Harmony: Religion and Intelligent Design Essay Example

the beauty of natural laws, considering themselves devoted worshippers in this aspect.

The influence of religion can be seen throughout history's most notable works of art and literature. When visiting esteemed art museums like Rupee's, one can witness how religious themes have inspired creations that serve as testaments to human creativity. The Book of Job stands out among literary masterpieces worldwide due to its profound exploration into the meaning behind suffering. Religious motifs are also highly prevalent in Shakespeare's plays such as Macbeth, Hamlet, and Othello. Johann Sebastian Bach is widely regarded as history's greatest composer with over 1000 pieces attributed to him, many being sacred music compositions. His Mass in B-Minor remains highly esteemed as one of classical music's most significant works [Denominations].

Victor Hugo's religious novel Les Miserables is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest novels ever written, and its popularity has extended to becoming a long-running musical theater production known as Les Miserables [LesMlserables2011 b]. Throughout history, religion has played a crucial role in shaping moral behavior. Duran and other historians emphasize its importance by stating that societies have struggled to maintain moral standards without religion's assistance [Turnaround, pug.43, 51]. Thus, any movement opposing modern religion is bound for failure. Unfortunately, conflicts between certain groups representing "science" and "religion" have arisen. Recent debates on teaching evolution in public schools have fueled the intensification of this battle across the United States and other countries [Lebanese]. Some religious scientists feel compelled to hide their faith from colleagues [Excellently]. This crisis of faith also affects university students and older individuals influenced by extreme views expressed on both sides [Gibberellins]. In the realm of "science," criticism

extends not only towards religious fundamentalists but also towards moderate believers who take religion seriously and advocate for a balanced approach. One author strongly condemns religion as being "violent, irrational, intolerant, aligned with racism, tribalism, and bigotry; promoting ignorance and hindering intellectual freedom."The text discusses different perspectives on the relationship between religion and science. Some argue that religion promotes disrespect towards women and control over children, while others envision a world without religion to eliminate acts of violence. It highlights the need to prevent persecution of Jews and exploitation by televangelists. Religious fundamentalists believe in the infallibility of the Bible and attribute the creation of Earth or the universe to God thousands of years ago. Some view scientific progress as incompatible with religion, criticizing scientists for concealing truth and blaming them for society's moral decline. One writer even connects science to social issues such as racism, fascism, and drug use. However, prominent scientists and theologians argue against a conflict between science and religion, stating that scientific knowledge does not definitively address religious inspiration or values. (Heathenishly, pug.6; Layaway,pug.174)Francis Collins, a renowned scientist and evangelical Christian, agrees with the notion that being a rigorous scientist does not contradict belief in a caring God who operates in the spiritual world beyond scientific exploration. Stephen Jay Gould explains that science focuses on documenting facts and developing theories about the natural world, while religion deals with human purposes, meanings, and values in a different domain. In line with this perspective, Kenneth Miller believes that faith and reason are gifts from God that should complement each other rather than conflict. He argues that deepening our understanding of the complexities of

the natural world through science can enhance our faith. John Polyhedron also emphasizes the shared pursuit of truth by both science and theology, which fosters ongoing fruitful dialogue between these two disciplines. This dialogue is evident in interactions among religions, scientists, and theologians. On the other hand, outspoken scholars associated with "new atheism" critique religious beliefs for their incoherence and potential harm; however, their writings do not offer any new insights on matters such as translation errors, contradictions, historical difficulties in the Bible, religious wars, or opposition to science by some religious figures.Scholars who study the history of religion have pointed out flaws in the arguments made by these "new atheists". The lack of credibility in their scientific claims against God is due to science's inability to definitively address the existence or nature of a transcendent being. These scholars argue that assuming modern science encompasses all truth and reality would require disregarding other fields like art, literature, music, philosophy, and ethics. Additionally, the scientific materialist worldview held by these "new atheist" writers raises questions as it lacks experimental evidence or mathematical reasoning and must be accepted on faith alone. Furthermore, their writing style is brash and one-sided, which contradicts serious scholarship standards and would likely result in rejection if used in a scientific paper. While some criticisms fail to address significant points raised by theistic writers, negative opinions from prominent scholars and scientists expressed in published reviews cannot be easily dismissed.Karen Armstrong, a religious scholar, criticizes the new atheists for their belief that they alone possess truth and their literal interpretation of scripture without considering allegoric or Talmudic interpretation or even Higher Criticism - similar

