Compiled by:

Course Code: BID02

SCIENCE AND RELIGION
SYLLABUS NOTES

UNIT-1

INTRODUCTION
1. Nature of Science, technology and Religion

Nature of Science
Sarukkai, Sundar. What is Science. Delhi: National Book Trust, 2011.

Science is derived from Latin word ‘scientia’ meaning knowing. In Western context ‘science’ comes into
general use after 1300 A.D. and was primarily understood as knowledge acquired by ‘study’. There are
different meanings of science and consider the different ways in which science is understood in each of
these meanings.

i. Science as a concept
Recognizing some characteristics of science that is present in different subjects and different types of
activities. It involves classification and categorization. When we put together disciplines such as
physics, chemistry, biology into a category called science we are recognizing that these are loosely
related to each other. So. Science as a concept denotes at science at category bringing similarity
between diverse subjects and activities with the idea of relatedness as in a family.
ii. Science as Title
It is bestowing upon a discipline or activity and Science is the title that scientists bestow on others. The
title of science has value in the present times, it is only reasonable to expect spurious claims to science-
hood, it was religion or philosophy which had this value and physicist and mathematics often invoke
the idea of God or of religion to validate their work.
iii. Science as Method
Science is characterized by a special method, the scientific method. The essence of science is this
scientific method. It is a systematic method of continuing investigation based on observation, scientific
hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation and theory building.
iv. Science as a Criterion for demarcation
A good scientific assertion should always allow for the possibility that it could be wrong and there
should be ways to show how it is wrong. Verifiability is not a proper criterion for science. The idea of
science itself becomes a hallmark of demarcation, it gets equated with truth, rationality, logic and
becomes the criteria for demarcating science for non-science.
v. Science as Inquiry
Science is a particular kind of Inquiry. Inquiry means search for truth, Science emphasize on the
importance of asking question. Inquiry is the most basic of the human faculties involved in the process
of any learning particularly science learning.
vi. Science as Search for truth
Science has an intrinsic engagement with truth. It is based on belief. Science is primarily an actively
designed to uncover truth about the physical world.Truth in science is closely related to the idea of
scientific knowledge.
vii. Science as a Way of thinking and Doing
Science is associated with critical thinking. Critical thinking is equated with logic in a reasoned manner.
It also demands reasons for accepting any conclusion.
viii. Science as narrative
 Compiled by:

Science is a grand story of nature. It tries to understand science by what it says and the way it says it.
The bigger and grandeur narratives of science are also characterized by attempts to unify diverse
phenomenon and suggest predictable capacities.
ix. Science as a Worldview
Science provide a platform for looking at the world in terms of awe, wonders and curiosity. It is
characterized by a view of nature which science implicitly or explicitly holds.
x. Science as a Means of Controlling the World
Science attempts to control and overcome the limitation of the world. Science finds it possible to
control, manipulate and intervene in nature.
xi. Science as Political
Science is inherently social in nature, by political we mean decision and actions that have to do with a
group of people. Science has relationship with the nation-state, also closely tied to democracy by
various intrusive technologies

Nature of Technology
Dusek, Val. Philosophy of Technology: An introduction. Oxford: Wiley, 2006.

Three definitions or characterizations of technology are: (a) technology as hardware; (b) technology as
rules; and (c) technology as system
(a) Technology as hardware: technology is as tools and machines.
(b) Technology as rules: patterns of means–end relationships
(c) Technology as system: includes hardware as well as the human skills and organization that are needed
to operate and maintain it

Technology as Applied Science

Much of contemporary technology is applied science. Technology involves knowledge, particularly
technical know-how, many of the specific inventions are products of chance or of trial and error, not a
direct application of scientific theory to achieve a pre-assumed goal.

Nature of Religion
Dennett, Daniel C. Breaking the Spells: Religion as a Natural phenomenon. New York: Penguin Books. 2006.
Barbour, Ian. Religion and Science; Historical And Contemporary Issues. Cambridge: HarperCollins, 2007.
McGrath, Alister. Science and Religion; An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell publishing, 2010.

Religion is a way of life for its members. Every religious community has its distinctive forms of
individual experience, communal ritual, and ethical concerns. Above all, religion aims at the
transformation of personal life, particularly by liberation from self-centeredness through commitment to a
more inclusive center of devotion.

Dennett define religion as ‘social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or
agents whose approval is to be sought’.

Dialogue between Science and Religion

Religion and science are two of the most powerful cultural and intellectual forces in today’s world.
Science now seems to be opening up religious questions, rather than closing them down, or declaring
them to be meaningless. It is increasingly being recognized that natural science can “throw up questions
that point beyond itself and transcend its power to answer” (Polkhinghorne). The dialogue between
science and religion sets out to ask whether, in what ways, and to what extents, these two conversation
 Compiled by:

partners might learn from each other. Given the cultural importance of both science and religion, the
exploration of how they relate to each other has the potential for both conflict and enrichment.

Three reasons are often given for this judgment.

(i) Neither science nor religion can claim to give a total account of reality.
Science and religion are perhaps better thought of as operating at different levels, often reflecting on
similar questions, yet answering them in different ways. The science and religion dialogue allows us to
appreciate the distinct identities, strengths, and limits of each conversation partner. It also offers us a
deeper understanding of things than either religion or science could offer unaided.
(ii) Both science and religion are concerned about making sense of things.
Perhaps most importantly, science tends to ask “how” questions, where religion asks “why.” Science
seeks to clarify mechanisms; religions offer meaning. These approaches do not need to be seen as being in
competition, or as being mutually incompatible. They operate at different levels.
(iii) In recent years there has been a significant increase in awareness within the scientific
community of the broader issues raised by its research, and limits placed upon that
community’s ability to answer them.

2. Examination of the effects of Enlightenment induced skepticism from within Theological

Scholarship.
McGrath, Alister E. Science & Religion: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2010.

The Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason, was a philosophical movement that took place
primarily in Europe and, later, in North America, during the late 17th and early 18th century. Its
participants thought they were illuminating human intellect and culture after the "dark" Middle Ages.
Characteristics of the Enlightenment include the rise of concepts such as reason, liberty and the scientific
method. Enlightenment philosophy was skeptical of religion — especially the powerful Catholic Church
— monarchies and hereditary aristocracy. Enlightenment philosophy was influential in ushering in the
French and American revolutions and constitutions.
Enlightenment rationalism is often considered to be the final flowering of the bud of English Deism. For
our purposes, however, it is especially important to note the obvious consonance between Deism and the
Newtonian worldview.
Rather than being content with blind faith, Enlightenment thinkers wanted proof that something was true.
They tested popular notions with scientifically controlled experiments and personal experience, though
skepticism of one's own senses was another factor in Enlightenment thought, and caused complicated
philosophical conundrums, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Enlightenment intellectuals were skeptical of the divine right of kings and monarchies in general,
scientific claims about the natural world, the nature of reality and religious doctrine. "Theologians sought
to reform their faith during the Enlightenment while maintaining a true faith in God," said Abernethy. The
deist movement became popular during the Enlightenment. Deism holds that God exists but does not
intervene on Earth. The universe proceeds according to natural, scientifically based laws. Several of
America's Founding Fathers were deists, including Thomas Jefferson.

3. The Problem with Biblical Literalism: Varieties of Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Young
Earth Creationism.

McGrath, Alister E. Science & Religion: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2010
 Compiled by:

Young, Donald B.De. Thousands not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth.
Green Forest: New Leaf Publishing Group, Inc, 2005.

Moreland, James Porter and John Mark Reynolds. Three Views on Creation and Evolution. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

The idea that the world is created is of fundamental importance to many religions, especially Christianity
and Judaism. It is important to draw a distinction between “creation” and “creationism,” as these two are
often confused, especially in popular debate and media presentations. A belief in creation is found in all
major religions. Within Christianity, this can be stated in terms of a general belief that God brings
everything into being and sustains it. The British writer John Polkinghorne explains creation as a belief
“that the mind and the purpose of a divine Creator lie behind the fruitful history and remarkable order of
the universe which science explores.” It is thus an ontological, not a chronological, doctrine – in other
words, it is concerned with affirming the ultimate dependence of everything upon God, not with
providing a detailed account of the mechanisms and timeframes of the origins and development of the
universe.

The important point is that the term “creation” is open to multiple interpretations, some of which embrace
and others of which exclude biological evolution. The movement which is widely known as “creationism”
adds specific timescales and processes to a general belief in creation. where most Christians regard them
as secondary to the more general belief that all things ultimately owe their origins to God.

Young earth creationism (YEC) is the belief that God directly created the universe in six literal days
and that the earth is relatively young. Young earth creationists usually place the age of the earth at 6,000
years (10,000 years being an upper limit). Other points held by young earth creationists include the
occurrence of a global flood during Noah’s day, God’s creation of the world with apparent age, and
(often) the existence of a single continent before the flood. Young earth creationism is more biblical.

Young earth creationists often call themselves biblical creationists because their position takes a direct,
literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. Young earth creationism views Genesis as a
historical record of what actually happened, not an allegory or metaphor. Young earth creationism
interprets the words day, evening, and morning without symbolism, as plain terms meant to be understood
literally. Young earth creationism keeps the creation of the plants, sun, and animals in the biblical
sequence, whereas old earth creationism usually rearranges the order listed in Genesis. Young earth
creationists believe that when Romans 5:12 says “sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin,” it is saying that death did not exist prior to Adam, while old earth creationists believe that
Romans 5:12 only refers to human death and insist that a lot of dying happened (billions of years’ worth)
before Adam appeared.

Young Earth Creationism, for example, argues that a general belief in creation must be supplemented
by an additional specific belief that creation occurred by specific, non-natural divine events over a period
of six “days” roughly 6,000 years ago, rather than by God’s creative actions through the natural processes
of stellar, chemical, and biological evolution.

