Historical Conflicts of Science and Religion Evolutionary biology is a relatively modern scientific subject which has appeared to rouse great conflict with organized religion. This paper seeks to use properties of NOMA to dispel the alleged conflict between science and religion, and it will also attempt to pinpoint how such conflicts may be prevented. To accomplish this, the definitions of science & religion will be clarified, the feud between evolutionary biology and religion will be discussed, and an argument will be made that creationism and fine-tuning arguments improperly overstep their magisterium. The fundamentals of science and religion must be reiterated before a proper argument can be made. First and foremost, science is the pursuit
…show more content…
Rather, there are only conflicts between science and natural claims without evidence. To clarify, the introduction of evolutionary biology does not challenge religion itself. An elaborate theory of evolution does not challenge faith attitudes, belief in supernatural creation, nor belief in ultimate purpose. However, it absolutely does challenge several interpretations held in religious communities. The vital keyword of this statement is “interpretation.” There is no objective method to interpret any particular religious text, so it’s illogical to say any single interpretation is the correct one. Therefore, this burden relies entirely on the individual. One individual may read the bible and conclude that the Earth is 6000 years old, and another may read the same passage and conclude it’s 8 billion years old. Even though one of these interpretations is supported by science, neither can be verified as an objective interpretation. Thus, they are equally baseless. Additionally, faith attitudes do not rely on empirical data from the natural world to be strengthened, so they have no business making claims of the natural world without evidence. A great number of people may personally believe in a young Earth creationist theory, but there is no definitive, objective source in the Bible to support this as the one true interpretation. Therefore, any scientific evidence against the young earth …show more content…
One of his main examples comes from the bacterial flagellum, which features an extraordinary organic rotary motor. Behe argues that all parts are necessary for the flagellum to operate, so it is reasonable evidence to believe that the flagellum was intentionally designed by a higher power. Unfortunately, Behe is guilty of inserting personal bias to scientific interpretation, and he violates both repeatability and falsifiability in doing so. His argument may carry weight from a personal standpoint, and it does resonate with those of scientific and religious background. Still, Behe’s bias disqualifies his argument from bearing the title of science. A supernatural cause is not one that can be reliably tested to any extent, and it is immune to falsifiability. Behe’s leap from natural evidence to the existence of God is a personal choice with no natural evidence to support it. If he intended to stay within the realms of science, then it would be necessary to draw a natural conclusion. One way to do this is by suggesting the Darwinian evolution mechanism is incapable of explaining the complexity of several biological complexes. This is a conclusion that is both repeatable and falsifiable, successfully poses a challenge for Darwinian evolution as the only cause of life, and it could play an active role in improving scientific
Rather, there are only conflicts between science and natural claims without evidence. To clarify, the introduction of evolutionary biology does not challenge religion itself. An elaborate theory of evolution does not challenge faith attitudes, belief in supernatural creation, nor belief in ultimate purpose. However, it absolutely does challenge several interpretations held in religious communities. The vital keyword of this statement is “interpretation.” There is no objective method to interpret any particular religious text, so it’s illogical to say any single interpretation is the correct one. Therefore, this burden relies entirely on the individual. One individual may read the bible and conclude that the Earth is 6000 years old, and another may read the same passage and conclude it’s 8 billion years old. Even though one of these interpretations is supported by science, neither can be verified as an objective interpretation. Thus, they are equally baseless. Additionally, faith attitudes do not rely on empirical data from the natural world to be strengthened, so they have no business making claims of the natural world without evidence. A great number of people may personally believe in a young Earth creationist theory, but there is no definitive, objective source in the Bible to support this as the one true interpretation. Therefore, any scientific evidence against the young earth …show more content…
One of his main examples comes from the bacterial flagellum, which features an extraordinary organic rotary motor. Behe argues that all parts are necessary for the flagellum to operate, so it is reasonable evidence to believe that the flagellum was intentionally designed by a higher power. Unfortunately, Behe is guilty of inserting personal bias to scientific interpretation, and he violates both repeatability and falsifiability in doing so. His argument may carry weight from a personal standpoint, and it does resonate with those of scientific and religious background. Still, Behe’s bias disqualifies his argument from bearing the title of science. A supernatural cause is not one that can be reliably tested to any extent, and it is immune to falsifiability. Behe’s leap from natural evidence to the existence of God is a personal choice with no natural evidence to support it. If he intended to stay within the realms of science, then it would be necessary to draw a natural conclusion. One way to do this is by suggesting the Darwinian evolution mechanism is incapable of explaining the complexity of several biological complexes. This is a conclusion that is both repeatable and falsifiable, successfully poses a challenge for Darwinian evolution as the only cause of life, and it could play an active role in improving scientific