Christianity and science Flashcards
Genetic Engineering
Possibility offered by genetic engineering
- Treatment for currently incurable diseases e.g. cystic fibrosis could be developed that would eliminate them through genetic engineering
- It is thoughout that within a generation, parents may be in a position to choose to modify the DNA of their unborn child to dictate greater intelligence or fitness through genetic enhancement therapy
- Such modified humans would have a greater physical, intellectual and psychological powers are known as transhumans
- Genetically modified animals have already been credited to provide a human protein in their milk that has been used as a treatment in humans with lung disease
- Genetically modified crops have also already been developed to produce a significantly larger yield, to be disease resistant and to thrive in warmer climates in an attempt to address the problem of world hunger
Genetic Engineering
Ethical issues raised
- Advances in scientific technology raised numerous ethical dilemmas particularly in the fields of medicine and technology
- Christians take differing positions on these issues but claim to find a basis for their beliefs in the teaching of the Bible
- Nevertheless, inevtiably, modern advances mean that the Bible has nothing to say specifically on a given issue
- Numbers of options arise now regarding how we might advance the quality of human life or improvement the environment in light of climate change
Genetic Engineering
Christian responses to genetic engineering
- There is some support for GM crops on the basis of concern for the poorest countries suffering from global hunger. However there is concern about reducing biodiversity and unknown consequences of its use
- NL means that Catholics in particular are suspicious of genetic modifications and many are less happy with the idea of genetically engineered animals than of plants. Most dislike the use of xenotransplantation on the basis of animal diseases potentially being transmitted
- Somatic cell therapy is generally welcomed as a loving and responsible use of God given skills as long as undue risks are not taken and the benefits outweigh the costs
Belief that science is compatible with Christianity
Explanation is needed for the fact the world is intelligble
- Polkinghorne says that purely scientific views of the universe does not seem to satisfy our need to understand and make sense of the world but the very intelligibility of the world, which makes it open to scientific enquiry, raises deep questions that science is unable to penetrate
- Indeed there is no evolutionary advantage to humans having the capacity to make sense of the universe. He sees that as being explainable as part of Gods pattern
- Polkinghorne dismisses the argument put by Hume that the universe follows a cycle of chaos and order with us merely being in a state of order
- Similarly he dismisses notions of a multiverse, allowing for some to be ordered as ours, as a theory without evidence and therefore a failed argument against there being a God
Belief that science is compatible with Christianity
The idea of providence at the heart of Gods relationship with the world and humankind
- Polkinghorne argues that God creates, sustains and cares for life, giving it a purpose
- He takes a view along the lines of Hick’s epistemic distance argument that God deliberately does these things in a way God cannot detect
Belief that science is compatible with Christianity
Both religion and science are concerned with understanding and making sense of experience
- Polkinghorne says that religious experiences do not require serious consideration
- He argues that to subject them to undue scepticism is inappropriate and rejects Humes argument that claims to religius experiences from different religions cancels them out
- Instead he argues that the differences are merely due to cultural conditioning, whilst the experiences themselves are of the same reality
Belief that science is compatible with Christianity
The Bible gives evidence for Christian claims about Jesus that can be rationally examined just as scientific theory can
- This has been true of the arguments put by the likes of NT Wright in his argument for the necessity of Jesus’ resurrection as a historical event, on the basis of evidence and reasoning
Belief that science is compatible with Christianity
The claim that there is a God seems to many to be one that can be made on the basis of evidence and as such be treated in the same way as a scientific claim
- Polkinghorne insists that science and religion are compatible as different ways to understand reality
How scientific explanation has challenged Christian belief
The Big Bang Theory
- There has been 2 main theories about the origins of the universe. Prior to the Big Bang Theory was the steady state theory proposed by Fred Hoyle in which matter and energy are constant throughout the universe with no apparent beginning
- Big Bang Theory, developed by Edwin Hubble argued that there was a cosmic explosion of dense matter which created time, space, matter and energy. As the Earth cooled down, chemical reactions led to the emergence of primitive life forms, from which all life evolved
- Some scientists reject the idea of the Big Bang as a single event- some argue for a Big Crunch, with a Big Bang leading to expansion then retraction due to force of gravity
how scientific explanation has challenged Christian belief
Christian Responses to the Big Bang
- **Deism: **God was he cause of the Big Bang and has left the universe to work according to the natural laws in place
- Young Earth Creationists: Reject the Big Bang Theory outright because the Bible is literally true
- Old Earth Creationists: See Genesis 1 as compatible with the theory on the basis that the Hebrew word for day may mean an era rather than 24 hours
