The religion and science debate: Why does it continue?
Abstract
Eighty-one years after America witnessed the Scopes trial over the teaching of evolution in public schools, the debate between science and religion continues. In this book scholars from a variety of disciplines-sociology, history, science, and theology-provide new insights into the contemporary dialogue as well as some perspective suggestions for delineating the responsibilities of both the scientific and religious spheres. Why does the tension between science and religion continue? How have those tensions changed during the past one hundred years? How have those tensions impacted the public debate about so-called "intelligent design" as a scientific alternative to evolution? With wit and wisdom the authors address the conflict from its philosophical roots to its manifestations within American culture. In doing so, they take an important step toward creating a society that reconciles scientific inquiry with the human spirit. This book, which marks the one hundredth anniversary of The Terry Lecture Series, offers a unique perspective for anyone interested in the debate between science and religion in America.
... scientists have growing doubts about its validity (Krauss, 2009). As evidence for their claim of "controversy" within evolution, opponents of evolution point to what they call an increasing amount of evidence showing inexplicable gaps in evolution ("Kansas Evolution"). ...
... Despite denials by proponents of evolution, the contested term of controversy seems to become rather one-dimensional on populist fronts in scientific ecosystems of public schools. The term is often rhetorically invested in boundary-work disputes in public schools with scientific connotations (Krauss, 2009). That is, in response to claims by opponents of evolution that evolution is controversial within the scientific community, proponents of evolution often defensively acknowledge this claim and deny that there is any controversy. ...
In this dissertation, through three articles, I explore rhetorical contestation of disputed organizational and ontological categories. In the first article, I analyze connections between some categories of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) involving conflicting interpretations on the part of the two organizations and issues of structure, agency, and power in the two organizations as they responded to Hurricane Katrina. In the second and the third articles, I explore ontological categories of science and non-science in a boundary-work dispute (Gieryn, 1983; Taylor, 1996) at Iowa State University between proponents of teaching only evolution and proponents of teaching Intelligent Design as well. My analysis of DHS and FEMA's disputed categories shows a shift in organizational power unaccounted for by previous rhetorical studies. Specifically, legitimated or dominant categories (Giddens, 1984) of DHS came to be delegitimated through kairotic agency (Herndl & Licona, 2007) of a FEMA agent and unintended consequences (Giddens, 1984) of these categories. In the first article involving the debate at Iowa State, I show how the main rhetorical basis for boundary-work between evolution and its opponents has changed from Popper's falsification theory to methodological naturalism. The change throws light on rhetorical core of these disputes and provides an illustration of science as an institutional category (Kinsella, 2005). In the second article, I explore a relatively underexplored basis for boundary-work--academic freedom--in a relatively underexplored setting--higher education. My analysis suggests that differences in academic freedom in settings of public schools and higher education are key to different boundary-work by proponents and opponents of evolution in these two types of settings.
... Then it is mere warfare, 1 and the implication is that of a conqueror and a defeated, and subsequently a contaminated understanding of reality and negligence of the fact that both religion and science are themselves subject to cultural construction. Thomson (2009) states this challenge appropriately when he says: [I]t lies instead in delineating more thoughtfully what each has to offer and how each may influence the other. Interaction of this kind requires scientists and religious leaders to speak beyond their disciplines and in ways that engage the wider public. ...
Pavel Alexandrovich Florensky is a towering figure of the 20th century. He is recognised among many significant thinkers of the world’s cultural and philosophical panorama of the previous century. In the face of cultural repression and religious persecution of the Soviet regime, he preferred martyrdom to exile and not to deny his faith. The legacy of Florensky is incredibly multifaceted. His works span across the most varied fields of science and knowledge with clear competence. Florensky was the first scholar who attempted to combine Orthodox theology with modern logic. He argued that religious truth transcends known categories and Christianity tends to be antinomical. This article argues that a paradoxical notion would be more appropriate than antinomy in his thinking.
Contribution: The authors introduce Pavel Alexandrovich Florensky to Western theology and share some thoughts of this much-neglected scholar. The focus is mainly on the spiritual vision of this Orthodox priest-scientist about Nature, exploring his legacy in the theology and science debate. Florensky taught us that there is a distinctive trait of the Christian faith’s attitude to Nature and that there always lies a surplus of meaning that remains inaccessible to reason alone and, therefore, Nature should be approached fundamentally with a contemplative approach and regarding a theology and science resonance, a creative mutual interaction could materialise.
... " 53 The American analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga has defended a similar position in Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, 54 arguing that "there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion. " 55 As a neo-Kantian, it is not surprising that Joseph B. Solovetchik was also sympathetic Brought to you by | provisional account Unauthenticated Download Date | 12/31/19 6:23 PM to this position. 56 Of course, much of this discussion depends on the precise definitions of science and religion, and it is not the case that all of the insights offered by Christian scholars concerning this issue as it relates to Christianity are appropriate to Judaism. ...
Neglected Perspectives on Science and Religion explores historical and contemporary relations between science and religion, providing new perspectives on familiar topics such as evolution and the Galileo affair. The book also explores common differences in science and religion with respect to their various treatments of doubt, curiosity, and the methods by which truth claims are assessed. The book includes discussions of religious and scientific treatments of the origins of males and females, evolving views of sex and gender, and contemporary tensions about topics such as same-sex marriage. Viney and Woody also include a chapter exploring the effects of social science research on religious topics such as prayer, prejudice, and violence. The rise of social sciences such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology has resulted in discoveries that contribute to new ways of thinking about the relations of science and religion. This book is ideal for graduate and upper-level undergraduate students, as well as anyone interested in science and religion.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.