Science And Religion Cannot Coexist Essay

Sunday, October 31, 2021 2:14:22 PM

Science And Religion Cannot Coexist Essay

Science relies completely on evidence and Are there books for kids about Harriet Tubman on Amazon?, whereas religion is almost completely based on faith and conjecture. Create New Poll. I have read your file and understand that you are on your school's debate team. And as facts become increasingly important for the welfare of our species and our Are there books for kids about Harriet Tubman on Amazon?, people should Are there books for kids about Harriet Tubman on Amazon? faith for what it is: not a virtue but a defect. And please, let's not confuse Mla format research paper with title page question with Can science and god coexist. Whether this reflects differential attraction of nonbelievers to Essays on ethics in advertising or science eroding belief — I suspect both factors operate — the figures are prima facie evidence for a science-religion conflict.

Can Science and Religion Coexist?

Man has two choices, to be good or to be bad. One must make his own decision. I believe that our future is predetermined by one Supreme Being, and it is God. Whatever choice we make, there are always different consequences, even if it is good or bad. I chose to go to school than to do nothing, which is the decision that I made. No one influenced me in making the decision. I believe my faith is to be a professional in my chosen degree. Please remember that this paper is open-access and other students can use it too. If you need an original paper created exclusively for you, hire one of our brilliant writers! Some topics are tougher than others.

We use cookies to improve your experience with our site. Please accept before continuing or read our cookie policy here. Hire Writer. Want a similar paper? We can write it! Order now. New WowEssays Premium Database! Find the biggest directory of over 1 million paper examples! Language accelerates cooperation, an evolutionary feature that — starting with the first multicellular creatures — is present in robust organisms. In cultural terms, cooperation evolved first as kin selection, by which close relations have the highest social importance. Nowak quoted the late British evolutionary biologist J. Cooperation spread out to include groups, clusters of groups, and finally to humanity at large.

In mathematical terms, he said, kinship selection and other mechanisms of the evolution of cooperation show a favorable cost-benefit analysis. But in the public arena, evolution is still an issue that keeps scientists and theologians apart, and creates undeniable tensions. Religious opposition has coalesced into three camps. Creationists hold that the Book of Genesis is a scientific account of historical events on an Earth just 6, years old, and therefore evolution is impossible. And perhaps bad theology, too, since it runs counter to the idea, adapted by Thomas Aquinas and other theologians, that God is best explained in terms of analogy. Scientific atheism holds that science provides everything needed to understand the world.

Science and religion provide analogous functions, said Nowak. The Law of Conservation Energy, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the light speed barrier. Your information about evolution being taught is accurate your prediction I will concur with as well. However, your burden of proof has been not been met and proper refutation has been put in place. I would argue in another debate that Galileo was more than likely a deist. However, without needing to go further when you read my opening statement you would see that I specifically said "Modern Science" these men were great scientist and contributors but, it does not prevent them from being wrong in their beliefs. The Science they had back then was not on the level for what we have now.

I look forward to your response as well. Works Cited: 1. Your first round re sponse. I'd like to start the round by saying that was an excellent rebuttal, and I'm sorry about the gender mishap. I should have investigated more thoroughly before making the assumption. Semantics : I currently debate in the Lincoln-Douglass form of debate, created by the National Forensics League and hosted at NFL and unfortunate acronym, but that's what I'll most likely be using in a debate unless it's about sports tournaments. In an LD debate, definitions can make or break a case For example, in the Districts and State topic, how you defined "Targeted Killing" could win or lose you the round, but it's not normally that important , so semantics are important. They accept any source that is credible and gives a fair and accurate representation of the word, wheter it be an online dictionary or an expert in that field.

Now that the unclearness of the semantical aspect of my normal debating is cleared up, I'll move on the definitions themselves. The main accusation against my definitions would be that it's not from an educational source and so its definitions are flawed due to their "seductive simplicity". However, I would argue that this in fact an educational site education: tending or intended to educate , instruct, or inform[1] semanticception. Untill the thefreedictionary.

Furthermore, when looking for the credibility of these words let's use the site's word of the day, meddlesome, as I can't compare every word in the dictionary you can simply take a defintion from my site and compare it to other sites to see if it gives an inaccurate representation. Thefreedictionary : Meddlesome- Inclined to meddle or interfere[2] dictionary. Therefor, we can assume that this site is of educational quality, and the disputation falls. As my opponent's definitions were based on mine being inaccurate, and they have been proven not to be inaccurate, mine are still used as the accepted definitions in the round.

Although I do not doubt the fact that the disclaimer exists, I couldn't find it in the page linked. However, I'll work off of the assumption that it's true as I have no reason to doubt your integrity. This disclaimer is most likely used to ward any of the sue-happy individuals who are all too common in today's society, however even the disclaimer states that the site is used for informational purposes, thus making it an educational site.

My Opponent's Case: Contention 1 : I'll divide my refutation of this into two parts 1. The definition of scientific theory My opponent's first attack in the contention is a semantical one. It states that because Christian claims are not "falsifiable", they cannot be considered scientific. However, "falsifiable" is defined as and I'm using his site to get the proper context : capable of being tested verified or falsified by experiment or observation[6], and Christian Views have certainly been tested through observation [7,8].

