Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Religion
Brent Royuk
Sci-202
Concordia University
S&R Models
1. Be fairly comprehensive.
2. Include perspectives that people
actually have.
S&R Models
Ian Barbour, Religion and Science, 1997.
Four Ways of Relating:
Independence
Dialogue
Integration
Conflict
S&R Models
Massimo Pigliucci
S&R Models
Richard Bube, Putting It All Together, 1995.
1. Natural Theology
2. Compartmentalism
3. Bible-Only
4. Science-Only
5. Scientific Theology
Complementarity
New Synthesis
S&R Models
Richard Bube, Putting It All Together, 1995.
1. Natural Theology
2. Compartmentalism
3. Bible-Only
4. Science-Only
5. Scientific Theology
Complementarity
New Synthesis
S&R Models
S&R Models
Lets look more closely at the five main
boxes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Naturalism
Theistic Science
Open Science (Qualified Agreement)
Compartmentalism (Independence)
Complementarity
Naturalism
The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be
--Carl Sagan, Cosmos.
The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins
Theistic Science
Theistic Science
Open Science
Compartmentalism/
Independence
Compartmentalism/
Independence
For the origin of the universe the current consensus in cosmology and
physics is that the big bang theory accounts best for the observational
data we now have and is supported by excellent and straightforward
evidence, including the (approximately) 2.7 degree Kelvin cosmic
background radiation. The age of the universe, although still under
discussion, seems to be within the ten to twenty billion year range.
Such an ancient universe is rejected by young-earth creationists on
biblical grounds. On the other hand, old-earth creationists and others, as
discussed earlier, feel that it is supported biblically and, in fact, that the
big bang is evidence for the existence of God.
For the adherent to NOMA, of course, the Bible neither supports nor
refutes the big bang, or vice-versa. We are happy to accept the
cosmological knowledge that the big bang offers, but we recognize that
(as a scientific theory) it is subject to revision. We may find, personally,
that the big bang fits well (or does not fit well) with our overall worldview,
including our idea of what is aesthetically pleasing in nature. If we are
Christians, we do not worry about it too much one way or the other.
--Jean Pond
Compartmentalism/
Independence
Complementarity
Complementarity
Complementarity
Surveying Creationism
Progressive Creationism
Sometimes people refer to this perspective as Rossism
after Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe
Characteristics
YEC Example
THE CURRENT STATE OF CREATION ASTRONOMY
DANNY R. FAULKNER, ICR, 1998
Among creationists there is much disagreement about the age of the earth and the age of the universe.
Most opinions can be classified into one of three groups. One group is the belief that both the earth and
the universe were created during the literal six-day creation week a few thousand years ago. That is the
position of the Institute for Creation Research and most members of the Creation Research Society (CRS).
A second opinion is that while the earth and all that is on it were created a few thousand years ago, most
of the universe was created in the distant past of "in the beginning" of Genesis 1:1. A careful reading of
the statement of belief of the CRS reveals that this belief is compatible with that statement. The third
possibility is that both the earth and the universe are quite old, in general agreement with what most of
modern science claims to be the ages. That position is difficult to reconcile with the CRS statement. The
many writings of Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb have addressed this issue and have argued that
the first opinion is the correct one. This author is in agreement with that position, and for the purposes of
this paper, that is the definition of the creation model.
The creation was only the first of three major events that have affected the world. The second event was
the fall recorded in Genesis chapter 3. The fall had very strong spiritual implications (the introduction of
sin, the need for salvation), but was also accompanied by physical consequences, such as death, the
cursing of the ground, and the groaning of the whole world as recorded in Romans 8:22. There is some
debate among creationists as to what the full effects of this fall upon the world were. For instance, many
suggest that the second law of thermodynamics may not have been operating in its fullness before the fall
[57]. The third major event was the world wide flood of Noah recorded in Genesis 6-8. Being one year in
duration, the catastrophic flood must have had a profound effect not only upon life, but the shape of the
earth's surface itself. There is also some discussion among creationists about how much affect that the
flood had upon the rest of the universe.
What modern science has to say about the origin and history of the world has caused many to dismiss
these three events. On the other hand creation scientists take the Biblical account seriously, and so accept
these events as real and have attempted to reexamine the world for evidence for those events.
Criticisms of YEC
Christian Opponents
Christians who object to YEC reject its metaphysical assumptions (as well see with
ID), but they also criticize its science.
DWISE1 has a website where he argues that:
1.creationists do teach that their faith would be falsified if evolution and other
scientific findings are true,
2.that many Christians have lost or nearly lost their faith because of creation
science, and
3.that many people are driven away from Christianity because of creation science.
Since then, I have corresponded with several Christians who have traveled the
same path as I have. One thing that is always agreed upon is the damage youngearth creationism can do to souls; how many believers they have seen fall away. We
have been taught that the Bible demands a young earth interpretation and when the
facts of nature become inescapable - our faith becomes shattered! My pastor was
wrong, the opposite was the case. If "R" had been offered the truth from the
beginning, he would never have experienced the turmoil he went through. When "R"
could no longer deny that the universe was billions of years old, the only option left
for him was to deny the Bible. How many others have been disheartened in like
manner? --Ed, from his site Creation, Evolution and Adam, Genesis, the Flood
Intelligent Design
inquiry. --William
Dembski
Intelligent Design
Four Arguments from ID
1.
Irreducible Complexity
2.
3.
4.