The idea that the world was created is one of the most widely encountered and basic religious ideas, and
finds expression in the various religions of the world. The dominant form of the doctrine of creation is
that associated with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Both old earth creationism and young earth creationism seek to solve the apparent conflict between
science and the Bible in regard to the age of the earth. What is the apparent conflict? If the book of
Genesis is interpreted strictly literally, it seems to indicate that the earth and the universe are around 6,000
 Compiled by:

years old. In contrast, various scientific dating methods place the age of the earth around 4.5 billion years
and the age of the universe around 14.6 billion years.

Neither old earth creationism nor young earth creationism teaches that the Bible is wrong. Generally
speaking, both old earth and young earth creationists believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of
God’s Word. What differs between these approaches is one’s view on what the Bible is, in fact, saying.
It’s a matter of interpretation.

Old Earth Creationists sometimes called ‘progressive creationism”says that the earth is about 4.5 billion
years old, based on the geologic timescale, carbon dating, and other common dating methods. Variations
of old earth creationism include progressive creationism, the day-age theory, the gap theory, and theistic
evolution. It believe a strictly literal approach is not the correct way to interpret the early chapters of
Genesis. They view Genesis 1–2 as being primarily symbolic and/or poetic. Young earth creationists
interpret Genesis 1–2 as a literal, historical account of how God created the universe. Young earth
creationists question why, if the rest of Genesis is historical, should the first two chapters be interpreted
differently? Old earth creationists question why, if the Bible uses symbolism in many other books, can’t
metaphor be used in Genesis?

The third view on Creationism is Fully Gifted Creation.

According to this view, evolutionary creation (also called theistic evolution), natural evolution was God's
method of creation, with the universe designed so physical structures (galaxies, stars, planets) and
complex biological organisms (bacteria, fish, dinosaurs, humans) would naturally evolve. This view is
described by Van Till.

The creation was gifted from the outset with functional integrity — a wholeness of being that eliminated
the need for gap-bridging interventions to compensate for formational capabilities that the Creator may
have initially withheld from it" so it is "accurately described by the Robust Formational Economy
Principle — an affirmation that the creation was fully equipped by God with all of the resources,
potentialities, and formational capabilities that would be needed for the creaturely system to actualize
every type of physical structure and every form of living organism that has appeared in the course of time.

The theme of “God as creator” is of major importance within the Old Testament. Perhaps one of the most
significant affirmations which the Old Testament makes is that nature is not divine. The Genesis creation
account stresses that God created the moon, sun, and stars. The significance of this point is too easily
overlooked. Each of these celestial entities was worshiped as divine in the ancient world. By asserting that
they were created by God, the Old Testament is insisting that they are subordinate to God, and have no
intrinsic divine nature.

4. Intelligent Design

Del Retzch. Science and its limit: The Natural Sciences in Christian perspective. Illinois: IVP Academic, 2000.

David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism. Ulysses Press, 2006.

Ralte, Rodinmawia. The Interface of Science and Religion: An Introductory Study. New Delhi: Christian World
Imprints, 2017.

Intelligent design, according to which all organisms were created by the design of some higher
intelligence (God). Intelligent design is a belief or theory that the complex structures of life cannot be
explained by natural selection and random mutation as suggested by Darwin but must explained by some
force of willful design. The inner working of the cell its complexity requires a creative intelligent force to
have set them in motion. Nature, as most saw it, was deliberately planned, directed or designed. From that
 Compiled by:

perspective, reasons, ideas, plans, thoughts, patterns and design would all factor into the causal history,
structure and function of things, and thus any adequate scientific account of nature would have to involve
reference to those factors.

Intelligent Design was based on William Paley’s work-Natural Theology (1802) where he argued that the
intricate and delicate structure and workings of the watch show that it has been designed by a creative and
intelligent watchmaker.

The idea that science can uncover evidence of deliberate design in the cosmos, and especially the idea that
supernatural design can figure in truly scientific accounts of natural phenomena, subsequently fell on hard
times.

Design: Concept Basics

1. Artifacts. Activities of human agents typically leave visible traces on the world—traces we are
generally able to recognize as resulting from human activity. we recognize that humans had a
hand in that machine’s coming into existence. That recognition is based in part upon our knowing
some things about nature’s capabilities and our recognition that nature unaided by agent activity
would not or could not have produced any such phenomenon. Things that unaided nature could
not or would not produce and in whose production finite agents (humans, aliens, whatever)
played some role we classify as artifacts.
2. Design. A design is an intentionally produced (or exemplified) pattern, where a pattern is an
abstract structure that resonates, matches or meshes in certain ways with mind, with cognition.
3. Agent activity. Since design involves the deliberate production of pattern, there is always agent
activity somewhere in its history. There would have to be direct agent activity somewhere, but in
this case it would be directed toward the making of the machine itself—or the machine that made
the machine (or perhaps even further back).
4. Gaps. Whenever humans, aliens or other finite beings act to produce artifacts (or design), marks
of that activity—counter flow marks— are left on the world somewhere or other. Gap-based
inferences are foundational to our identification of artifacts as products of agent activity and in
the case of human and alien activity are unproblematically legitimate.

Recognizing Finite Designedness

Our recognition of finite designedness (design by finite agents) typically begins with a recognition of
artifactuality, itself in turn based upon recognition of counter flow marks. Sometimes those marks are
visible in the end product.
Of course, there is no guarantee that we can always identify design, always recognize designedness or
always recognize artifactuality and counterflow. It is possible that we might confront cases where we
were unable to tell whether we were dealing with a genuine artifact or some unusual natural phenomenon.

Supernatural Design
The general conceptual structure outlined above would apply fairly well to some instances of design
produced by supernatural agents as well. It is in principle possible for a supernatural being to bring about
virtually any artifact that we humans (or aliens) can.

Intelligent design (ID) movement exhibits a fair amount of diversity, but the center of gravity of the group
is a rejection of methodological naturalism, at least as any sort of norm.
 Compiled by:

The Intelligent Design (or ID) movement was reinvigorated and began aggressively exercising its new
political muscle, striving to bulldoze ID textbooks into public school classrooms. ID teaches that our
universe and the life within it are too complex to have arisen without the guiding force of an Intelligent
Designer. Although Creation science likewise believed that God was necessary to explain Nature's
complexity, ID distinguishes itself from Creation science in one surprising and controversial way:
Creation science taught that the Bible was literally true—both Old and New Testaments—whereas ID
does not accept the literal truth of the entire Bible. Leaders of the current ID movement do seem to
wholeheartedly embrace the New Testament, believing that Jesus literally walked on water, literally filled
pigs with demons, literally cast a magic spell on a fig tree, literally rose from the dead, etc. But the
voluminous writings of the preachers of ID leave no doubt that they do not believe the Old Testament in
the same literal sense, if at all. ID openly accepts contemporary Big Bang cosmology, which, when
discussed honestly, bears no similarity whatever to the six day Creation Story of Adam and Eve in the
Book of Genesis. By traditional Christian canon, therefore, the ID movement is a cult, because ID rejects
historically accepted Bible teachings and interpretations. Instead, ID preaches modernistic revisionism,
contrary to the doctrines of conventional, Bible-based Christianity.

5. Examination of the Atheists’ use of Science against faith: Scientism as a Worldview.

David Mills. Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism. Ulysses Press, 2006.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/n-athxxx/

In early twenty-first century a prominent book on atheism became very prominent. These authors include
Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. In The Selfish Gene, Richard
Dawkins states that faith is blind trust without evidence and even against the evidence. He follows up in
The God Delusion with the claim that faith is an evil because it does not require justification and does not
tolerate argument. Harris’s articulation of the nature of faith is closer to Dawkins’ earlier view. He says
that religious faith is unjustified belief in matters of ultimate concern. According to Harris, faith is the
permission religious people give one another to believe things strongly without evidence. Hitchens says
that religious faith is ultimately grounded in wishful thinking. For his part, Dennett implies that belief in
God cannot be reasonable because the concept of God is too radically indeterminate for the sentence
“God exists” to express a genuine proposition.
Atheists subscribe to some version or other of scientism as their criterion for rational belief. According to
scientism, empirical science is the only source of our knowledge of the world (strong scientism) or, more
moderately, the best source of rational belief about the way things are (weak scientism). Harris and
Dawkins are quite explicit about this. Harris equates a genuinely rational approach to spiritual and ethical
questions with a scientific approach to these sorts of questions. Dawkins insists that the presence or
absence of a creative super-intelligence is a scientific question. The Atheists also affirm evidentialism, the
claim that a belief can be epistemically justified only if it is based on adequate evidence. The conjunction
of scientism and evidentialism entails that a belief can be justified only if it is based on adequate scientific
evidence. The New Atheists’ conclusion that belief in God is unjustified follows, then, from their addition
of the claim that there is inadequate scientific evidence for God’s existence (and even adequate scientific
evidence for God’s non-existence). Dawkins argues that the “God Hypothesis” the claim that there exists
a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe, is “founded
on local traditions of private revelation rather than evidence”
 Compiled by:

UNIT-2

Myth and facts in the Historical Encounters of Science and Christian Faith

Number, Ronald L., ed. Galileo goes to Jail: and other myths about science and religion. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2009.

McGrath, Alister. Science and Religion: A new Introduction. UK: Blackwell publishers, 2010.

Grayling, A C. The Age of genius: the seventeenth century and the birth of the modern mind. New York: Bloomsbury,
2016.

Noble, David F. The religion of technology: The divinity of man and the spirit of invention.
New York: Penguin, 2013.

