RS (Relgiion and Science) Flashcards
Since the emrgence of evoltution and the Big Bang theory in the 19th century..?
creationism has been quesioned
Genesis, 1:1 ‘And God created the heavens and the earth’
This part isn’t contradicted by the Big BAng as God could ahve created/sustained the big Bang theory BUT the idea that creationists belive God immediately formed matter and made thr sun stars ect
Big Bang Theory argues the univerese result of a singulairt that exploded and under extreme heat and pressure over 14 million years formualted the cosmos
Dawkins- used this theory to argue the world was created by chance
evoltution and natural selection reulted in humanity (natural selection is nature’s blind watchmaker)
Creationsit sbelive take Genesis fairly literally- God create hte world over thousands years (4.6 million) in 6 days (but accept a day in the Bible might be a longer time peroid now- could be an infiinte period of time) for a purpose
What did Dawkins think about Young earth creationists?
litterally belive it was created in 6000 years, in 6 days a day in the Bible is the same as now
Dawkins: ‘ They are a preposterous falsehood’
critical of creationism being taught in schools
In the God Delusion?
-‘Faith is the great excuse to avoid need to think and evualate evidance’
main contradiciton between the Big Bang theory and genesis [3 things]?
1) How long it took to create the earth (billions of eyasr or days)
2) whether it was random or stratified- directly formulated by God to demonstrate his love (creationism) or complete chance (Big Bang)
Man is sacred (created for a purpose) or that he is jsut a highly evolved animal
3) Most significantly the realationship with God and the problem of evil
Creationsim- origianl sin-caused by Adam and Eve>bought moral evil into the world
Big Bang- creaton was flawed from the outside- evil ,both natural and moral, existed since the beginning- even beings in primitive conditions had the capacity to suffer
scientific theory does undermine creationsim in this way
Hitler have justified their moral actions as ‘survival of the fittest’- like in nature
Why would creationism be more believable?
fundamentalist chrisitans are going to belive in creationism thougbh more liberal-mined chrisitans might thnk with scientfic reasoning- the big bang is more believable
Strong chrisitans- no matter how much contradictory evidance against genesis account e.g. Issac Newton’s laws of gravity explaining the formation and pattern of the solar system they’re never oing to accpet it, (Young Earth Creationists- fossil record is evidance for Grest Flood
However, this is quite easy becuase it does completely depend on how the perosn interprets the evidance (theory is just a hypothesis that has considerable supporting evidance but it isn’t proven
Why would msot people belive the big bang theory?
Most realise bible was [roduced by infallable humanity (whether it was directly revealed- Moses and the Covenany) pr inspired written by humans
big bang is based on empirical evidance and creationsim isn’t
most tust the strong scientific reasoning
The prioblem is it does comletley depend on?
interpreation of the person asking though msot would trust empirical evidance more than human witness in a uneducated time
Who was Keith Ward?
ciritc of Dawkins
‘He bwas naive and his theory was not based on science but a hatred of religon’
Religona dnScience were compatble
Theisitc evoltuion- God created/sustained the process
Random devleopment is essential for moral freedom to evolve
simple and viable explantion (Oakham Razor)- for the world is ah hgiher being (gives scientific ceedit to intelligent design>irreducible complexity but akso specified comklexity- organsim are so grest they must come from God)
Belives the splendour of creaton is a powerful sinjg for the existance of God- Dakwins doesn’t
What did Keith Ward believe about the Bible?
Condemned creationsim- picked bits out of the Bible to satisfy pre-existant beliefs
belived the bible shiuld be taken seriously but not in doctrine of biblical inerrancy
belived the bible did have errors but he universal truths tha God revealed in the Scriptire did not have error
bible- stories had spiritual meanings but they weren’t to be taken literally
The people who worte it weren’t stupid- they knew the sunwasn’t there for the first few days so didn’t mean a day as a literal peroid of time
People who do take it literally (like Young Earth creationists haven’t thought it through.
What was Dawkings great diservie too science? (Allister Mcgrath quote)
Just becuase science releis on empriical evidanc eit doesn’t disprove the existance of God
‘One of the greates disservices Dawkins has done is to portray antural science as athiest
Dawkins argues in ‘The Selfish Gene’?
As human knowledge increases, the need for a Giod decreases
Sceience explain how, relgion explains why?
is this an oversimilification?
NOMA means?
non-overlapping magesteria- area of authoruity
science has different ones (fact) to relgiion (meaning)
differnt concepts/authories- no need to compare them at all
