Science and religion: are they compatible?
In recent years a noticeable trend toward harmonizing the distinct worldviews of science and religion has become increasingly popular. This is due in part to public curiosity but also to the financial sponsorship of The John Templeton Foundation, which has poured a great deal of money into awards, fellowships, conferences, university courses, and publications. Despite marked public interest, many leading scientists remain skeptical that there is much common ground between scientific knowledge and religious belief. In this stimulating collection of articles on the subject, the editors have assembled the thoughts of scientists from various disciplines. Among the distinguished contributors are Sir Arthur C. Clarke (author of many famous works of science fiction); Nobel Prize Laureate Steven Weinberg (professor of physics at the University of Texas at Austin); Neil deGrasse Tyson (astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium); James Lovelock (creator of the Gaia hypothesis); Kendrick Frazier (editor of the "Skeptical Inquirer); Steven Pinker (cognitive scientist at MIT); Richard Dawkins (zoologist at Oxford University); Eugenie Scott (executive director of the National Center for Science Education); Owen Gingerich (Harvard astronomer); and many other eminent scientists and scholars. Among the topics discussed are the Big Bang and the origin of the universe, the nature of the "soul, " near-death experiences, and spiritualism.
Results 1-3 of 19
The Complexity-Specification Criterion William A. Dembski uses an approach
similar to Behe to back up creationist claims, in that he also wants to demonstrate
that intelligent design is necessary to explain the complexity of nature.
Dembski is absolutely correct that plenty of human activities, such as SETI,
investigations into plagiarism, or encryption, depend on the ability to detect
intelligent agency. Where he is wrong is in assuming only one kind of design: for
Dembski is of course correct in saying that intelligent design does not mean
optimal design. As much as the Brooklyn Bridge is a marvel of engineering, it is
not perfect, meaning that it had to be constructed within the constraints and
What people are saying - Write a review
LibraryThing ReviewUser Review - quantum_flapdoodle - LibraryThing
The author does a good job of describing the controversies between science and religion, but is too quick to dismiss the reality of the disputes, and the difficulty of resolving them. Adopting ... Read full review
An Overview of the Issues
Are Science and Religion Conflicting or Complementary? Some Thoughts About Boundaries
Cosmology and God
44 other sections not shown