1. Critical examination of the conflict metaphor with the following test cases

(a) Church opposed dissection of dead bodies and hence prevented advances in medical sciences.
Every human body is both quite similar and quite different, so dissecting dead bodies allows a new doctor
to experience firsthand the uniqueness that exists from person to person. This will help them
tremendously when they get out into the field. It help doctors to learn human anatomy and body systems,
and for practicing medical procedures to know variety of causes of death, to get a better understanding of
the effect of diseases on body systems, and the stages those diseases go through as they progress to the
terminal stage. But, the notion of Church has different perspective and regarded as defiling the sacredness
of human body.
Pope Boniface VII [sic] banned the practice of cadaver dissection in the 1200s. This stopped the practice
for over 300 years and greatly slowed the accumulation of education regarding human anatomy. Finally,
in the 1500s, Michael Servetus used cadaver dissection to study blood circulation. He was tried and
imprisoned by the Catholic Church. The myth that the medieval church prohibited human dissection has
several variants. Andrew Dickson White in the late nineteenth century A History of the Warfare of
Science with Theology and quoted ‘Western Christianity was implacably hostile to the study of anatomy
through dissection’. This attitude was codified by Pope Boniface VIII in his bull Detestande feritatis (Of
detestable cruelty) of 1299–1300, which threatened those who practiced it with excommunication and
persecution. White attributed the church’s supposed hostility to its commitment to the sacredness of the
human body, the divinely created “temple of the soul,” and to its doctrine that all human bodies would be
resurrected at the Last Judgment.
The appearance of human dissection—the opening of corpses in the service of medical teaching and
research, continuous with modern academic practices—took place around 1300 in the Italian city of
Bologna. Critical examination and its appraisal is very complex. The modern church practically has no
objection but science has also adopted another way round to advance in medical sciences without
dissecting human body.

(b) Church taught a flat earth cosmogony and tried to prevent Christopher Columbus from his
voyage.

Boise Penrose, in his book ‘Travel and Discovery in the Renaissancei argues that ‘With the decline of
Rome and the advent of the Dark Ages, geography as a science went into hibernation, from which the
early Church did little to rouse it . . . Strict Biblical interpretations plus unbending patristic bigotry
resulted in the theory of a flat earth with Jerusalem in its center, and the four Rivers of Paradise. People
living in the “Dark Ages” were so ignorant (or so deceived by Catholic priests) that they believed the
earth was flat. For a thousand years they lingered in ignorant obscurity, and were it not for the heroic
bravery of Christopher Columbus and other explorers, they might well have continued in this ignorance
 Compiled by:

for even longer. Thus, it was the innovation and courage of investors and explorers, motivated by
economic goals and modern curiosity, that finally allowed us to break free from the shackles forged by
the medieval Catholic Church.
Major Greek geo graphical thinker, including Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), Eratosthenes (third century B.C.),
and Ptolemy (second century A.D.), based his geographical and astronomical work on the theory that the
earth was a sphere. Likewise, all of the major Roman commentators, including Pliny the Elder (23–79
A.D.), Pomponius Mela (first century A.D.), and Macrobius (fourth century A.D.), agreed that the earth
must be round. Most famous was Aristotle’s proof of the sphericity of the earth, an argument used by
many thinkers in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.
Among the early church fathers, Augustine (354–430), Jerome (d. 420), and Ambrose (d. 420) all agreed
that the earth was a sphere. Given this background, it would be silly to argue that Columbus proved the
world was round or even argued so. Two Christian writers known to have advocated a flat earth were a
4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century Egyptian Monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes.Later,
these two writers were used as the prime evidence to prove that the flat-earth view was accepted by the
Church as a whole—or at least by large parts of it. The myth that the Church ‘condemned as heretics all
who claimed that the earth was round’ was ‘invented by two fabulists working separately: Antoine-Jean
Letronne, an anticlerical 19th-century Frenchman, and Washington Irving. They were flat-earth believing
churchmen who vehemently opposed Columbus’ plan to travel to the Indies on the grounds that his ship
would fall off the edge of the earth while attempting to sail across the Atlantic.

(c) Church opposed the Heliocentric Model and persecuted Copernicus, Galileo and other Martyrs
of Science.

Nicolaus Copernicus
The 16th century astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), “when it realized that our earth was not
the centre of the universe, but only a tiny speck in a world- system of a magnitude hardly conceivable”.
The Ptolemaic system of astronomy, which Copernicanism eventually superseded, was indeed geocentric
in the sense that it placed earth (geo-) at the center of the universe (Heliocentric) literally and
geometrically. Copernicus first outlined his ideas about the heliocentric theory in a manuscript titled
“Commentariolus.” There he suggested a heliostatic system, where the sun was at the center of the
universe and the earth made rotations. He published “De revolutionibus” in March 1543, after more than a
decade of revisions. The book included a letter to Pope Paul III arguing the legitimacy of the heliocentric
theory, then fiercely opposed by the Catholic Church.” The article, “The Copernican myths,” debunks
many assumptions: that people regarded Earth as the center of the universe with pride, that Earth was
believed to be the center of the universe rather than at the center, that the Catholic Church immediately
rejected Copernicus’ findings. It was not until 1616 that the church banned the book. The ban continued
until 1835.
Galileo Galilei

In the early years of the seventeenth century the Italian mathematician and natural philosopher Galileo
Galilei (1564–1642) openly advocated the theory of the earth’s motion elaborated in Nicolaus
Copernicus’s book On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (1543). As a result, he was persecuted,
tried, and condemned by the Catholic church. He spent the last nine years of his life under house arrest in
his villa outside Florence.

Galileo started showing real physical truth with the new telescopic evidence rendered Copernicanism a
serious contender and, he came increasingly under attack from conservative philosophers and clergymen.
They argued that he was a heretic because he believed in the earth’s motion and the earth’s motion
contradicted Scripture. Galileo felt he could not remain silent and decided to refute the biblical arguments
 Compiled by:

against Copernicanism. He wrote his criticism in the form of long, private letters, in December 1613 to
his disciple Benedetto Castelli and in spring 1615 to the grand duchess dowager Christina. In December
1615, however, Galileo went to Rome of his own accord to defend the Copernican theory.

On June 22, 1633, with a harsher sentence the verdict found Galileo guilty and called him ‘vehement
suspicion of heresy’. This happened when Cardinal Maffeo Barberini became Pope Urban VIII. On June
30 the pope granted Galileo permission to travel to Siena to live under house arrest at the residence of the
archbishop, a good friend of Galileo’s. The archbishop hosted him for five months. In December 1633
Galileo returned to his own villa in Arcetri, near Florence, where he remained except for a brief period in
1638, when he resided within the city limits of Florence under house arrest until his death in 1642.

Giordano Brunoi First Martyr of Modern Science

Giordano Bruno, original name Filippo Bruno, byname Il Nolano, (born 1548, Nola, near Naples [Italy]—
died February 17, 1600, Rome), Italian philosopher, astronomer, mathematician, and occultist whose
theories anticipated modern science. The most notable of these were his theories of the infinite universe
and the multiplicity of worlds, in which he rejected the traditional geocentric (Earth-centred) astronomy
and intuitively went beyond the Copernican heliocentric (Sun-centred) theory, which still maintained a
finite universe with a sphere of fixed stars. Bruno is, perhaps, chiefly remembered for the tragic death he
suffered at the stake because of the tenacity with which he maintained his unorthodox ideas at a time
when both the Roman Catholic and Reformed churches were reaffirming rigid Aristotelian and Scholastic
principles in their struggle for the evangelization of Europe.

Giordano Bruno, a philosopher who was known as a heretic and an advocate of Copernican theory. While
he was condemned, Bruno became to be known as “the first martyr of the new science” after he was
burned at the stake in 17 February 1600 in Rome’s Flower Market called Campo de’ Fiori.

(d) Church opposed Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution tooth and nailed when he came out with
his theory.

Charles Darwin, in full Charles Robert Darwin, (born February 12, 1809, Shrewsbury, Shropshire,
England—died April 19, 1882, Downe, Kent), English naturalist whose scientific theory of evolution by
natural selection became the foundation of modern evolutionary studies. Charles Robert Darwin (1809–
1882), the second son of a freethinking doctor and a devout Unitarian mother, was christened in the
Church of England. Since his childhood he was a regular Church goers but he finds no science in Genesis.
Darwin saw that living species—like races of people, plants, and animals—might have come into
existence by descending from one another Darwin married Emma Wedg wood in 1842. Emma was a
sincere Christian like Charles’s mother, Unitarian by conviction, Anglican in practice. But Charles’
collapse when father died in 1848 he was collapse and his father’s death had spiked him his faith. Also,
when in 1851 his ten years old daughter Annie died, he found no comfort in Emma’s creed. So, began to
developed his works Origin of Species (1859), but did not mention the word evolution, but Darwin used
creation and its cognates over one hundred times. In his long- awaited Descent of Man (1871), Darwin
portrayed humans as evolving physically by natural selection and then intellectually and morally through
the inherited effects of habit, education, and religion. Later, theism evident in the Origin of Species
became worn down and with no belief in the presence of a personal God, Darwin felt he must be content
with Agnostic and his confession was published after his death in 1887.

The initial reaction of the Church seemed to have been one of panic. Initially there was strong opposition
from the clergy, because of the perceived implications of the theory. The Church opposed it tooth and
nailed to the new scientific hypothesis which is considered to be heretics against God’s creation. Some
accused evolutionary theory of bringing together “the occult, magic, and every conceivable human
 Compiled by:

depravity,” while others portrayed it as “the continuation of Satan's long war against God," and as
Satan’s weapon for dethroning God (Morris 1989). But eventually, drawing inspiration from St.
Augustine, who had made the startling statement as far back as the fifth century AD, that God had given
the world at its creation the power and life germs which would unfold as the cosmos developed, some
proposed that evolution is consistent with the idea of the providence of God guiding the emergence of
humanity. Although critical of any idea that biological evolution is due to random factors (where
"random" is understood as meaning "outside the control of God"), writers such as Benjamin B. Warfield
held that evolution was consistent with the biblical view of the origins of human nature. Going further,
some saw the new theory as shedding further light on the process through which God created the world
and human beings. Psychoanalysis: The Freudian Critique of Religion

(e) The Christian roots of Western Science

(1) It is certainly true that the fathers of the early Christian church did not view support of the classical
sciences as a major obligation. These sciences had low priority for the church fathers, for whom the major
concerns were (quite properly) the establishment of Christian doctrine, defense of the faith, and the
edification of believers. But (2), low or medium priority was far from zero priority. Throughout the
Middle Ages and well into the modern period the handmaiden formula was employed countless times to
justify the investigation of nature. Indeed, some of the most celebrated achievements of the Western
scientific tradition were made by religious scholars who justified their labors (at least in part) by appeal to
the handmaiden formula. (3) No institution or cultural force of the patristic period offered more
encouragement for the investigation of nature than did the Christian church. Contemporary pagan culture
was no more favorable to disinterested speculation about the cosmos than was Christian culture. It follows
that the presence of the Christian church enhanced, rather than damaged, the development of the natural
sciences.