- Catholic Church: entirely accepts the Big Bang Theory, seeing the Genesis creation account as a myth
- Mainstream Christians: Do not see a problem in accepting the Big Bang Theory as they still believe that this beginning needs an explanation and argue that God is the most likely explanation
- Richard Swinburne: We should observe Occam’s razor- the simplest answer is usually correct. The sheer complexity of the Earth is more the probable result of design than of chance- ‘The universe might easily have been chaotic but it is not. It is very orderly’
how scientific explanation has challenged Christian belief
Darwins theory of evolution
- Differing conditions contributed to the adaptation of species
- Natural selection: A natural process which was the mechanism for evolutionary change
- Survival of the fittest meant that only the strongest survived, whilst others became extinct
- Process was competitive, brutal and blind with no providential hand guiding
- Darwins theory challenged 4 assumptions about creation in the Bible
- Separate creation: Gen 1 implied that God created each life form separately
- Instant creation: Gen 1 describes a spontaneous and fixed creation in 6 days
- Providential creation: The Bible taught that creation was an expression of God’s goodness
- Uniqueness of humanity: Gen 1:26 Imago Dei and in the likeness of God
how scientific explanation has challenged Christian belief
19th century Christian responses to the theory of evolution
- Initially defensive and dismissive- evolution seen as an affront on the Bible and dignity of humanity
- Fundamentalists dismissed it on the basis that the Bible was inerrant and couldn’t be wrong
- Others lost their faith in God and teachings of the Church
- Liberals welcomed the theory having rejected Genesis being literal- Charles Kingsley: ‘We used to say that God was so wise that he could make all things. Now we know that he is much wiser than that. He can make all things make themselves’
how scientific explanation has challenged Christian belief
Modern day responses to the theory of evolution
- Creationists: These are fundamentalists who believe in the literal truth of the Bible. David Roserveare ‘Well lets be clear, God lays it down very clearly in Genesis that he did it in 6 days. Scripture is verbally inspired and is literally true, whereas evolution is a theory and may yet be proved wrong’
- Young Earth creationism: Insists that Genesis is literally true. Everything was created in 6 days about 100,000 years ago (contradicting the scientific view that the earth was formed about 4 billion years ago)
- Old Earth creationism: Accepts that the planet is about 4 billion years old and may allow for some meausre of evolution but God played an active part in the creative process. Humanity was created directly by God, not as a result of evolution from a more primitive species
- Most Christians reject creationism- see no conflict in accepting natural selection as it works as a result of laws of nature which serive from God
- Catholics reject creationism- Gen 1 is a myth which works differently but alongside scientific understandings of the origins of life –> Christianity and science are compatible
how scientific explanation has challenged Christian belief
Intelligent design
- Evolutionary theory alone does not fully explain the origin and development of the universe. They point to the complexity of the world and discoveries of DNA as evidence of design by an intelligent creator
- Irreducible complexity: term given by supporters of intelligent deisgn, referring to the complexity of biological systems
- Michael Behe used an analogy of a mousetrap- removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mouse trap. Intelligent design advocates the assertion that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled e.g. the adaptive immunie system
- Behe refused to identify the intelligent designer- allowing his proposal to be distanced from the more overtly religious critics of evolution
- ‘Darwins Black Box’ by Behe in which he gives the example of a bacterial flagellum as irreducibly complex. The ‘black box’ refers to a conceptual tool in which the internal workings of a device are taken for granted to its function cannot be discussed.
- Behe argues that certain assumptions from Darwins theory are dismissed, changing the start point for the argument: it does not reject evolution but it cannot account for complexity alone
The Rise of science
Renaissance and the Englightenment
Renaissance: 14th-17th century, version of humanism in which Greek philosophy was discovered. Vast progress in art, politics, science and religion
* *The Englightenment: 17-18th century, emerged out of the Renaissance and was preceded by the scientific revolution
* Renaissance and englightenment gave rise to science becoming a discipline separate from religion, based on empiricism
* Nicolaus Copernicus: Polish monk who argued that the Earth along with all the other planets rotated around the son –> church rejected this
* **Gallileo Galilei: **Used a telescope to prove that Copernicus is right, shaking past reliance on the Churches authority. The church silenced him
* **Isaac Newton: **produced the first really scientific account of the world but managed to maintain his religious beliefs. 2 separate books containing all truth: book of nature and book of scriptures
* **Pierre Laplace: **Rejected Newtons acceptance of natural laws owing their existence to God. Here ‘God of the Gaps’ concept grew, highlighting the dangers of filling gaps in scientific knowledge with supernatural explanation
* Charles Darwin: Evolution and Natural Selection challenge the 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 and James Usshers calculations from the Biblical accounts that the world was created in 4004 BC
