1. With the controversy surrounding the topic of Evolution and Special Creation, it is important to understand the evidence in dispute. Search for an example of a "transitional fossil" between two forms and explain why you can understand and predict the connection between the specimans from an evolutionary perspective.2. Summarize the views of Miller and Shermer from the article. Who do you most agree with and why? What arguments are the most convincing? If you have a third view on the topic, summarize and link the source.
I'm not exactly sure who's statements were whose in the article, but I agree with the side that says that science and Religion can coexist. I believe the strongest point is that although science proved the theory of evolution, religion in no way contradicts that. The article says, "our own existence is woven into the very fabric of the natural world. Seen in this light, the human presence is not a mistake of nature or a random accident, but a direct consequence of the characteristics of our universe. To a thiest, God is nothing less than the source of the profound rationality of nature." This statement says that people who believe in a divine power can make the argument that just because organisms evolved doesn't mean that God didn't create the first organisms and then they could have evolved by His will. I agree with this statement wholeheartedly because I think it is very true. Religion has many variations and I believe that it is open to interpretation. Religion and science are very compatible in my mind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ken Miller's argument, Religion and science co-exist. In today's era, religion needs to start changing in correlation with new scientific discovery. The belief of a god is completely up to the individual, and if there's science that backs or disproves any sort of religious thought, then religions should discard old information and mold their beliefs until new information is once again discovered. An example that could be applied to this is that as kids, we learned that there were nine planets, after the third or fourth grade, new information was discovered to say that Pluto was actually a dwarf planet, and therefore not considered a regular planet, and this made it so that there were now only eight planets in our solar system. The transition of molding old facts to fit new discoveries is very easy to make and this concept should be able to be applied to the adjustment of religion to scientific discoveries.
ReplyDelete1. From an evolutionary perspective, there seems to always be a little bit of inference going on when regarding the transition from organism to organsim. An example would be the evolutionary pattern of "Homo Sapian Sapian" all the way from the earliest "Ardipithecus". Scientists and researchers find the bones of whatever specimen and they carbon date it to place in on a timeline, and the first thing they do is look at how the entire structure fits (if they are able to find all the bones, which presents a problem already) and relate it to other found structures. With the emergence of genetics, there is definitely a lot more certainty with how each set of bones are related, yet there is still reasonable doubt; everything that we have now in evolution is not an objective fact of absoluteness, rather, a large consensus of scientists who have seen all the data.
ReplyDelete2. Honestly, religion and science are often compared and both subjugated under the same criteria, but in the end that's not necessarily effective. To study religion, you must first assume that god is real, and to study science, you must assume nothing is real until otherwise proven with the scientific method. This presuppostion makes it very difficult to teach both science and religion by themselves. There are some issues that science can answer because its based on the physical world, and some things only religion can answer because it transcends the physical world. That being said, science and religion can definitely co-exist as long as people understand that religion is ever changing as much as science is, and that when it comes to explaining the physical world, science will most likely be more correct, but when it comes to the metaphysical aspects of things, religion is more likely to be able to explain
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAn example transitional fossils would be that of the Archaeopteryx and the ichthyornis, as both seem to close the gap on the evolution of dinosaurs into birds. The Archaeopteryx had feathers and was capable of gliding, although it's body structure was similar to that of a raptor. The ichthyornis however was pretty much a modern bird, only it had teeth which reveal its past ancestry with the raptors.
ReplyDeleteAs stated previously by my classmates, I do agree with Ken Miller's argument as I feel that science and religion can coexist. One of the main reasons that people have issues with this statement is because they are unaware of the criteria by which each go by, and thus they assume automatically that they cannot coexist simply because both focus on different and seemingly opposite aspects of ideology.
1. An example of transitional fossils are the fish and tetra pods. Theres a close relation and a gap is seen where the "branches" of evolution were broken off and split apart. Both were species that could live under water, however tetra pods had a body that were able to walk/crawl on a solid surface. From an evolutionary perspective it is obvious to see that there is a single point of relation between two species and that they originated and branched off from it.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Ken Miller's argument to a certain extent, science and religion could coexist because they can overlap and prove events that correlate. However, these are two major ideologies that pertain a different over arching theme. In the end, when it comes to an origin both split their ways and end up with a completely different beginning.