Comparing The Arguments Of Richard Dawkins And John Lennox

To every story there are at least two sides; for any considered conclusion a fact must have a contradiction. Moreover, arguments follow in tow. Henry Drummond in Inherit the Wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, displays the significance to Creationism and Darwinism in tandem. For either side to appropriately stay considered they must correlate with opposition. For an argument to be substantial and taken seriously, it must have debatable opposition and equal representation.

The Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde: Charles Darwin’s revolutionary idea of evolution sparked dramatic debate in the scientific and, most especially, religious communities, as well as inspiring a new wave of thought in the minds of the world. There was also plenty of controversy, particularly from the many believers of creationism during the Victorian Age. But by denying creationism with his own theories, Darwin “made room for strictly scientific explanations of all natural phenomena”, and as a result, initiated a “powerful intellectual and spiritual revolution” whose effects last to this day. Its profound impact meant that “nearly every field of social and cultural life was affected by the idea of evolution.” Darwin’s idea of natural

Edward O. Wilson, in his essay Intelligent Evolution, diagnoses the “gap between science and faith-based religion” as “tectonic” (556), and predicts the continuous expansion of the gap. This gap appears most vividly in the field of biology, over the question of the origin of species of life on the Earth. The scientific answer to this question is the theory of evolution, which explains that the force of nature, called natural selection, has shaped and diversified the species of life on the Earth. However, Christians viewed the theory of evolution as a threat to their fundamental dogma: the existence of a single almighty deity, who has created life in the forms they exist today. In response, creationists utilized scientific methodologies and

The complexities inherent with any mention of a higher being to explain any natural phenomenon goes against the principles of Ockham’s razor as a simplifying argument. Ockham’s razor is used successfully throughout history to simplify complex observable ideas. The unobservable, abstract ideas are not always as easily explained using Ockham’s razor. God is inherently a complex, abstract idea. For this reason, ontological argument, cosmological argument, and teleological arguments are immune from the ability to be over simplified using the application of Ockham’s

In making the argument for the existence of the Law of Human Nature, C.S. Lewis first establishes the acknowledgement of a few different universal laws that man in subjected to. There is the law of gravity, in which Lewis insinuates that in the eyes of gravity, the body of man and a mere stone are one and the same. Then there are biological laws that correspond with those than an animal has. However, the one law that is specific to man and that man is free to disobey or get “mistaken”, is the “Law of Nature or decent behavior” (Lewis). C.S. Lewis uses inductive reasoning to form this kind of logic by first making the observation that even though throughout time man has seemed to have had different agreements of what they believe to be moral,

There were scientific findings before the 16th century and there were more to follow the 18th century. Shapin’s thesis covers that there was no specific scientific distinction between the 17th century and the rest of time for this period to stand out and be a revolution but he explains that the Scientific Revolution is more of a process. Shapin still believes that the scientific findings of this time can be considered revolutionary. Shapin explains that “Science remains whatever it is-certainly the most reliable body of natural knowledge we have got” (165) to show that he still understands how important science and the findings in science are to the world and civilization.

The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist. At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil.

In Galileo’s Daughter, Dava Sobel assembles an account of Galileo’s attempt to prove the heliocentric model of the universe in a world where mans’ logical reasoning is potent, yet second to his devotion to God, and by relation, the Catholic Church. Sobel writes about Galileo’s tendency to question the reasoning of those around him. Though it may not be apparent, Galileo was born into a world of great similarity to the modern day. In Galileo’s time, Science was seen as blasphemy and a tool to undermine the construct of God. Moreover, it didn’t help matters that at the time, the Church was the governing body throughout Italy. This made it particularly difficult for scientific advancement, as any theory that suggested conflict with religious teaching

The Scientific Revolution “refers to historical changes in thought & belief, to changes in social & institutional organization, that unfolded in Europe between roughly 1550-1700” (Hatch). This revolution was a time to replace

During the sixteenth and seventeenth century, many scientists had developed a new perspective on the world around them. Scientists such as Galileo and Copernicus envisioned a world where natural phenomenons could be proved through experimentation. Furthermore, the work of scientists during this time period were affected by the approval of political figures, the support from influential members of the church, and social factors that influenced the development and acceptance of new theories.

As time went from the 16th century to the 18th century, the Renaissance thinking transformed to the Scientific Revolution. Soon, it would enable a worldview in which people were not invoking the principles of religion as often as the Renaissance. As an example, these natural philosophers, known as scientists today, developed a new thinking in which the world was no longer geocentric. The thought of an Earth-centered universe as the Bible would say, transformed as heliocentric or in other words Sun-centered. Within this period, Scientists were starting to understand the world’s functions, for they created experiment methods incorporating discipline, mathematics, and the essential Scientist communication. Meanwhile, these motives were being developed

Lennox says that it makes a lot more sense to believe, that there is an eternal Logos and that the universe and its laws is derivative including the human mind form the Logos, it makes perfectly sense. More sense than to accept that the universe is just a simple fact.

Religion is an important belief in life for many people, in which they believe in supernatural powers. There are millions of people that believe that God exists in this world; however, there are also people that do not believe in God. Several famous figures in history have given proofs for God’s existence, such as René Descartes, Isaac Newton, and Thomas Paine. However, there are also people that do not believe in these proofs, such as David Hume. Through Soccio 's “Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy”, one can see that Hume rejects Descartes’s ontological proofs, Newton’s teleological proof, and Paine’s cosmological proof of God’s existence.

Karl Popper was a twentieth-century philosopher that had a dissatisfaction with the definition of what could be considered a “science.” The claim of falsification, being able to equally be observed false, made Popper’s argument of demarcation appealing to those with the same inquiries about the method of scientific progress. Popper said to be defined as a real science, one needs to make risky, bold predictions that could easily be refuted by observation. I will argue that the construction of Popper’s scientific progress is flawed due to the refutations of infinite hypotheses and observational unreliability.

A theory is defined as an explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a compilation of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Theory is not scientific law, which is a natural phenomenon that has been proven as absolute truth. However, in the public-school setting, evolution, a theory concerning the Earth’s origins, is established as an indisputable fact allowing no room for other theories, specifically creationism, to be taught. These two battling theories uphold two opposing perspectives that attempt to explain the creation and development of life. Students are encouraged to form their own opinions and think open-mindedly based on the information presented to them, yet in the topic of life’s origins, they are no longer being afforded this opportunity because of the ban on the teaching of creationism. Creationism should be taught in schools because it does hold validity with several well-respected scientists and utilizes evidence observed by scientific studies to accurately support its main aspects.