"Questions of meaning and justice cannot be removed from the human agenda"- John Polkinghorne
"They're not meant to be literally true... the people who wrote genesis were not stupid"- Keith Ward
Key issues of religion and science; Is it possible
to accept the findings of modern science? Do the
findings of scientists undermine the case for
belief in God?
Science= How
Religion= Why
Creationism
the universe and living organisms originate
from specific acts of divine creation, rather
than by natural processes such as evolution
Associated with christian fundamentalist movements insisting on
literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, opposed
human evolution.
1960s creationists promoted the
teaching of 'scientific creationism'-
'creation science'.
Term first used by Darwin in 1856
Challenges posed by
science to religious
believers
contradicts with
literal interpretation
of bible
image of God not
apes
religion has a lack of
evidence- unreliable
Dawkins- an excuse not to investigate
rationally, Genesis is a 'fairytale'
Irenaeus- said the world was originally created imperfect
Genesis to evolution relationship
evolution decentres humanity as the most
important part of creation
Genesis humans are the pinnacle of
God's creation (imago dei, stewardship
etc)
evolution says life forms adapt over time
Genesis- it occurs all at once in 6 days
Nature keeps process going
through natural selection
Why is interpretation of the Bible so
important?
fundamentalists
word of God- Henry Morris says dangerous to
interpret the bible
purpose to creation in the Bible
Liberalists
Can fill in the gaps science can't
Message from Genesis
Imago dei
Broader picture, Genesis and
evolution seeking different
truths
Literal interpretation really what was intended?
"What man of sense could have been a first and a second and a third day of creation, each with a
morning and an evening, before the sun had been created?" - St Gregory of Nyssa, 4th century
church father doubting illogical concepts in genesis
Tells us of God's nature but isn't literally true
Stephen Hawking- "What place for a creator?"
M theory- multiple universes, explanation for something rather than nothing
Creationists would say an intelligence is needed to create laws of nature in the
first place
Creation theologians- "nothing comes from nothing" (link to cosmological arg and prime mover)
Tillich- God is the ground of all being
Charles Darwin
everything supposed to have unique place in God's
creation- indoctrinated belief
Darwin noticed particular marked effect on islands, due to separation of
animals- pattern of relationships
Fossils- physical evidence
Challenged the foundations of religious orthodoxy
Ancient copies of what
he saw around him
Charles Lyell
theory of slow action of vast forces leading to gradual change
Everything was related to one another
a vastly evolving family tree
Simple cells to huge complex beings
Human history only occupied tiny minority of time
Brutal reality of nature
Race for survival and the finishing line is reproduction
Unstoppable force of natural selection
Gap in Darwin's theory
never solved how improvements of natural selection were preserved; genes don't blend in reproduction,
copying process sometimes causing mutations. DNA code of four chemicals
Craig Venter- first to map the human geno, solving the theory gap
Intelligent design
defend religious faith against challenges of secular science
Believes the cosmological and teleological arg have strength
1991 Phillip Johnson
specific parts having functions it is difficult to see how they could have
evolved, since their final form is required for whole complex body to work
universe and its features are best explained if
intelligent being is accepted
1996 Michael Behe
some aspects of life are irreducible complexity
E.g. of a household mouse trap.
e.g. of the eye, even Darwin admitted this was a problem.
e.g. clotting of the blood,
has to clot just enough to
heal the cut and allow the
other organs to function
if you took away any part it would not work
at all, system as a whole had to function
what would be the evolutionary
advantage of just having parts of the
processes? Doesn't fit with Darwin's
natural selection