it matters now more than ever.” </li></ul>
  36. 42. &quot;Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here.  The two windows give different views, but both look out at the same universe.  Both views are one-sided, neither is complete.  Both leave out essential features of the real world.  And both are worthy of respect.&quot;                                ( Physicist Freeman Dyson)
  37. 43. &quot; Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.&quot; (Albert Einstein) &quot;
  38. 44. <ul><li>Behe M. 2002. The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity: Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines. Action Bioscience Journal: p. 2-3. </li></ul><ul><li>Brinton HG. 2009, February 16. How to Honor Religion and Science. USA Today, p. 11A. </li></ul><ul><li>Darwin's Black Box - Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? Copyright © 1996-1997 by Keith Robinson </li></ul><ul><li>Johnson P. 1991. Darwin on Trial. New York: Intervarsity Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life February 4, 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Science, Religion, and All That Jazz (1998) by Massimo Pigliucci </li></ul><ul><li> by Steve Donoghue </li></ul><ul><li> Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again) H. Allen Orr </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.