• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Science Solves All The Problems About Where We Come From Discuss

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"Science solves all the problems about where we come from" Discuss (10 marks) Science, it is arguable, has opened the eyes of humanity and rid us the ignorance that we once lived each and every day of our lives in. it has helped us to come to scientifically sound and empirically based theories that are now universally accepted. One such example of a theory that empirically seems to prove scientifically, rather than religiously, where humanity came from is the theory of Evolution. This seemed to lead many people to accept the above statement. This is because it proved that there was a natural explanation of the existence of humanity, rather than the supernatural biblical account that was so popular in the Victorian Age. Charles Darwin, the mind behind the theory, would certainly agree with the statement as he seemed to have done the impossible: prove scientifically that God did very little, if anything, to create humanity itself. Instead of being created on the sixth day of God's impossible creation, we evolved through the very slow and very natural process of natural selection. This was added to the undeniable evidence of fossils that were being found in layers of the rocks of the earth that was found due to the very new and promising science of Geology: fossils of animals that do not exist and that have no place or mention in the Genesis account of creation. ...read more.

Middle

Morris, using the original, Hebrew version of the Bible, deduced that the word used in Genesis 1 for "day" was a word that always means a "24-hour period". The word used for "era", he stated, is a completely different one. "There should be no uncertainty whatever that God intended the account to say that the creation of all things had taken place in six literal days". Therefore, Morris would feel that science, in no way, can prove everything and solve all the problems about where we come from. Instead of using science to question ideas that the Bible gives, science should be judged against the Bible as to whether it is correct or not. This is because the Bible is, overall, the word of God, so it must stand tall above all other forms of "proof" that claim they know the truth of all things about humanity. God can never be mistaken as God is completely perfect, and, therefore, the Bible, Genesis included, is correct, right the way until the end. In reference to the fossils found by geologists, who would also claim have no place or mention in the creation story, Morris would beg to differ. He feels that he has found passages in the Bible that seem to refer to a diplodocus (a large, four-legged, long necked animal with a long whip-like tail) ...read more.

Conclusion

Without the Big Bang, humanity would never have come into being. But even if the Big Bang would have being by some external, omnipotent force, it would have been highly unlikely that the Universe would have sustained itself without a sustainer. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the scientific concept of entropy, states that "in any natural process there exists an inherent tendency towards the dissipation of useful energy". This basically means that when left alone, order tends to revert back to chaos. If this were so then why isn't the world full of chaos, but order instead? Why does evolution lead to progression and not regression? I feel that science can explain the processes by which the universe and humanity came into being, but I don't think that it can thoroughly explain, using only natural and empirical evidence, how and, more importantly, why these processes came into being. It's all well saying that the Big Bang just happened, but to me, I feel that if the whole Universe was just an accident with no intent or purpose, then none of humanity really has a reason or purpose for living, other than being the result of an accident. Or, perhaps, the universe is just "brute fact" as Bertrand Russell stated, and we just have to accept this. Nevertheless, although I feel that people can have different views on the world, for me, the universe cannot go without explanation as to why it exists. ?? ?? ?? ?? Ammara Khan 12D / L6.06 Miss Berry ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Discuss the characteristics of the scientific method which makes it superior over other methods ...

    Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications, do not qualify as scientific theories. One of the key factors of scientific method is that the theory must be falsifable. Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994): Falsificationism (1993)

  2. In what ways may suffering create philosophical problems for religious believers? Outline two solutions ...

    Interestingly, Jordan points out that in Genesis 1:26, God says "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." In which Irenaeus said that when God created us, He firstly made us in his own image but not in his likeness, which is known as an Epistemic Distance, which

  1. What are the principles of natural law? Every adult has the right to become ...

    (2)The Means-End condition states that the bad effect must not be the means by which the good consequence is achieved. (3)The Right Motive condition states that the motive must be the achieving of the good effect only, with the bad effect being only an unintentional side effect.

  2. An embodied life in heaven is entirely possible. Discuss.

    For Descartes, the essence of matter is extension (i.e. having spatial dimensions and being located) whereas that of mind is active thinking. Because Descartes thought these two sorts of substance are essentially different, he held that they are also independent. He concluded that as our identity comes from our ability to think, then it might be possible that we could survive without our bodies, remaining the same person.

  1. 'A belief in the life after death solves the problem of evil' Discuss

    God cannot be blamed for created evil, since evil is not a substance but a deprivation, and it makes no sense to say that God created deprivation. John Hick would be an example of a soft materialist. He said that the soul and body are one.

  2. God is most clearly revealed to humanity through scripture. Discuss

    Because the text originates from God, it is completely inerrant. this view is mainly believed by conservative Christians.. A Propositional view would consider the Bible as factual and the events being real in history.

  1. Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Be Opened to Oil Drilling?

    because of how to mitigate the risks of recovering oil in the arctic environment. However it doesn't deny the fact that there are environmental risks of drilling for oil in ANWR - thus, it holds a realistic viewpoint.

  2. To be is to be perceived Discuss

    Since there is no physical object behind the sense data of the table, then idealists won?t have to face the linking problem. An ?object?, according to Berkeley, is simply a bundle of ideas with no physical existence independent of sensation.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work