(f) Scientific Method and the ends of Astrology, Cabalism and Rosicrucian traditions

Tyndall and Thompson, Galton claimed that the scientific method was the only appropriate means for
knowing the natural world: “An unscientific reasoner will be guided by a confused recollection of crude
experience. A scientific reasoner will scrutinize each separate experience before he admits it as evidence,
and will compare the cases he has selected on a methodical system.”

Church Father especially Augustine believed in the reality of celestial forces, but rejected their influence
on the mind on account of the fatalistic implications. Christians, he warned, should have nothing to do
with astrologers. But to discredit astrology, he did not merely point to its theological dangers; he also
advanced scientific arguments. a substantial current of antiastrological sentiment during the Middle Ages
took its inspiration from Augustine and other theologians who were opposed to astrology because, in its
deterministic form, it threatened the ideas of human free will and responsibility

Mersenne a French Priest works in 1623 were attacks on scepticism and atheism A sustained attack on
magic, cabalism, astrology and other like ‘arts’, and forms part of the important moment in the history of
ideas when the transition from thought’s obeisance to the demands of religious orthodoxy passed through
a period of inflated hopes for mystical or magical short-cuts to the universe’s secrets. Mersenne’s attack
on magic, Cabala and the rest was of a piece with the efforts by Bacon and Descartes to distinguish, each
in his own way, science from those magical forms of thinking, by describing and enjoining methodologies
better destined to arrive at knowledge.

Rosicrucianism is a spiritual and cultural movement which arose in Europe in the early 17th century. The
mysterious doctrine of the order is allegedly "built on esoteric- all forms of occultism, alchemy, magic
truths of the ancient past", which "concealed from the average man, provide insight into nature, the
 Compiled by:

physical universe, and the spiritual realm." Supported enthusiastically by Frederick V the Elector Palatine
but when his tenure of the Bohemian throne ended at the Battle of the White Mountain in 1620, the
Church with his militant wing- the Jesuit suppressed Rosicrucianism and anything occult associated
activities involving Hermeticism, magic or Cabala, as threatening individuals and cities. This was
successfully done in the first half of the 1620s, so in 1923 especially Rosicrucianism in France faded
away.

(g) Religion and the rise of technology

From Medieval to our today’s world expectation assume a more modern, technological expression. The
present enchantment is rooted in religious myths and ancient imagining. Today’s technology in their
sober pursuit of utility, power and profit seem to sets society’s standard for rationality, they are driven
also by distant dreams, spiritual yearnings for supernatural redemption. With the new approach we are
witness to two seemingly incompatible enthusiasms and a widespread infatuation with technological
advance and a confidence in the ultimate triumph of reason also a resurgence of fundamentalist faith to a
religious revival.

The advance of science and technology with its rational rigors grounded in practical experience and
material knowledge, signaled the demise of religious authority and enthusiasm based upon blind faith and
superstitions. Religion belonged to the primitive past, secular science and technology to the mature future.
Religious leaders promote their revival of spirit through an avid and accomplished use of the latest
technological advances, scientist and technologists increasingly attest publicly to the value of their work
in the pursuit of divine knowledge.

The resurgence of religious expression testifies to the spiritual sterility of technological rationality, that
religious belief is now being renewed as a necessary complement to instrumental reason because it
provides the spiritual sustenance that technology lacks. Modern technology and modern faith are neither
complementary nor opposites, nor do they represent succeeding stages of human development. They are
merged and an essentially religious endeavor. Modern technology and religion have evolved together and
that the technological enterprise has been and remains suffused with religious belief.

Religious preoccupations pervade the space programs at every level and constitute a major motivation
behind extraterrestrial; travel and exploration. Artificial Intelligence advocates possibilities of machine
based immortality and resurrection, the architects of virtual reality and cyberspace. Genetic Engineers
imagine themselves divinely inspired participants in a new creation. All these technological pioneers
harbor deep-seated beliefs which are variations upon familiar religious themes.

UNIT-3
Paradigms in Science and Paradigm shift
1. An Introduction to Philosophy and Sociology of Science.

Ralte, Rodinmawia. The Interface of Science and Religion: An Introductory Study. New Delhi: Christian World
Imprints, 2017.

Vinck, Dominique. The Sociology of Scientific Work: The Fundamental Relationship between Science and Society.
Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2010.

Philosophy is an attempt to ask and answer some very basic questions about the universe and our place
within it. These questions can sometimes seem far removed from practical concerns. It made a difference
to developments in many other academic fields, and some of the debates have reverberated much further,
affecting discussions of education, medicine, and the proper place of science in society.
 Compiled by:

Philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy that critically examines the foundations, methods,
products and implications of scientific activity. According to William Bechtel, It is a field devoted to
analyzing the character of scientific investigation. It attempts to answer to plethora of questions in
scientific investigation. Merrilee H.Salmon explains philosophy of science as the branch of philosophy
that reflects and critically analyzes science.
John Losee brings out four viewpoints on the philosophy of science. First view, the formulation of
worldviews that are consistent based on scientific theories. Second, it is an exposition of the
presuppositions and predispositions of scientist. Third, a discipline in which the concepts and theories of
the sciences are analyzed and clarified. Fourth, philosophy of science as a second-order criteriology.
Major Schools (Method) in Philosophy of Science
(a) Deductive Method
It is a series of deductions made from a priori truths, started by the Greeks especially Aristotle.
(b) Inductive Method
It is to stress on observation as well as in its acceptance of the methodological rule that scientists
must generalize from empirical observations to overarching natural laws. Modern Science was born with
the advent of the inductive approach.
(c) Falsification
The philosophy of Science move from induction to falsification as the defining mark of scientific
practices. Karl Pepper is the proponent of this method. According to him, what demarcates science from
non-science is the practice of formulating risky hypothesis and then trying to falsify them.
(d) The Received View
The Received view held that scientific theories and scientific rationality could be clearly delineate
from other human rational endeavors.
(e) Subjective Research
It held that scientists are engaged not merely in seeing the world range of interpretive issues and
presuppositions that it involves, which perceived that scientific research not just present uninterpreted
data but expectations and conceptual commitments of the researchersd influence.
There are five prominent philosophers of science in the twentieth century. They are: Michael Polanyi,
Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, Thomas Kuhn and Paul Fayerabend.

Sociology of Science
Sociology of science deals with the social conditions and effects of science and with the social structures
and processes of scientific activity. Science is a cultural tradition, preserved and transmitted from
generation to generation partly because it is valued in its own right and partly because of its wide
technological applications. The Sociology of science seeks to establish as specifically and precisely as
possible the social conditions under which science makes maximal progress. Sociologist of science has
concentrated on this characteristic of science as a tradition and as an institution.
Science can err and it has erred. We have seen that science is not free from the influence of society,
religion and personal inclination and emotion of scientific researches which makes scientific research
subjective at least partially. Both science and religion are the products of human beings and by nature
limited, thence should be taken together as complementing rather than competing, enriching one another
than encroaching, having dialogical relationship as both are attempts to unearth the inexhaustible reality
of God and his creation.

2. Newtonian Mechanics.
Newton, Roger G. From Clockwork to Crapshoot a history of physics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007.

Smith, Peter Godfrey. Theory and Reality: an Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2010.
 Compiled by:

Baggott, Jim. The Quantum Story a history in 40 moments. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

The world we live in is a complex place, and we must expect any theory that describes it accurately to
share that complexity. The mathematical study of the motion of everyday objects and the forces that
affect them is called classical mechanics. Classical mechanics is often called Newtonian mechanics
because nearly the entire study builds on the work of Isaac Newton1. The main works of Newton was
based on

The Newtonian Mechanics laws and principles at the core of classical mechanics include the following:

Newton's First Law of Motion: A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in
motion unless it is acted upon by an external force.
Newton's Second Law of Motion: The net force acting on an object is equal to the mass of that object
times its acceleration.
Newton's Third Law of Motion: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: The pull of gravity between two objects will be proportional to
the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers of
mass.
Law of Conservation of Energy: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and instead changes from one
form to another; for example, mechanical energy turning into heat energy.
Law of Conservation of Momentum: In the absence of external forces such as friction, when objects
collide, the total momentum before the collision is the same as the total momentum after the collision.
Bernoulli's Principle: Within a continuous streamline of fluid flow, a fluid's hydrostatic pressure will
balance in contrast to its speed and elevation.

Newtonian Mechanics and faith:

God’s word is therefore the foundation for all of creation, and provides a foundation in particular for
those regularities that are termed scientific law. Science in all its parts depends on the belief in
regularities, and on confidence that laws exist. In so doing, it is depending on the word of God and on the
regularities that God specifies in his speech.4 In particular, the real laws of physics are the word of God.
Human physicists give us an approximation to that word.

