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

Examine the differences which may exist between a religious and scientific interpretation of the origins of the universe

Extracts from this document...


Part A: Examine the differences which may exist between a religious and scientific interpretation of the origins of the universe (14) There is, and has been since the origins of recognised teaching, a constant and ongoing deliberation as to what the origins of the universe as we know it are. There are two major approaches taken to explain the universe's origins; the scientific approach based on proved facts and scientific formulae, and the religious approach that is fragmented between the different religions, but almost all finding a basis in an omnipotent creator. The two scientific models most commonly drawn upon to explain the origin of the universe are the "Hot Big Bang Model", which explains how the actual bodies in the universe were created; and the "Theory of Evolution" as described by Charles Darwin, which explains how the denizens of the planet earth, and therefore by default human beings, came into existence in their current form. Obviously these two models whilst related are not entirely about the same event, and the logical beginning is with the creation of the universe as a whole, and therefore with the Big Bang Model. The Big Bang model dictates that the universe was created sometime in the region of 10 to 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter in all directions. A scholar called Georges Lema�tre originally proposed the model in 1927; after astronomers observed red shift in distant nebulas, this meant a model of the universe, which was based on relativity, was acceptable. ...read more.


The whole process took God less than a week, but in that time the creation story claims God was not at all hurried, or hard-pressed to create the world; as each day God had the time to survey what work had been done, and make the judgement if "it was good" or not. The Creation story unwittingly displays the heartfelt belief that God is omnipotent, as he was able to create the world easily, omnipresent, he was able to survey everything, the whole world, instantaneously, and also omniscient as he was able to make a reasoned judgement as to the worth of everything. The belief that God is all of these things is often linked with the same fundamentalist idea that the Bible is literally true; so there is little surprise in the fact when Darwin portrayed his beliefs they were met with outrage and bigotry. The reason Darwin was met by such a wave of anger was that his theory appeared to denounce the creed by which the majority of society was trying to live its life. It raised the question that, if the Bible lied about the creation story, where else did it lie? This was never Darwin's intention, as he was himself trained as a vicar, he merely had difficulty accepting some of the ideas proposed in Genesis literally. Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford, was one of the many who decried the Darwinian theory of evolution; he thought and argued them to be a threat not just to the church and the Bible, but also to the dignity of man. ...read more.


In particular it seems as though Darwin and his theory of evolution, have come under fire by religious scepticism. As however the concept of infinite regress is unfeasible, an interesting angle is that even if Man is derived from some smaller, and lesser being, eventually a point is reached when a creator must have introduced something to start the process. So it could be interpreted that rather than creating "man", as Genesis claims, God laid the precise building blocks, required for mankind to develop and flourish into the race it is today. In this vein it has been discovered that the original Bible may have been misinterpreted, the "days" in the Creation Story, were originally merely a period of time. If this is considered the whole creation story is more feasible to a scientific mind; as the sequence in which God creates the world is almost the same as that in which it is thought to have occurred. Many of the "the objections" that leading philosophers or scientists have had with the religious aspects of the creation of the universe are often levelled at "a naively imagined anthropomorphic God". Keith Ward may be interpreted in such a way that is explained in scientists attempting to investigate a process carried out by an omnipotent, omniscient being, by working out if an all-powerful and all-knowing human could such a thing. This concept is of course na�ve, but to imagine anything else is almost impossible, wherein the problem lies; humans can only liken God, or Gods to things there own experience or reasoning has shown them, whereas in reality he, and his methods are entirely outside this sphere. Total Words: 2589 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Existence of God 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 GCSE Existence of God essays

  1. Is Galileo considered a "hero" or "anti-hero"?

    pg.68 their help and Galileo responds "the only truth that gets though will be what we force through" and he later concludes "And the worst thing is that what I know I have to tell people, like a lover, like a drunken, like a traitor," even knowing that "it is

  2. Does God Exist?

    It needs no creator, it is ruled by chance. So evolution by natural selection is blind. Scientists have also proved this theory. This proves that there is no need for a god and that there is not a god from an atheist's point of view. I am not really sure what I believe so I personally think like an

  1. Am going to be explaining and exploring the three different theories 1. ...

    As the generations continued to grow and evolve, natural selection came up with the best ultimate result possible - humans. GENESIS - This theory or story is in the bible and is believed by Christians. They believe that god created the world in six days and rested on the seventh.

  2. Creation vs. Evolution?

    There are a few common misconceptions about the radiation of species that leads people to disbelieve evolution. Firstly, many people, especially Christians think that evolution is impossible, because they cannot comprehend how a fish could suddenly change into a frog and live on land.

  1. Does God Exist?

    And God wouldn't be God if he didn't exist. The ontological argument answers the question 'What is the concept of God?' It is an 'a priori' argument, not an argument based on the interpretation of evidence but an argument before experience.

  2. Logical Positivism and the Meaninglessness of Religious Language.

    way the believer feels and acts is appropriate to the actual character of the universe, and whether the things he says as a believer are true.[4] It was R.B. Braithwaite who pushed these kinds of thoughts explicitly in the non-cognitivist direction.

  1. Explain the Ontological argument.

    death, is one of panic and helplessness at our defencelessness and solitude. Religion therefore helps to create the belief that the natural forces are no longer impersonal and that we are no longer powerless because through religious devotion we belief we can control them.

  2. "Religious experience is all in the mind of the believer" -Examine and comment on ...

    But even though he claimed to have it, it does not answer the question is the religious experience all in the mind? It may be that Saul had an epileptic seizure or even a mental breakdown, however such hypothesis are just that - hypothesis.

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