Religion vs. Science
This paper will examine the scientific view verse religion. I feel their support for the big picture is shallow and untenable. I believe in science but I also have faith.
Scientific research has lead to dramatic and more humane treatments of persons suffering from mental disease, depression, and physical injury. The reputation of scientists has reached an all-time high. Majority of Americans have said they trust the scientific community more than almost anyone, including the Supreme Court, organized religion, Congress, teachers and the U.S. military. Many of these Americans believe that these scientific advances are leading them to a better world.
The questions: What is man? What am I to do? What am I to hope for? A number of scientists and their fans seem to consider these questions to be the clearest manifestations of the human spirit or our nescient childhood. The scientists said " Now that we are scientists, we can put away childish things, including the concepts of God, the human soul and the moral responsibility."
An advocate of this view, M.I.T. Professor Steven Pinker, argues that science is itself an evolutionary development of the brain. He claims the mind evolved to provide just experimental accounts of the world. He believes that questions of religion and philosophy about the meaning of the world and human existence, are not truly meaningful ones. Pinker said, " religion and philosophy are but the primitive responses to the unknown." (Common Wealth p15)
There are alternative theories that involve science and religion. For example, Raymo's "new creation story." According to this story, nature did its own creating through unintelligent material processes, particularly the Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. He believes that God was only involved in the beginning, in setting up the laws and thereafter nature runs by itself. Raymo viewed humans as the universe becoming conscious of itself through evolution, while prayer consists of miracles, and giving praise and thanksgiving to nature. (National Review p32)
Scientists begin to worship their own concepts, proclaiming limitless philosophical systems rather than concentrating on what the data is really showing. Scientists cannot prove that known natural forces can produce complex biological organisms. No one has demonstrated that chemical evolution cannot even begin to account for the information content of the simplest organisms. There is no actual evidence of natural selection having substantial creative power. The only examples available are those of variations in fundamentally stable populations.
In scientific perspective, molecular revolution has revealed an unforeseen domain of complexity and interaction more consistent with technology than with the mechanical viewpoint. Scientist have come to realize that cells thoroughly protect themselves against the kinds of...