This connection between science and the word of God has at least two fruits. First, by linking God to the
question of scientific law, it raises the question as to whether differences in people’s views of God can
result in differences in scientific opinion.
According to the Second Law, acceleration is proportional to the force impressed. The constant of
proportionality is the mass of the object. F = ma; F is the force; m is the mass; and a is the acceleration.
The force F is mass times acceleration, making the force proportional both to the mass and to the
acceleration.
Simple proportionality is built in. And, when we relate our discoveries in the macrocosm to the tabernacle
as microcosm, we can affirm that the beauty of the simple proportions in the tabernacle is related to the
beauty of the simple proportions in the macrocosm. Both are the product of beautiful designing on the
part of God.2 The glory of God is manifested in physics in any number of ways, in its beauties, in its

1
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) becomes the most influential scientist of the 17th century, his ideas becoming the
foundation of modern physics. Sir Isaac Newton's three laws of motion describe the motion of massive bodies and
how they interact became the basis for modern physics.
2
https://frame-poythress.org/redeeming-physics-biblical-and-theological-resources-for-a-god-centered-approach/
 Compiled by:

harmonies, in its impressive exactitude and power. But it is also manifested specifically in reflections of
the Trinitarian character of God.

3. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity

Smith, Peter Godfrey. Theory and Reality: an Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2010.

Ralte, Rodinmawia. The Interface of Science and Religion: An Introductory Study. New Delhi: Christian World
Imprints, 2017.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) shook the foundations of physics with the introduction of his Special
Theory of Relativity in 1905, and his General Theory of Relativity in 1915 was the recognition that the
speed of light in a vacuum is constant and an absolute physical boundary for motion. The theory of
relativity states that objects will move slower and shorten in length from the point of view of an observer
on Earth. Einstein also derived the famous equation, E = mc2, which reveals the equivalence of mass and
energy.
Theory of Relativity – The Basics
Physicists usually dichotomize the Theory of Relativity into two parts.

The first is the Special Theory of Relativity, which essentially deals with the question of whether rest and
motion are relative or absolute, and with the consequences of Einstein’s conjecture that they are relative.

The second is the General Theory of Relativity, which primarily applies to particles as they accelerate,
particularly due to gravitation, and acts as a radical revision of Newton’s theory, predicting important new
results for fast-moving and/or very massive bodies. The General Theory of Relativity correctly
reproduces all validated predictions of Newton’s theory, but expands on our understanding of some of the
key principles. Newtonian physics had previously hypothesised that gravity operated through empty
space, but the theory lacked explanatory power as far as how the distance and mass of a given object
could be transmitted through space.

Theory of Relativity and Faith

Hugh Ross a pastor/astronomer with the faith-and-science group says, "It's that Theory of General
Relativity that predicts there's a beginning to the universe. Until Albert Einstein's theory came along,
astronomers and physicists thought the universe was infinitely old," "The Theory of General Relativity
now said, 'No, it's finite in time. It has a beginning,' which implies there must be a Beginner who was
responsible for bringing the universe into existence."

With the theory of relativity absolute space and time, unchanging and infinite universe lost their meaning
and they are replaced by dynamics space and time, and finite universe. Thus, Stephen Hawking and Roger
Penrose concluded that Einstein’s general theory of relativity implied that the universe must have a
beginning and possibly an end. This implies that the biblical eschatological dimension which is the major
focus of the New Testament teaching for the Christian hope that the world will be end and Jesus will
come back to rule the world and every knees will bow down and take back all those who believes in him
to be with him forever.

4. Quantum Physics.
Ralte, Rodinmawia. The Interface of Science and Religion: An Introductory Study. New Delhi: Christian World
Imprints, 2017.
Baggott, Jim. The Quantum Story a history in 40 moments. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
 Compiled by:

Quantum Mechanics (Physics) is considered as one of the century’s most innovative and fruitful scientific
insights into the working of nature. Quantum mechanics deals with the behavior of matter and light on the
atomic and subatomic scale. It attempts to describe and account for the properties of molecules and atoms
and their constituents-electrons, protons and other more esoteric particles such as quarks and gluons.
These properties include the interactions of the particles with one another and with electromagnetic
radiation such as light, X-rays and gamma rays.

Quantum mechanic started with Max Planck in 1900 when he discovered that light, X-rays and other
waves could not be emitted at an arbitrary rate but only in certain energy packets that he called ‘quanta’.
Where light and other electromagnetic radiation can appear not only as electromagnetic waves but also in
the form of quanta which are known as photon.

Quantum mechanics was formulated by Werner Heisenberg from Germany, Erwin Schrodinger from
Austria, Paul Dirac from England. Heisenberg theory came to be known as ‘Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle’- The position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measure exactly at the same time,
instead they had a quantum state which was the combination of position and velocity.

One of the most striking features of the atom which quantum theory reveals is that the small particles
within the atom have dual aspects i.e. the subatomic units matter are both particle and wave. Light take
the form of electromagnetic waves or particles. Thus, it is not possible to predict the atomic event with
certainty; we can only say how likely it will happen.

Quantum mechanics and Christian faith:

Quantum mechanics has far reaching consequences the way we see the material world. First, science
ability to predict and determine has a limit, indicating that science is not always reliable to determine the
universal laws. So, the role of God cannot be ruled out. Second, Quantum mechanics reveals that
scientific knowledge is not always objective knowledge but subjectivity is involved making scientific
knowledge more like theological knowledge. Third, Quantum mechanics reveals a basic oneness of the
universe. We cannot separate things in the universe, as we penetrate deep into matter, we do not see
isolated basic building block but a complicated web of relations between various parts of the whole.

There is a connectedness in the universe that defies explanation. A change in a subatomic particle on this
side of the galaxy will instantaneously make a difference in an entangled particle on the other side. This is
not science fiction. It is science fact.

Subatomic particles are not the only things that are entangled in our universe. So are we. We are
entangled with one another and even with creation—something we are only now discovering but which
Paul asserted to be true in Romans 8. God designed humanity this way from the beginning. It is part of
what makes us great. We are entangled with people we do not know, from places we have never been, at
times we have not existed, in the deep past and in the unknown future.

The entire human race can be conceived as one large, interconnected thing, stretching across space and
time. If we could see what God sees when he looks at humanity, we would not only see a hundred billion
or so disconnected individuals but a human race that is more like a massive body with a hundred billion
parts.

What quantum physics does show us the oddness of the world. It is proof that rational, logical thought
doesn’t completely explain the universe. The oddness of the universe makes the oddness of
Christianity more believable. Physics doesn’t prove Christianity. But what quantum mechanics and
 Compiled by:

Christianity both want to tell us is that the world isn’t exactly as it seems. It’s much, much more
peculiar and much, much more wonderful than it seems.

UNIT-4
Scientific Theories of the Origin of the Universe and Life: Description and Its Reception.

Ralte, Rodinmawia. The Interface of Science and Religion: An Introductory Study. New Delhi: Christian World
Imprints, 2017.

Berry, R J. True scientists, true faith: some of the world's leading scientists reveal the harmony between their science
and their faith. Oxford: Monarch, 2015.

1. Big Band Cosmology, Steady State Theory, many-world theories, anthropic cosmological
principle.

Big Bang Cosmology:

Most cosmologists today believe that the universe came into being with the explosion of infinitely dense
and infinitely small particles some 10 to 20 billion years ago. This explosion is popularly known as Big
Bang. At that time all the matter in the universe was packed into a dense mass, at temperature of many
trillions of degrees. The dazzling brilliance of the radiation in this dense, hot universe led to an explosion
of cosmic hydrogen bombs which marked the birth of the universe.
George Lemaitre (1894-1966) a Belgian Priest, astronomer and Professor of Physics was the one who
proposed the famous Big Bang Theory. According to him the explosion of universe could be traced back
to a very dense state in the distant past in which the primeval atom disintegrate in an explosion giving
rise to space and time and the expansion continues.

Steady-state theory:
Steady-state theory, in cosmology, a view that the universe is always expanding but maintaining a
constant average density, with matter being continuously created to form new stars and galaxies at the
same rate that old ones become unobservable as a consequence of their increasing distance and velocity of
recession. A steady-state universe has no beginning or end in time, and from any point within it the view
on the grand scale—i.e., the average density and arrangement of galaxies—is the same. Galaxies of all
possible ages are intermingled.

The theory was first put forward in 1948 by British scientists Sir Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Sir
Fred Hoyle. It was further developed by Hoyle to deal with problems that had arisen in connection with
the alternative big-bang hypothesis. Observations since the 1950s (most notably, those of the cosmic
microwave background) have produced much evidence contradictory to the steady-state picture and have
led scientists to overwhelmingly support the big-bang model.

Many-World Theories
Physicist Young Hugh Everett and Niels Bohr had suggested about the quantum world. Many-World
Theory consists of two parts:

1. A mathematical theory which yields the time evolution of the quantum state of the (single)
Universe.
2. A prescription which sets up a correspondence between the quantum state of the Universe and our
experiences.

Anthropic cosmological principle

 Compiled by:

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle was proposed by John D. Barrow, a cosmologist, and Frank J.
Tipler, a cosmologist and mathematical physicist. It main focus is considering the structure of the
universe, the values of the constants of nature, or the laws of nature that has a bearing upon the existence
of life. Their works is mainly of theoretical astrophysics, it also touches on quantum physics, chemistry,
and earth science. They argue that Homo sapiens is, with high probability, the only intelligent species in
the Milky Way. The anthropic perspective is also important in evaluating the predictions of quantum
cosmological models that make only probabilistic predictions about the structure of the universe.