to religious fundamentalists who also exhibit reductionism in their thinking. One of the atheist writers is mistaken in claiming that God can be considered a scientific hypothesis for interpreting experiments and observations [Armstrong's pug., 03-305]. During the modern era, theologians started treating God as a scientific explanation, which led to an idolatrous understanding of God. However, the writings of the "new atheists" lack credibility because they are not published in reputable peer-reviewed journals within the field of religious studies. Professionals in this field cannot seriously consider these arguments unless they undergo peer review. To learn more about this topic, refer to Atheists and Peer Review. Both creationism and intelligent design advocate for the belief that a supreme Being orchestrated the world's creation through intricate processes. This perspective is acceptable when seen as an open-ended philosophy. However, in this specific context, creationism and intelligent design relate to present-day events. The creationist movement asserts that Earth and all life forms (or even the entire universe) were created just a few thousand years ago in their current state as described in Genesis.Despite its rejection of many aspects of modern scientific thought, this movement remains popular among the general public. According to a 2012 Gallup poll in Newburyport, around 46% of Americans believe that God created humans in their current form within the last 10,000 years. This percentage is higher than a similar study conducted in 2010. Additionally, about 44% of people doubted the validity of evolution, particularly as it pertains to humans (Newburyport). Intelligent design has gained considerable attention and support recently (Intelligent design). Both creationists and intelligent design proponents accept the old-earth perspective put forth by modern

science but reject the idea that creation primarily occurred through natural processes. They argue that their approaches are backed by strong evidence and challenge the possibility of finding harmony between religion and science. However, Carl Eagan stresses that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So how much evidence have these movements presented? Modern radiometric dating methods easily debunk traditional creationism as they consistently provide reliable dates for Earth's development. This directly contradicts the core belief held by creationists that Earth was created only a few thousand years ago. The belief that the Earth is young is no longer viable, just like the ancient idea that the sun, planets, and stars were only a short distance above Earth.Both calculations were proven to be incorrect by factors of millions and billions. Moreover, the concept of evolution surpasses being just a "theory" in everyday language as it has been supported by numerous meticulous studies and widely accepted in peer-reviewed scientific literature. The most recent DNA sequence data strongly supports the idea of common descent without any reasonable alternative explanations (see DNA). Ongoing research will surely lead to new discoveries and adjustments to our current knowledge, but the fundamental principles of this field are unlikely to be questioned. While certain members of the intelligent design community have shown greater acceptance of modern science by recognizing old-earth geology and common descent, they still face challenges. Their attempt to find evidence for design in nature is not original since similar arguments were made by Paley during the 19th century. Furthermore, their ideas concerning "irreducible complexity" and other related concepts have been discredited through published research that highlights the problematic nature of using

nature's "design" as proof for God. This criticism considers evident flaws found in various aspects of nature, including those within human anatomy. Proponents of intelligent design argue that the notion of "design" should be understood more broadly rather than solely focusing on intricate mechanics.Scientists, regardless of their religious beliefs, generally agree that the arguments put forth by proponents of creationism and intelligent design are deeply flawed. The criticisms against modern evolutionary theory lack substance and do not pose a significant challenge. These issues have been extensively discussed in scientific literature and recent data further supports these theories. However, it is important to note that creationist and intelligent design writers, much like the "new atheists," have not had their work published in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals. As a result, they are not taken seriously by leading scientists. If any of these writers believe that their arguments meet the standards of peer review, they should submit them to relevant journals for consideration. For more information on this topic, please refer to Creationism, Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Peer Review.

In addition to scientific concerns, creationism and intelligent design also face philosophical and theological challenges. It is contradictory to use unexplainable phenomena as evidence for the existence of a higher power because science alone cannot provide insights about transcendental beings based solely on its definition. Attempting to prove the existence of God undermines faith in religion while reinforcing beliefs held by atheist critics. Unlike scientific journals which contain quantitative data or analysis, the Bible lacks such elementsDefining religion based on unexplained phenomena is akin to the "God of the gaps" theology, which becomes inadequate as science progresses. Both creationism and

intelligent design face a challenge when considering a scenario where a highly intelligent Entity communicates with humans, solving mathematical problems that surpass current knowledge. If this Entity claims responsibility for creating life on Earth, humans naturally have questions regarding the timeframe, processes involved, steps taken, and whether replication is possible in a laboratory. The unanswered questions of "Why was the Earth created by this Entity?" or "Who created the universe?" have long fascinated scientists and theologians. The creationist-intelligent design approach limits thought by simply stating that "God did it" without delving further into exploration; it embraces ignorance rather than seeking knowledge. Surely there must be a more productive way to reconcile science and religion. Some proponents propose that while the world may appear ancient and governed by natural laws evolving over time, it is intentionally created by God as a test of faith. Although rocks may seem millions of years old due to altered isotopes, they were actually formed only thousands of years ago.The age of Earth and evolution have been subject to interesting developments in physics and astronomy. Photons from distant galaxies or supernova explosions, although appearing to come from millions of light-years away, were actually formed during their journey to Earth due to the belief that the universe is only a few thousand years old. This challenges the traditional Judeo-Christian view as it portrays God as a Great Deceiver. In the field of sociology of scientific knowledge and postmodern science studies, some writers critically analyze the reliability of scientific findings from a sociological or group dynamics perspective. Works by Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn on the philosophy of science are particularly relevant in

contemporary discussions on science. Readers interested in these topics can refer to works on Deceiver and Theology and Philosophy for further exploration. Popper emphasized the importance of fallibility in science, distinguishing it from other forms of scholarship, while Kuhn observed that science progresses through paradigm shifts rather than linearly. It is also crucial to acknowledge scientific contributions from non-western societies like ancient mathematics from India and China. However, there are instances in literature expressing contempt for the scientific enterprise or denying its ability to uncover truths about nature which should not be engaged with. For more information on this topic, please refer to the Postmodern articleScientists have observed that our Earth and universe are finely tuned to support intelligent life, leading to the proposal of multiple universes as an explanation. However, many scientists find these explanations unsatisfactory as they fail to answer why the universe supports intelligent life. Physicist Paul Davies acknowledges that human minds possess a deeper understanding of the universe through reasoning and science. For further details, please see the Physics and cosmology article.