Not believing your views are false does not make something unfalsifiable, it just makes you confident in their validity. For example, morally I'm an egoist, and I don't believe that egoism is false. Sure, someone might be able to beat me in a debate on it every now and again, and i'd be reluctant to admit it's wrong if I'm beaten, but that doesn't mean that it's unfalsifiable. Similarly, Scientists who cling to String theory or the denial of String theory wouldn't want to give up the stance that they're correct and would likely defend themselves with the same amount of faith that a Christian would put into their beliefs, but that doesn't mean the theories are unfalsifiable.

Conflict The second argument my opponent brings up is that because faith and science would at some point conflict, the two cannot coexist. However, you can look to my string theory argument in "1. As my opponent stated, science is just a bunch of theories. This means that different theories can be held on the same issue, and they will surely conflict if they are on opposite sides. Using my opponent's reasoning that co-existance cannot occur with conflict, then the entire scientific field would not be able to coexist with science, and that's incredibly flawed reasoning. Defense of my case: I put this under my case as both subpoints are in direct contradiction to mine. If my opponent finds this misrepresentive, I'll rearrange my structure next round.

SpA : My opponent's only attack here is that teachers are "likely" to misrepresent information as some of it contradicts religious beliefs. However, this is a rather serious and substantial claim, and you would need evidence to back it up, of which my opponent has none. So, we cannot put faith in such a serious accusation if the only reason it's being brought up is idle skepticism SpB : I'd like to apologize for overlooking the "modern science" part of my opponent's opening.

I'll instead replace it with a list of modern scientists who meet the same criteria, and I apologize again for wasting my opponent's time. In order to narrow down the search and eliminate individual assumption on what constitutes "modern" as it has not yet been defined, I'll propose that "Modern science arose in Western Europe in the 16th and 17th Centuries" [9] These are just a few of the scientists who meet the criteria: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo although you claim him a deist, you did not source it.

As my opponent's rebuttal has been proven false, my case still stands and the Burden of Proof is fulfilled Works Cited: 1. Introduction Exemplary rebuttal from Pro however, the both of us seem to have veered a bit far off from our debate. Semantic Argument First off to deal with the semantic situation because we do not want to turn this into a debate of semantics and gloss over the topic at hand. My opponent made a point that I see as both valid and invalid first in foremost he attempted to argue the validity of the source by giving examples in various comparisons between dictionaries however, as the opponent stated the definitions can make or break the debate.

With this in mind I reject that this is an educational site because it has not indicated so in file extensions i. This rule of course holds only to the definitions because information from a third-party source can still be reliable. Definitions are critical therefore when a word is being defined any and all words must be defined accurately and in detail; which is not done on my opponents primary site. Also, arguing the validity of your site based on the site's word-of-the-day definition will only prove that the site has more detailed definitions for a certain word.

Using this site in a formal debate after reading the disclaimer which is at the bottom of the page is to be in accordance with the False Attribution Fallacy ; regardless of what you think their motive is for placing the disclaimer on the site which could be true it does not nullify the fact that it is still there and it still applies. As for your example which you used to support your argument, it is in accordance with the Ignoratio elenchi fallacy because although those particular definitions may be accurate across multiple sites it is irrelevant because it does not apply to the words we are using in the debate. Lastly, in the disclaimer it does say the site is used for informational purposes but, wikipedia also in its general disclaimer [1] makes similar references about the site being used for informational purposes, however, I am sure that you and I both know what will happen if cite wikipedia in a formal paper or debate.

Pro's Case: Contention 1: This is where Pro and I disagree majorly, in the definition of falsifiable which I completely accept it clearly states capable of being tested by experiment or observation. I am afraid Pro has put himself into a bit of a bind when he stated "Christian Views have certainly been tested through observation" even with your sources which I raise a brow to only deal with a few of the Christian views which become claims by virtue of their assertions. This is a generic statement and I will hold you to it.

Keep in mind that we are talking about Religion as a whole so, I really did not want to get hung up on Christian mythology. The proceeding are just a few claims that are the cornerstones of Christianity and many other religions. The following are also theories: Gravity is a theory, perturbation of Planets is a theory General relativity and quantum mechanics is a theory Evolution is a theory these theories have withstood the test of time because they have not been proved false despite the attempts of religious scientist and secular scientist to refute them.

As I post my Final focus, I'd like to thank my opponent for an exceptional debate, and I hope we have the opportunity to debate again in the future. I'll address your arguments as I get to them. Semantical Argument: In order to make this more efficient for the reader as it determines which set of definitions are used for the round and so is very important , I'll separate the semantical aspect into the following sections: 1. Educational Validity, 2. Word of the Day argument, 3.

Disclaimer argument and 4. Wikipedia comparison. My opponent's claim against the educational validity of thefreedictionary. However, not only does he not state why the. I'll restate, educational: tending or intended to educate, instruct, or inform[1].

What are the origins of some common words? fact How does one word a letter to a tenant for non-payment of rent? goes both ways. Is evolution true? He makes a strong argument that religion has too many definitions for science to not Mla format research paper with title page considered one.