2. Theory of Evolution and the Neo Darwinism Synthesis: A quick overview

Neo-Darwinism, also called the modern evolutionary synthesis, generally denotes the integration of
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics as the basis
for biological inheritance, and mathematical population genetics. Although this was not the historical
meaning of the term neo-Darwinism, it has been the popular and scientific use of the expression since the
synthesis of the 1930s. (See Origin of the term neo-Darwinism.) Other terminology used synonymously
with neo-Darwinism are modern synthesis, evolutionary synthesis, and neo-Darwinian synthesis.
Neo-Darwinism has been one of the most significant, overall developments in evolutionary biology since
the time of Darwin. Bowler (1988) stated that there is "a sense in which the emergence of the modern
synthetic theory can be seen as the first real triumph of Darwinism."
Essentially, neo-Darwinism introduced the connection between two important discoveries: the units of
evolution (genes) with the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). By melding classical Darwinism
with the rediscovered Mendelian genetics, Darwin's ideas were recast in terms of changes in allele
frequencies. Neo-Darwinism thus fused two very different and formerly divided research traditions, the
Darwinian naturalists and the experimental geneticists. This fusion took place roughly between 1936 and
1947.
While the modern synthesis remains the prevailing paradigm of evolutionary biology, in recent years it
has both been expanded and challenged as a result of new developments in evolutionary theory. In
particular, concepts related to gradualism, speciation, natural selection, and extrapolating macro
evolutionary trends from micro evolutionary trends have been challenged.
Major figures in the development of the modern synthesis include Thomas Hunt Morgan, Ronald Fisher,
Theodosius Dobzhansky, J. B. S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, William D. Hamilton, Cyril Darlington, Sergei
Chetverikov, E. B. Ford, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, George Gaylord Simpson, and G. Ledyard Stebbins.

3. Historical and Sociological Reasons for acceptance and opposition of specific Scientific Theories
of origins
The theory of creation and the theory of evolution are attempts to explain the origin of the universe and of
its inhabitants. There were no human observers to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or, as a
matter of fact, to the origin of a single type of living organism. These events were unique historical events
which have occurred only once. Thus, no one has ever seen anything created, nor has anyone ever seen a
fish evolve into an amphibian nor an ape evolve into man. The changes we see occurring today are mere
fluctuations in populations which result neither in an increase in complexity nor significant change.
Therefore, neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory. Creation and evolution are inferences
based on circumstantial evidence.
Thus the notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious
mysticism is blatantly false. This is being recognized more and more today, even by evolutionists
themselves. Karl Popper, one of the world's leading philosophers of science, has stated that evolution is
not a scientific theory but is a metaphysical research program.
It seems obvious that a theory that is outside of empirical science, or a theory that lies beyond the range of
testable hypothesis cannot qualify as a scientific theory. Any suggestion that these challenges to the status
 Compiled by:

of evolution as a scientific theory are exceptions can be refuted by a thorough search of the scientific
literature.
Creation and evolution are thus theoretical inferences about history. Even though neither qualifies as a
scientific theory, each possesses scientific character, since each attempts to correlate and explain
scientific data. Creation and evolution are best characterized as explanatory scientific models which are
employed to correlate and explain data related to origins. The terms "creation theory," "evolution theory,"
"creations science," and "evolution science" are appropriate as long as it is clear that the use of such terms
denote certain inferences about the history of origins which employ scientific data rather than referring to
testable scientific theories. Since neither is a scientific theory and each seeks to explain the same
scientific data related to origins, it is not only incorrect but arrogant and self-serving for evolutionists to
declare that evolution is science while creation is mere religion. Creation is in every sense as scientific as
evolution.
It can thus be stated unequivocally that evolution is as religious as creation, and conversely, that
creation is as scientific as evolution.
D.J. Futuyma argues that Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the
origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did
not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did
appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.

4. Biographical sketch of some Christians who contributed to the rise of Modern Science and some
contemporary Christian Scientist: Michael Faraday, Don Knuth, Donald Mackay, Francis Collins,
Rosalind Picard, William D Phillips, John Houghton, Francis Bacon, Gabriel Gabrielse, John Ray.

Michael Faraday:
Michael Faraday, (born September 22, 1791, Newington, Surrey, England—died August 25, 1867,
Hampton Court, Surrey), English physicist and chemist whose many experiments contributed greatly to
the understanding of electromagnetism. Faraday, who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th
century, began his career as a chemist. His major contribution, however, was in the field of electricity and
magnetism. He was the first to produce an electric current from a magnetic field, invented the first electric
motor and dynamo, demonstrated the relation between electricity and chemical bonding, discovered the
effect of magnetism on light.
His family belonged to a small Christian sect, called Sandemanians, that provided spiritual sustenance to
Faraday throughout his life. It was the single most important influence upon him and strongly affected the
way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Faraday received only the rudiments of an education,
learning to read, write, and cipher in a church Sunday school.

Don Knuth:
Donald Ervin Knuth, (born Jan. 10, 1938, Milwaukee, Wis., U.S.), American mathematician and
computer scientist. Knuth earned a doctorate in mathematics in 1963 from the California Institute of
Technology. Donald Ervin Knuth is considered one of the world's leading computer scientists and
mathematicians. As a pioneer in computer science he developed Computer Programming TeX, a
document-preparation system . Because of its precise control of special characters and mathematical
formulas, TeX and its variants soon became standard for submitting typeset-ready scientific and
mathematical research papers for publication. Knuth has received many awards and honours, including
the Kyoto Prize (1996), the A.M. Turing Award (1974), and the National Medal of Science (1979).
Don Knuth innovative project called ‘3:16 project’ was taken from John 3:16 is his famous a personal
exploration of Biblical literature which he regards as a turning point in his own life.
 Compiled by:

Donald Mackay:
Donald MacCrimmon MacKay (9 August 1922 – 6 February 1987) was a British physicist, and professor
at the Department of Communication and Neuroscience at Keele University in Staffordshire, England,
known for his contributions to information theory and the theory of brain organization.
He had been brought up in the Calvinism of the Free Church of Scotland (his father was both minister and
doctor) and graduated from St Andrews University before moving to England. Throughout his
professional life Donald strove to integrate together his commitment as a scientist to hypothesis-devising
and testing and discovery based upon empirical research, and his commitment as a Christian to the God
who has revealed himself in Scripture and supremely in Christ.
Many Christians in academic life, talk about the need to integrate faith and intellectual life, Mackay made
great efforts to effect such integration, sometimes at considerable personal cost, part of which was the
result of occasional misrepresentation and misunderstanding by fellow-Christians.
Mackay believed that such a view does justice to the biblical data while at the same time making it
possible for the scientist to carry out his God-given task of exploring all physical aspects of the creation
unhindered by false notions.

Rosalind Picard:
Professor Rosalind W. Picard, Sc.D. is founder and director of the Affective Computing Research Group
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Lab and co-director of the Things That Think
Consortium, the largest industrial sponsorship organization at the lab. She has co-founded two businesses,
Empatica, Inc. creating wearable sensors and analytics to improve health, and Affectiva, Inc. delivering
technology to help measure and communicate emotion.
Rosalind used to be a staunch atheist, never liked religious people, still abhor religiosity, and did not want
to be associated with such appearances or with any religious beliefs. According to her a view of "there is
no God" is a philosophical position; it is not a view supported by science. It is a statement of faith. Being
an atheist is a religious position, even if you think you are not religious. This is a turning point for her to
change from an Atheist to a Christian. She argues “Science is powerful, but it is not all-powerful. Science
cannot, for example, validate one-time historical events that are not under our control to repeat. A
different kind of methodology is needed to validate historical events.” To her the strongest evidence in
history is eye-witness testimony and the Bible is the by-product of that amazing testimony. She firmly
states her faith as “I know what it's like to not believe in God, and I know what it's like to believe in God.
I've lived my life both ways. While I cannot scientifically prove either faith position, I have abundant
evidence that I am more fulfilled, more adventurous, happier, and less stressed in living with belief in
God. I also find much greater meaning and purpose in life.”

William D Phillips:
William Daniel Phillips, (born Nov. 5, 1948, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., U.S.), American physicist whose
experiments using laser light to cool and trap atoms earned him the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1997. He
shared the award with Steven Chu and Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, who also developed methods of laser
cooling and atom trapping.
He is a person of religious faith. From his own statement he said “I attend church; I sing in the gospel
choir; I go to Sunday school; I pray regularly; I try to “do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with my
God.” To many people, this makes me a contradiction—a serious scientist who seriously believes in
God.”

Francis Bacon:
Francis Bacon, Viscount Saint Alban, also called (1603–18) Sir Francis Bacon, (born January 22, 1561,
York House, London, England—died April 9, 1626, London), lord chancellor of England (1618–21). A
 Compiled by:

lawyer, statesman, philosopher, and master of the English tongue, his works are credited with developing
the scientific method, and remained influential through the scientific revolution. Bacon has been called
the father of empiricism. His works argued for the possibility of scientific knowledge based only upon
inductive reasoning and careful observation of events in nature.
Bacon was a devout Anglican. He believed that philosophy and the natural world must be studied
inductively, but argued that we can only study arguments for the existence of God. Information on his
attributes (such as nature, action, and purposes) can only come from special revelation. But Bacon also
held that knowledge was cumulative, that study encompassed more than a simple preservation of the past.
"Knowledge is the rich storehouse for the glory of the Creator and the relief of man's estate," he wrote. In
his Essays, he affirms that "a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy
bringeth men's minds about to religion."
Bacon's idea of idols of the mind may have self-consciously represented an attempt to Christianize
science at the same time as developing a new, reliable scientific method

Gabriel Gabrielse:
Gerald Gabrielse is an American physicist. He is Board of Trustees Professor of Physics and Director of
the Center for Fundamental Physics at Low Energy at Northwestern University, and Emeritus George
Vasmer Leverett Professor of Physics at Harvard University. He is primarily known for his experiments
trapping and investigating antimatter, measuring the electron g-factor, and measuring the electron electric
dipole moment. He has been described as "a leader in super-precise measurements of fundamental
particles and the study of anti-matter.
Gabrielse identifies himself as a scientist who is Reformed Christian. In an interview, he said:
I do not believe that science and the Bible are in conflict. However, it is possible to misunderstand the
Bible and to misunderstand science. It is important to figure out what of each might be misunderstood. He
has also delivered lectures on the relation between science and religion. In 2006 Gabrielse delivered a
lecture titled "God of Antimatter" in the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion in Emmanuel College,
Cambridge, discussing his research into antimatter as well as his personal experience with Christianity.