No level of involvement or connection is necessary for observers to explain a bio-friendly universe; understanding is not required. Nevertheless, humans do understand. Why? These ideas may spark intrigue but leave religious-minded individuals empty inside. Does the "God of the big bang" align with the compassionate God depicted in religious works like Psalms, Gospel of John, and OLDS Book of Moses?

Did Johann Sebastian Bach consider the "God of the big bang" when composing sacred works such as Mass in B Minor and over 1,000 others? Did this same being inspire Albert Schweitzer, Mohammad Ghanaian, and Mother Teresa to dedicate their

lives to helping others instead of pursuing careers and wealth?Does the motivation for millions to live moral and charitable lives with purpose stem from esoteric investigations into particles and forces in the universe? Most likely not. The controversy surrounding creationism and intelligent design teaches us that using arguments based on apparent design or unexplained phenomena in nature to prove God's existence is ultimately unsatisfying. This approach hinders both scientific and religious exploration by discouraging critical thinking and categorizing these questions as incomprehensible to a transcendent Being. However, it is worth considering one fundamental perspective: the belief in progress. This perspective asserts that humanity has advanced from past barbarism and ignorance, continues to advance currently, and will continue progressing in the future [Insentient, pug.4-5]. Contrary to the commonly held belief of modern society undergoing decline, this idea of progress proves highly questionable upon closer examination (refer to Decline).The belief that God governs the world according to rational laws, as held in the Judeo-Christian tradition, closely aligns with the concept of linear and progressive history. According to British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (pug.17-19, 27), modern Western science is rooted in a belief in rationality. Physicist Paul Davies also suggests that Greek philosophy and monotheism, particularly the abstract idea of hidden mathematical laws (pug.74-75), played a crucial role in the development of modern science. French theologian Pierre Detailed De Chagrin argued that human progress is inevitable and driven by the natural laws of the universe, proposing that incorporating this notion into our understanding of God's kingdom would resolve conflicts between science and religion (pug.96). Scholar Robert Wright discusses in his work how both religion and modern science contribute

to a vector of progress spanning thousands of years characterized by increasing human cooperation (pug.17, 332). He argues that history objectively demonstrates ongoing progress beyond specific regimes or figures, guided by an underlying arrow that has persisted for millennia till today. While higher powers may not solely shape history, it can be viewed as a manifestation of divinity. To explore this concept further, refer to the concept itself.

In order to achieve peace and address troubled relationships, it is crucial to recognize that science and religion are dedicated to pursuing truth but should be seen as separate realms due to their different approaches and the questions they tackle [Colluding, pug.4-5]. In the Christian New Testament's Gospel of Matthew, Jesus responded by saying "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's;and unto God the things that are God's" when questioned about paying taxes to Rome [Matt.2:21]. Similarly, individuals with religious backgrounds should defer technical questions about the natural world to scientific research instead of viewing scriptures as scientific textbooks. Likewise, individuals with scientific backgrounds should acknowledge that enlightened religion is best suited for addressing questions about the ultimate meaning of life and moral conduct rather than attempting to replace religion, art, music, literature, philosophy, and morality with science. The ancient mathematician Euclid teaches us a valuable lesson as his work still forms the basis for geometry courses today. According to legend, when Pharaoh Ptolemy I of Egypt grew frustrated with the complexity of mastering geometry, he sought an easier route. Euclid's response was concise: "There is no royal road to geometry." Even now, there are new efforts being made to find quick and effortless paths that

bypass the rigorous process required for success in a field.It is important to acknowledge that there are individuals who criticize and dismiss religion without fully immersing themselves in religious pursuits or conducting thorough studies of theology or religious history. Just like critics lacking expertise in biology, geology, or astronomy exist but disregard prevailing theories in those fields, there are also individuals who criticize prevailing religious theories without possessing the necessary expertise. Both groups overstep their boundaries.

While modern science serves as a powerful tool for exploring the laws of the universe, it cannot address questions related to morality, salvation ethics, or the ultimate meaning of life. These profound questions go beyond its intended methods. The text emphasizes the significance of preserving the distinct nature of science and religion.

The text advises against religious groups adopting scientific theories or worldviews as their central beliefs because these religious beliefs may become outdated if closely tied to a specific scientific perspective. Holmes Ralston warns that religions that excessively conform to science will quickly become obsolete.