Intelligent Design
Phillip Johnson: Excerpt from Reason in the Balance: The Case Against
Naturalism in Science, Law & Education
Naturalism in the Academy
The domination of naturalism over intellectual life is not affected by the fact
that some religious believers and active churchgoers hold prestigious academic
appointments. With very few exceptions, these believers maintain their
respectability by tacitly accepting the naturalistic rules that define rationality in
the universities. They explicitly or implicitly concede that their theism is a
matter of "faith" and agree to leave the realm of "reason" to the agnostics.
This is true in every field of study, but especially so in natural science, the
discipline that has the authority to describe physical reality for all the others. A
biologist may believe in God on Sundays, but he or she had better not bring
that belief to the laboratory on Monday with the idea that it has any bearing
on the nature or origin of living organisms. For professional purposes, atheistic
and theistic biologists alike must assume that nature is all there is.
Natural science is thus based on naturalism. What a science based on
naturalism tells us, not surprisingly, is that naturalism is true. Because of the
authority of science, the assumption that naturalism is true dominates all the
disciplines of the university.
Criticisms of ID
The Chicken or Egg Question
Do the scientific ideas of IDers flow from their
Christian faith, or are they truly empirical?
It is possible that some un-religious scientist
might become convinced, on scientific evidence,
of the existence of Intelligent Design, while
remaining perfectly open minded about any of
the truths of religion. When that scientist shows
up, I shall begin to take Intelligent Design
seriously. --John Derbyshire
Criticisms of ID
Some Christians oppose ID on the grounds of MN.
Intelligent Design supposes that supernatural forces have
crafted the world as we see it. Supernatural forces are
simply not within the scope of science. Science necessarily
only concerns itself with natural phenomena and natural
causes. Supernatural causes are not testable,
quantifiable, or qualifiable. They are simply not the scope
of science. ID is unscience. Those proponents of ID are
not simply insisting on better science. They are insisting
on being antithetical to science and sitting down at the
science table. Science cannot and should not concern
itself with causes that it cannot empirically demonstrate or
test. It should make no assertion that cannot be shown to
be false by another scientist using the scientific method.
--anonymous email blog post
Criticisms of ID
Objections are also raised that ID is just a modern version of
the God of the Gaps argument.
ID theory posits that certain features of the natural world CAN
ONLY be explained by the active intervention of a designing
intelligence. Since the entire history of science displays
innumerable instances of hitherto inexplicable phenomena
yielding to natural explanations (and, in fact, innumerable
instances of "intelligent design" notions to explain natural
phenomena being scrapped when more obvious natural
explanations were worked out), the whole ID outlook has very
little appeal to well-informed scientists. A scientist who
knows his history sees the region of understanding as a
gradually enlarging circle of light in a general darkness. If
someone comes along and tells him: "This particular region
of darkness HERE will never be illuminated by methods like
yours," then he is naturally skeptical. "How can you possibly
know that?" he will say, very reasonably.
--John Derbyshire
Criticisms of ID
Another objection is that if ID is correct, humans can be led to a
belief in the existence of God through empirical means, which, in
the opinion of some, is contrary to scripture.
If Luther is right, if the cross is where we really see what God is
like, then we should expect that Gods actions in the world bear
the mark of the cross Just as the Son of God limited himself by
taking human form and dying on a cross, God limits divine action
in the world to be in accord with rational laws which God has
chosen A theology of the cross then suggests that, contrary to
the belief of ID advocates, methodological naturalism is
appropriate for natural science, which is not to invoke God as an
explanation for phenomena But this God does not compel the
belief of skeptics by leaving puzzles in creation which science
cant solve. The mark God has placed on creation is both more
stark and more subtle. An evil and adulterous generation asks
for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of
Jonah (Matthew 16:4 NRSV). --George Murphy
ID in Schools
The creation/evolution in schools syllogism: If
creationism is religion it should not be taught in
public schools.
If you buy the syllogism, theistic creationism is
out.
Evolutionary Creationism
or
Theistic Evolution
Is there a difference?
Theistic evolution implies more of a deistic
approach, while Evolutionary Creationism implies
more of an active role for God in the world.
Proponents of these points of view often wrestle
with terminology.
E.g., Howard Van Till refers to his position as the
fully gifted creation perspective.
a vision that recognizes the entire universe as a
creation that has, by Gods unbounded generosity and
unfathomable creativity, been given all of the capabilities
for self-organization and transformation necessary to
make possible something as humanly incomprehensible
as unbroken evolutionary development. --Howard Van
Till
Evolutionary Creationism
or
Theistic Evolution
From theisticevolution.org:
Why have some of you not heard this before now?
Not exactly preaching material.
Too controversial to be printed in Sunday School material.
Christian professors who would be most qualified to write
and/or teach on the subject are in fear of their jobs
Many Christian colleges and seminaries rely on private
donations for funding. Thus, they prefer that their professors
not teach anything that might lead to donor disenchantment.
Fundamentalists accuse the viewpoint of being liberal
Evolutionary Creationism
or
Theistic Evolution
Christian Opponents
Creationists disagree for obvious reasons
Too deistic
God is portrayed as being more active in the Bible
Paranormal Phenomena
Paranormal Phenomena are any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific
assumptions. -Journal of Parapsychology
A list:
ESP
Telekinesis
Astrology
Faith Healing
UFOs
Dowsing
Channeling
Homeopathy
Psychic Surgery
Levitation
Pyramid Power
Palmistry
Ghosts
Scientology
Plant Perception
Cryptozoology
Demonic Possession
Perpetual Motion
Paranormal Phenomena
Paranormal Phenomena
The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge from
the JREF
Christianity and the Paranormal
Randi on Geller:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-03/032307hope.html#i9