John Ray:
John Ray, Ray (born Nov. 29, 1627, Black Notley, Essex, Eng.—died Jan. 17, 1705, Black Notley),
leading 17th-century English naturalist and botanist who contributed significantly to progress in
taxonomy. His enduring legacy to botany was the establishment of species as the ultimate unit of
taxonomy.
He was a devout Christian, Ray expounded his belief in "natural theology," the doctrine that the wisdom
and power of God could be understood by studying His creation, the natural world. This doctrine can be
traced back to the Bible, but Ray expressed it so fully and clearly that he started a long tradition of natural
theology in England and abroad. As Ray wrote in 1660:
There is for a free man no occupation more worthy and delightful than to contemplate the beauteous
works of nature and honour the infinite wisdom and goodness of God.
In two major works written late in his life, The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation
(1691) and Three Physico-Theological Discourses (1692), Ray expounded his views of the creation,
organization, and eventual fate of the Earth and the life on it. The Wisdom of God Manifested in the
Works of the Creation was especially popular and influential; it was translated into several foreign
languages, and was reprinted for over fifty years after its publication.

Francis Collins:
Francis Collins has a PhD in Chemistry and is a qualified physician. Since 2009, he has been the Director
of the National Institutes of Health at Bethesda, Maryland. He has been a strong protagonist for the
 Compiled by:

privacy of genetic information and prohibiting insurance discrimination on genetic grounds. He is a

member of the National Academy of Sciences of the US and a recipient of the President Medal of
Freedom.
Some of his statement on his religious view being an atheist to a devout Christian
"God gave us an opportunity through science to understand the natural world, but there will never be a
scientific proof of God's existence."
“Almighty God, who is not limited in space or time, created a universe 13.7 billion years ago with its
parameters precisely tuned to allow the development of complexity over long periods of time.”
God’s plan included the mechanism of evolution to create the marvelous diversity of living things on our
planet. Most especially, that creative plan included human beings.
After evolution had prepared a sufficiently advanced “house” (the human brain), God gifted humanity
with the knowledge of good and evil (the Moral Law), with free will, and with an immortal soul.
We humans use our free will to break the moral law, leading to our estrangement from God. For
Christians, Jesus is the solution to that estrangement.
If the Moral Law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It’s all an
illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our
lives within that worldview?
If God is outside of nature, then science can neither prove nor disprove his existence. Atheism itself must
therefore be considered a form of blind faith, in that it adopts a belief system that cannot be defended on
the basis of pure reason.

John T. Houghton:
John T.Houghton was born on 30 December 1931. He is a Welsh scientist who was the co-chair of the
Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) scientific assessment
working group. He was the lead editor of first three IPCC reports. He was professor in atmospheric
physics at the University of Oxford, former Director General at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley
Centre.
He was brought up, in Wales, as an evangelical Christian by devout Christian parents and has remained a
strong Christian throughout his life and sees science and Christianity as strengthening each other and
believes strongly in the connection between Christianity and environmentalism. Houghton's evangelical
Christianity combined with his scientific background has made him a significant voice in evangelical
Christian circles. He is currently an elder at Aberdovey Presbyterian Church.

UNIT-5
The Biblical Doctrine of Creation
nd
McGrath, Alister E. Science and religion: A New introduction. 2 Ed. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
Brown, P.William. The Seven Pillar of Creation: The Bible, Science and the Ecology of Wonder. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010.
James Porter Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. Three views on creation and evolution. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2010.
Walton, John H. Lost world of genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate. Illinois: InterVarsity Press,
2009.
Walton, John H. Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology. Winnona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
Enns, Peter. The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins. Grand Rapids:
Brazos Press, 2012.
1. Christian Doctrine of Creation and Creation Ex Nihilo.
Creation ex nihilo is the Christian doctrine that God created the universe and everything in it out of
nothing. He spoke all that exists, besides himself, into existence. For more than two millennia Christians
have confessed in all their creeds that God is the “Maker of heaven and earth.” The Nicene Creed
specifies that this includes “all things visible and invisible.”
 Compiled by:

At the heart of the Christian worldview is the idea that God is the creator of all other reality; there is a
fundamental distinction between Creator and creation. . . . The creedal affirmations of Christians are but
reaffirmations of the first verse of the Bible, which majestically proclaims: “In the beginning God created
the heavens and the earth.” Thomas V. Morris points out that the biblical doctrine of creation is the key to
a distinctively theistic perspective on reality. He writes, “This one statement captures the heart of a
theistic world-view. We live in a created universe. For centuries, theists have held that the single most
important truth about our world is that it is a created world. And it is no exaggeration to add that it is one
of the most important truths about God that he is the creator of this world.”
Creation ex nihilo distinguishes theism from other worldviews that dominated the ancient world.
It was, in fact, the doctrine of creation out of nothing (ex nihilo) that most fundamentally distinguished
the Judeo-Christian view of God and the world from the various religions of the ancient Near East and
philosophical systems of Classical Greece—all of which assumed that the world had been formed out of
eternally preexisting chaotic matter.
This doctrine has profound implications for the world we live in.
According to Christian teaching, it is God’s absolute creation and continuing conservation of the universe
that accounts for its existence, order, rationality, goodness, and beauty. It is because God created the
universe ex nihilo and proclaimed it good that we can be assured that evil is not somehow part of the
fabric of the universe but a parasite that will one day be overcome.
And finally, the scientific method, which has given us the technology that has improved our lives so
much, owes its genesis to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.
Furthermore, according to many historians of science, the Christian doctrine of creation played a
significant role in the rise and development of modern science by providing many of its basic
presuppositions. It has been shown that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was one of the reasons the
scientific revolution occurred in Christian Western Europe rather than in the ancient world or some other
culture. It could even be argued that, apart from the presuppositions supplied by the Christian doctrine of
creation, modern science (realistically understood) would be impossible and that divorcing science from
the ground of these presuppositions makes it irrational.

2. The doctrine of Creation in the light of scientific accounts, like Big Bang Cosmology and Theory
of Evolution.
Big Bang Cosmology:
Most cosmologists today believe that the universe came into being with the explosion of infinitely dense
and infinitely small particles some 10 to 20 billion years ago. This explosion is popularly known as Big
Bang. At that time all the matter in the universe was packed into a dense mass, at temperature of many
trillions of degrees. The dazzling brilliance of the radiation in this dense, hot universe led to an explosion
of cosmic hydrogen bombs which marked the birth of the universe.
George Lemaitre (1894-1966) a Belgian Priest, astronomer and Professor of Physics was the one who
proposed the famous Big Bang Theory. According to him the explosion of universe could be traced back
to a very dense state in the distant past in which the primeval atom disintegrate in an explosion giving
rise to space and time and the expansion continues.

Theory of Evolution:
Theory of Evolution postulate that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth
have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to
modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of
modern biological theory. This theory was proposed by Charles Darwin. According to him the origin of
species and all living organism is only through mechanism of natural selection. Natural selection: A
Random genetic changes evolved within and organism genetic code. Beneficial changes are preserved
 Compiled by:

because they need to be survey. This closes known as natural changes. Everything was simply evolved.
The complex creatures evolved from more simple creatures.All lives is related because all organism are
related to single
3. Genesis as Ancient Cosmology.
Some Christians approach the text of Genesis as if it has modern science embedded in it or it dictates
what modern science should look like. This approach is called “concordism,” as it seeks to give a modern
scientific explanation for the details in the text. This represents one attempt to “translate” the culture and
text for the modern reader. If we accept Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology, then we need to interpret it as
ancient cosmology rather than translate it into modern cosmology. John Walton has written this to
convince the expert or the informed theologian. His contention is that, as with the rest of the ancient
world, the focus of the Genesis creation accounts concerns only the functions of the cosmos and has,
therefore, nothing to do with its material origins. Indeed, the creation story is to be interpreted, according
to Walton, strictly in temple terms as a liturgical document, rather than as a document reporting the actual
origins of the cosmos. Analysis of Genesis 1 in order to determine to what extent the notions observed in
ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies are related to the biblical accounts. Thus “the entire cosmos is viewed
as a temple designed to function on behalf of humanity.” The intersection between Genesis 1 and other
ancient Near Eastern cosmologies, particularly what is shared with or distinct from the Egyptian and
Mesopotamian perspectives. Walton proposes that although Israelite cosmology fits its geographical and
historical environment, it contains no new ideas, especially in regard to its functional emphasis. The
greatest differences between the Israelite and the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cosmologies, is that the
divine and cosmic functions are not related in the Genesis 1 account the way they are in other parts of the
ancient world. The realization that the Genesis account pertains to functional origins rather than material
origins and that temple ideology underlies the Genesis cosmology. The creation account in the Sumerian
text, The Exploits of Ninurta, focuses on the functions of production (e.g., the creation of herbs, honey
and wine, cedar and cypress trees), which are designed “for you.” The Egyptian Memphite text of
creation states: “He created sleep to end weariness, waking for looking after food . . . remedies to end
illness, wine to end affliction . . . wealth for truthfulness, poverty for falsehood.” Also in Mesopotamian
cosmology “created things are listed by their function, with the text implying that this functionality is for
the benefit of humans”. Biblical is one of the ancient cosmogony stories. But we cannot claim that
creation is the first. Martin Noth argued that biblical history was written during the time of Babylonian
exile. Biblical creation story was very much influenced by Babylonian, Egyptian creation stories. One
example is Enuma Elish is the Babylonian creation story. Conrod Hyers argues that, Biblical stories not a
natural history but it is cosmogony. John Walton: six days of creation were no about the material creation
but they were about function. For example sun and moon are, to provide the function of calendar
4. Evolution and the Problem of Adam.
Peter Enns, in his book The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human
Origins he argues that “evolution is “a game changer,” the “general science-and-faith reconciliation is not
adequate because evolution uniquely strikes at issues of the Christian faith.” Specifically, Enns asserts,
“Evolution tells us that human beings are not the product of a special creative act by God as the Bible
says but are the end product of a process of trial-and-error adaptation and natural selection”. And “if
evolution is correct, one can no longer accept, in any true sense of the word ‘historical,’ the instantaneous
and special creation of humanity described in Genesis”. Enns’ project is very similar to John Walton’s
proposal in The Lost World of Genesis One, situating Genesis as a book that reflects an ancient Near
Eastern cosmology. Thus we shouldn’t expect the Bible to be trying to “teach” any “scientific” claims
about human origins. As Enns constantly emphasizes, “the biblical authors…were only expressing their
assumptions about the nature of the cosmos”. So we should adjust our expectations accordingly. If we
do that, Enns concludes, then we’ll find that what Genesis and Paul teach about human origins Adam
 Compiled by:

