Natural selection does not explain the existence of the physical constants necessary for life to exist i.
Dan Cray There are two great debates under the broad heading of Science vs. The more familiar over the past few years is thenarrower of the two: Can Darwinian evolution withstand the criticisms of Christians who believe that it contradicts the creation account in the Book of Genesis?
In recent years, creationism took on new currency as the spiritual progenitor of "intelligent design" I. But in fact creationism and I. Can religion stand up to the progress of science?
This debate long predates Darwin, but the antireligion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design and excited, perhaps intoxicated, by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience.
Brain imaging illustrates —in color!
Brain chemists track imbalances that could account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or, some suggest, of Jesus. Like Freudianism before it, the field of evolutionary psychology generates theories of altruism and even of religion that do not include God. Something called the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology speculates that ours may be but one in a cascade of universes, suddenly bettering the odds that life could have cropped up here accidentally, without divine intervention.
If the probabilities were 1 in a billion, and you've got billion universes, why not? It is not an epithet that fits everyone wielding a test tube. Some are radicalized enough to publicly pick an ancient scab: Finding a spokesman for this side of the question was not hard, since Richard Dawkins, perhaps its foremost polemicist, has just come out with The God Delusion Houghton Mifflinthe rare volume whose position is so clear it forgoes a subtitle.
The five-week New York Times best seller now at No. Dawkins is riding the crest of an atheist literary wave. InThe End of Faith, a multipronged indictment by neuroscience grad student Sam Harris, was published overcopies in print. Harris has written a page follow-up, Letter to a Christian Nation, which is now No.
Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, which has sold fewer copies but has helped usher the discussion into the public arena. If Dennett and Harris are almost-scientists Dennett runs a multidisciplinary scientific-philosophic programthe authors of half a dozen aggressively secular volumes are card carriers: In Moral Minds, Harvard biologist Marc Hauser explores the —nondivine— origins of our sense of right and wrong September ; in Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast due in January by self-described "atheist-reductionist-materialist" biologist Lewis Wolpert, religion is one of those impossible things; Victor Stenger, a physicist-astronomer, has a book coming out titled God: Meanwhile, Ann Druyan, widow of archskeptical astrophysicist Carl Sagan, has edited Sagan's unpublished lectures on God and his absence into a book, The Varieties of Scientific Experience, out this month.
Dawkins and his army have a swarm of articulate theological opponents, of course. But the most ardent of these don't really care very much about science, and an argument in which one party stands immovable on Scripture and the other immobile on the periodic table doesn't get anyone very far.
Most Americans occupy the middle ground: We want to cheer on science's strides and still humble ourselves on the Sabbath.
We want access to both MRIs and miracles. We want debates about issues like stem cells without conceding that the positions are so intrinsically inimical as to make discussion fruitless.
And to balance formidable standard bearers like Dawkins, we seek those who possess religious conviction but also scientific achievements to credibly argue the widespread hope that science and God are in harmony--that, indeed, science is of God.
Informed conciliators have recently become more vocal. Stanford University biologist Joan Roughgarden has just come out with Evolution and Christian Faith, which provides what she calls a "strong Christian defense" of evolutionary biology, illustrating the discipline's major concepts with biblical passages.
Wilson, a famous skeptic of standard faith, has written The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth, urging believers and non-believers to unite over conservation.
But foremost of those arguing for common ground is Francis Collins. Collins' devotion to genetics is, if possible, greater than Dawkins'. Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute sincehe headed a multinational 2,scientist team that co-mapped the 3 billion biochemical letters of our genetic blueprint, a milestone that then President Bill Clinton honored in a White House ceremony, comparing the genome chart to Meriwether Lewis' map of his fateful continental exploration.
Collins continues to lead his institute in studying the genome and mining it for medical breakthroughs. He is also a forthright Christian who converted from atheism at age 27 and now finds time to advise young evangelical scientists on how to declare their faith in science's largely agnostic upper reaches.
His summer best seller, The Language of God:Science has replaced religion as the dominant intellectual authority because science offers the chance to understand the universe, whereas religion just assumes things. Many believe, as was said by Richard Dawkins, "the truth means scientific truth".
The religion vs science debate, in recent years, has started to dominate the news, spreading across thousands of internet sites and forums. “Science versus Religion” Richard Dawkins 1. Natural selection as a “blind watchmaker” a. “A unconscious automatic process that explains the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, but it has no purpose, plan, or mind.” b.
Natural selection does not explain the existence of the physical constants necessary for life to exist (i.e., Collin’s “fine tuning”). God vs. Science, Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins interviewed by D.
Cray since Richard Dawkins, perhaps its foremost polemicist, has just come out with The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin), the rare volume whose position is so clear it forgoes a subtitle.
TIME: Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist, famously argued that religion. The religion vs science debate, in recent years, has started to dominate the news, spreading across thousands of internet sites and forums.
Aug 06, · Richard Dawkins vs Jonathan Sacks - Science And Religion - Confused girl questioning Richard Dawkins religion Lecture by Professor Richard Dawkins at Culham Science Centre.