Guided Evolution and Intelligent Design: A Guide to the Jewish Perspective

The battle between the relationship of science and religion has always been a controversial topic in society. It has been a subject of study since the classical era from scientists, theologists, philosophers, and regular citizens. It is understandable that the perspective on culture and religion are unquestionably varied due to different geographical regions, but why are there so many heated debates regarding the global discussion and what is it that causes those controversies? Is it possible that there is more than two outlooks and theories? Jerome Lawrence and Robert E.Lee contrasts the two perspectives in Inherit the Wind by bringing back an historical and legendary trial. Matthew Harrison Brady, an established lawyer in America demonstrates his ideology in God. Addition to Mr. Brady, his arch nemesis, Henry Drummond, defends his morals by expressing his vision that evolution is where human come from.

In L. Russ Bush’s Christian apologetic work, The Advancement: Keeping the Faith in an Evolutionary Age, he details the development and apparent fallacy associated with the modern naturalist worldview. Bush, a professor at Southeast Baptist Theological Seminary, focuses on the idea of inevitable progression within the modern worldview and provides an overview of this view’s promulgation within epistemology. Bush asserts

The study of science is defined as that which deals with the workings of the physical world we are able to observe and measure. The origin of life, however, is a topic that science has long grappled with, despite the impossibility of observing or proving any origins theory in a strictly scientific manner. Today, the widely accepted theory of life’s beginning is the theory of Evolution by mutation and natural selection, or Neo-Darwinism. Most people in our modern society accept this theory at face value because it is popular with the majority of scientists, but it must always be taken into account that our origins cannot be proven scientifically and that, in fact, the theory of Evolution is not the only or even the most logical theory

The argument has been going on for years and years. Should schools be allowed to teach evolution without teaching creationism? The courts have ruled, the answer is no, the theory of creationism cannot be included in a public school’s academic curriculum. With the court’s decision, it has been made clear there is no place for faith based theories to be taught in our public schools. What if there was a different approach that took God out of the equation? Public high schools should allow a course in intelligent design to be included in the curriculum as a way of teaching both evolution and creationism without violating the separation of church and state. This is certainly easier said than done.

In contrast to the humanist’s worldview that everything happened by chance, Christians believe that from the beginning, everything that exists, including humans was the result of God. Now Christians do believe in micro-evolution, also known as adaption, where an animal can endure some changes to help itself adapt to a different condition, but will never form into a different species. There is still no scientific evidence that can prove otherwise. God made sure of this when he was creating all living things that he kept all species “according to its kind” (Genesis 1:21-25).

Although Darwin’s (1809-1882) work in evolutionary observation might appear radically different from those focused on other areas, the theories he developed from these observation lead to such groundbreaking publishing’s as The Origin of Species. These intern caused an upset within the then accepted norms of philosophy and religion, had a profound impact on the academia, and further

When dwelling into the explorations about science and religion, one can find it quite amusing. "If science and religion are to continue to coexist it seems opposed to the conditions of modern thought to admit that this result can be brought about by the so-called

Naturalism is a prominent worldview that is held and praised widely in today’s modern world. However, when examined closely and held up to certain criteria that would establish it as a legitimate worldview, one can see that it comes up short in several areas such as the source of morality, internal logical consistency, and human nature. In these areas that Naturalism fails, Christianity succeeds by offering a valid alternative. Christianity then can further establish itself as a superior worldview by offering convincing arguments such as ontological, cosmological, argument for design, argument that

L. Russ Bush, professor of Philosophy and Dean of students at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, presents a worldview labelled “the advancement”, a naturalistic evolutionary view that better describes the philosophical era through which we are passing (ix). The author describes the origin and consequences of naturalistic philosophy over a theistic worldview and challenges Christians to defend and protect their religious rights (4). Bush presents how advancement has been detrimental to religion throughout history and points out the flaws of naturalism, classifying it as “internally inconsistent, empirically inadequate, and lacking in satisfactory explanatory power” (94). He presents Christianity as the true worldview, which “has passion

The late Stephen Jay Gould, a noted paleontologist who once described himself as an “agnostic leaning towards atheism,” wrote the classic treatise Evolution as Fact and Theory for Discover magazine back in 1981. His distinguished career and scientific achievements did earn him respect amongst his peers, but to the general public he is best known for his popular science writings and, to smaller circles, as a champion of evolution. As his treatise was written for a non-academic, science themed magazine, a basic understanding of science, and specifically evolutionary mechanics, was assumed of his audience. The treatise itself is on the often overlapping distinction between “theory” and “fact”; two words, he asserts, that creationists

The ongoing scientific investigation of how exactly evolution occurred and continues to occur has been an argumentative idea amongst society since Darwin first articulated it over a century ago. The scientific basis of evolution accounts for happenings that are also essential concerns of religion; both religion and science focus on the origins of humans and of biological diversity. For instance, in the reading “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth,” Pope John Paul II, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Science, discussed the matter of God as creator of man. The Pope explains that men cannot relate to animals because men are superior. The reasoning for that is because God created humans under his likeness. What the church is saying about mankind

In Creation Science is not Science, Michael Ruse argues that Creation science is not science and in Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern, Larry Laudan opposes this view by arguing that Creation Science is science, but that it is false. In this paper, I argue that Michael Ruse had the better argument and that Creation Science is not science. First, I explain Ruse’s argument for why creation science does not meet the criteria for science. Second, I consider and explain Larry Laudan’s opposing view that creation science is false science. I then argue why I believe Ruse has the better argument.

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

The article, “A Matter of Scale,” urges the audience to observe the small and extraordinary components of the biosphere and acknowledge its genetic variations as explained by Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, Kelly’s essay, “Evolution: An Article of Faith,” considers Darwin’s theory as a “false religion” suppressing God’s ability to create the “work of intelligence.” (Evolution) The heated debate over the credibility of Darwin’s theory of evolution has led to the division of scientific and religious groups. Devoted, religious people discover two major flaws with Darwin’s theory of evolution regarding the inaccuracies of the fossil record and the contradicting phrase “survival of the fittest” that has passed on harmful mutations to next

Will believers in Intelligent Design be able to embrace the incredibly promising and innovative solutions outlined in Luke Bawazer’s Tedtalk while rejecting Darwin’s theory? No, I do not believe the supporters of Intelligent Design will embrace his solutions. Even though the research is leading to new materials, with electronic functions, that can possibly power our infrastructure while at the same time reduce pollutants in our environment. By accepting the solutions, supporters of Intelligent Design will have to accept Darwin’s theory of evolution if they want to embrace Bawazer’s solutions for creating new biomaterials using DNA.