Loading AI tools
Many scientists have held strong religious beliefs (see List of Christian thinkers in science and List of Roman Catholic scientist-clerics) and have worked to harmonize science and religion. Isaac Newton, for example, believed that gravity caused the planets to revolve about theSun, and credited God with the design. In the concluding General Scholium to the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he wrote: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." Nevertheless, conflict has repeatedly arisen between religious organizations and individuals who propagated scientific theories that were deemed unacceptable by the organizations. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, has in the past[1] reserved to itself the right to decide which scientific theories were acceptable and which were unacceptable. In the 17th century, Galileo was tried and forced to recant theheliocentric theory based on the church's stance that the Greek Hellenistic system of astronomy was the correct one.[2][3]
Today, religious belief among scientists is less prevalent than it is in the general public. Surveys on the subject give varying results. The Pew Research Center found in 2009 that 33% of American scientists and 83% of the general public believe in God, another 18% of scientists and 12% of the public believe more generally in a higher power, and 41% of scientists and 4% of the public believe in neither.[4] A mailed survey to members of the National Academy of Sciences found that 7% of respondents to believed in a personal God.[5] Elaine Howard Ecklund found that about two-thirds of scientists at elite research universities believed in God[6] and that nearly 50 percent of them were religious.[7][8]
The philosophical theory of pragmatism (first propounded by William James) has been used to reconcile scientific with religious knowledge. Pragmatism holds that the truth of a set of beliefs is indicated by its usefulness in helping people cope with a particularcontext of life. Thus, the fact that scientific beliefs are useful in predicting observations in the physical world can indicate a certain truth for scientific theories and the fact that religious beliefs can be useful in helping people cope with difficult emotions or moral decisions can indicate a certain truth for those beliefs. (For a similar postmodern view, see grand narrative.)
The Catholic Church has always concurred with Augustine of Hippo who explicitly opposed a literal interpretation of the Bible whenever the Bible conflicted with science. The literal way to read the sacred texts became especially prevalent after the rise of theProtestant reformation, with its emphasis on the Bible as the only authoritative source concerning the ultimate reality.[9] This view is often shunned by both religious leaders (who regard literally believing it as petty and look for greater meaning instead) and scientists who regard it as an impossibility.
Some Christians[who?] have disagreed with the validity of Keplerian astronomy, the theory ofevolution[citation needed], the scientific account of the creation of the universe and the origins of life. However,Stanley Jaki has suggested that the Christian worldview was a crucial in the emergence of modern science.[clarification needed]Historians are moving away from the view that Christianity was always in conflict with science—the so-called conflict thesis.[10][11] Gary Ferngren in his historical volume about science and religion states: "While some historians had always regarded the conflict thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late 20th century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule."[12]
The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity,life, and the universe.[13] The dispute is between those who support acreationist view based upon their religious beliefs, versus those who accept evolution, as supported by scientific consensus. The dispute particularly involves the field of evolutionary biology, but also the fields of geology, palaeontology,thermodynamics, nuclear physics and cosmology.[14] Though also present in Europe and elsewhere,[15] and often portrayed as part of the culture wars,[16] this debate is most prevalent in the United States.
While the controversy has a long history,[17] today it is mainly over what constitutes goodscience,[18] with the politics of creationism primarily focusing on the teaching of creation and evolution in public education.[19]
The debate also focuses on issues such as the definition of science (and of what constitutes scientific research and evidence), science education (and whether the teaching of the scientific consensus view should be 'balanced' by also teaching fringe theories), free speech,separation of Church and State, and theology (particularly how different Christians and Christian denominations interpret the Book of Genesis).
Within the scientific community and academia the level of support for evolution is essentially universal,[20] while support for biblically-literal accounts or other creationist alternatives is very small among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among those in the relevant fields.[21]
The debate is sometimes portrayed as being between science and religion. However, as the National Academy of Sciences states:
Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.
— National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism[22]
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