doesn’t tread on the territory of what we know from evolutionary science. The result, he believes, will be
peaceful coexistence.
And yet Enns seems to revive a version of it in order to “solve” the (“perceived”) tension between
evolutionary accounts of human origins and the biblical understanding of human origins. If there was no
first Adam, there was no fall. If there was no fall, there is no truly inescapably sinful condition and so no
need for a savior. Jesus as the Savior of sinful humanity is at the heart of Christianity. Therefore, if
evolution is true [i.e., if there was no first Adam], Christianity is false.
5. God of the Gaps and the Problem of Reductionism.
The “God-of-the-gaps” argument refers to a perception of the universe in which anything that currently
can be explained by our knowledge of natural phenomena is considered outside the realm of divine
interaction, and thus the concept of “God” is invoked to explain what science is, as yet, incapable of
explaining. In other words, only the “gaps” in scientific knowledge are explained by the work of God,
hence the name “God of the gaps.”
Science can be explanation about physical nature in different dimension. At the same time science also so
gives explanation about the physical world. There are areas science cannot explain. There are certain gap
in the scientific explanation about the universe. The theologian and scholars filled the gaps with God.
Henry Drummond argues that “God of Gap to criticize the Christian who fill the gap created by
scientific explanation. Biblical god is not the God of the gaps but the whole universe is creation is the
work of eminent God.”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer said “We are to find God if what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants
us to realise his presence not in unsolved problems but those are solved.”
Francis Collins: Intelligent design is guilty of God of the gaps when naturalist evolution face to explain
something it is best explained by intelligent design.
It provides less room for God in this universe. It denies the Omnipresence of God.
6. How to relate Science and Religion: Ian Barbour four Models, Ted Peter, Michael Stenmark.
Ian Barbour: Religion in an age of science
1. Conflict: Science and religion are mutually exclusive, their world views, conclusion are
antithetical. For Example: Creationist argued that scientific theory are false. Evolutionist argued that
biblical creation is not scientific. Scientific materialism argued that matter and energy are only
fundamental physical reality. Scientific knowledge is the reliable knowledge. Biblical literalism says
that bible does not any mistake.
2. Independent: both disciplines have contrasting method and different language. Both disciplines
are independent autonomous and separate. Any attempt to relate or integrate science and religion
actually violate the integrate of discipline. Religion well tell us why and evolution will tell us how the
creation is. Both do not work within the boundaries. The problem is they try to cross each other.
Compartmentalization of science and religion is not always possible as we think.
3. Dialogue: Science and religion are Dialogue. There are areas science and religion can meet and
enter into Dialogue. Scientist teach how physical body function. But the religion may not be tell us.
Geneticist how genes works. Ethical theologian tell us how to genetic (Knowledge). It is not easy
science and religion into the table of Dialogue
4. Integration: both science and religion can contribute one another views, understanding, thinking
and perspective. To integrate the biblical knowledge and scientific knowledge. Chardin is the one he
say God in the process of evolution.

Ted Peters: Eight categories the relationship between science and religion:
1. Scientism: science has the monopoly on knowledge about nature. Religion provides a pseudo.
Religion provides knowledge about non-existence beings or some fictions or some stories. Fred
 Compiled by:

hoyle says that “Jews and Christian religion tradition has become outdated because of model
science”. Scientism is always intolerable knowledge of religion.
2. Scientific imperialism: argue that existence of so called divine. Scientific imperialism plays that
the knowledge of divine reality basically come from the knowledge of scientific research. Scientific
knowledge is superior to divine revelation. Frank Tiplar says “quantum theory combined with big
bank cosmology and thermodynamic can provide a better explanation than Christianity for the future
resurrection of the dead”. Theology should become a brand of physics. Divine knowledge is comes
from the scientific knowledge.
3. Ecclesiastical Authoritarianism: Till Vatican II, 1962. Church is the custodian of every
knowledge including science. Church has authority over science. After Vatican II church come to
point that religion and science are two autonomous discipline.
4. Scientific creationism: attempts to connect geological data and biblical data with biblical truth.
The biblical truth and scientific truth belong to same thing. Scientific creationism says that, Creation
of the world out of nothing.
5. Two language theory: basically argued that science and religion provides different direction.
Science direct toward physical world religion direct towards God/spiritual world. Both disciplines are
sovereign territory. Abert Emsteen says that, “science without religion is lame and the religion
without science blank”. Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be. Religion on the
other hand deals only with evolution of human thought and action. Langdon Gilkey says that, science
has how? And religion ask why?
6. Hypothetical consonance (accord): Ernan McMullin says that, there are areas where there is a
correspondence between science and religion. Correspondence can be made between what can set
scientific about natural world. In other words science and religion can bring together. The God
question about nature can be honestly asked within scientific reason. Theologian and scientist
basically share common subject matter. There are possibilities of dialogue. Theologian and scientist
should subject there finding or assumption for further explanation or conformation. Openness to
learning is the value which theologian and scientist have to follow the result is peace.
1. Ethical Overlap: Scientific invention basically lots of ethical challenges. Ethical challenges are
not address.
2. New age spirituality: attempt to use spirituality in science and religion. No dualism there is no
split between ideas and skills. David Bohn- explicit order of things that we aspect as the natural world
and that is studied in laboratories is not the fundamental reality, there is under and behind it and
implicate order a realm of undivided wholeness. Reality is in flowing movement. The new age
spirituality seeks to cultivate the awareness of these underline and continually changing unity.
Stenmark- How to relate science and religion: A multi-dimensional model:
1. Conservative or reconciliation model: science should change its content and the tradition Christian
faith is very extent as it. Christian faith is right science should change.
2. Traditional reconciliation model: science has to change some of its content at the same time
religion also change some of its content. But not fully.
Three Views
1. The independence view: there is or neither should overlap/intersect between science and religion.
2. Contact view: there is, there can be and there should be intersect between science and religion.
3. Monist View: there can be a union of the domains of science and religion.
The moral: Multi-dimensional moral: own view
Two premises
1. There is nothing in the domains of the science that is not domains of the religion. And vice-versa.
2. Science and religion are social practices: both can understand each other.
What is the multi-dimensional model?
 Compiled by:

We have to go beyond one dimensional picture of science and religion

1. Social dimension: science and religion are performed by people in co-operation within a particular
historical and cultural setting.
What is the meaning of practices?
A practice is a set off complex and fairly, coherent socially established co-operative human
activities through which its practitioners try to obtain certain goals by means of particular
strategies.
2. Teleological dimension: we need to see the goals of scientific and religious practices.
3. Epistemological/Methodological dimension: we need to see the method and developed to achieve
science and religion.
4. Theoretical dimension: We may try to understand the believes, the story and theory developed by
science and religion
5. Since science and religion are social practices, they are subject to change.

UNIT-6

Science and Miracles

Keener, Craig S. Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.

Blomberg, Craig L. Can we still believe the Bible?: An evangelical engagement with contemporary questions. Grand
Rapids: Brazos Press, 2014.

1. Towards understanding the meaning of miracles

Miracles are a supernatural work of God. All the miracles had a purpose—to prove that God is like no one
else, that He has complete control of creation because He is its source, and to convince us that if He can
do all these miraculous things, nothing in our lives is too hard for Him to handle. He wants us to trust
Him and know that He can do miracles in our lives as well.

Craig Blomberg opines that Philosophers of science stressed that the miraculous by definition lies outside
the bounds of science because it cannot be tested or experimentally reproduced in a laboratory. Miracles,
in other words, should not be defined as the violation of the normal laws of nature or of the universe but
as involving their temporary suspension or transcendence.

2. Examination of the case against the miracles in the Bible

Miracles in the Bible came to be doubted or skepticism arises with the rise of Enlightenment in Europe
during the 17th century, this thinking changed dramatically in the light of about the account of creation,
the ten plagues of the Exodus, the day the sun stood still, or perhaps some of the healing miracles of Jesus
and Apostle. Many Philosophers strongly rejected miracles in the Bible such as Spinoza and Hume
vehemently opposed miracles event in the Bible. Even Rudolph Bultmann (1884-1976) tried to
‘demythologise’ the teaching of Jesus by stripping away the miraculous. He went so far as to say: It is
impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical
discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles.

Miracles should not be excluded a priori from historical research. Neither science nor philosophy gives us
valid reasons for doing so. The only serious objection to the biblical miracle accounts is the one of literary
form. Do they closely enough resemble bona fide myths or legends to be classified similarly? The closest
parallels to New Testament accounts consistently prove to be post-Christian in origin; very few pre-
Christian pagan miracle stories are at all similar. Old Testament miracles, on the other hand, often
postdate their ancient Near Eastern parallels. Here the closest parallels come in contexts suggesting that
 Compiled by:

the biblical counterparts are attributing to Yahweh what other people groups ascribed to numerous
different gods. The purpose of the miracle stories is to counter the suggestion that any god but the Lord of
Israel exists; only real events, not just mythical stories, could accomplish this. Other Old Testament
miracles consistently fall into one of just a handful of categories, making it unlikely that the biblical
narratives comprise random, fictitious accounts of the supernatural inserted into blander stories for
sensationalizing purposes.

New Testament miracles most centrally point to the arrival of God’s kingdom and therefore of God’s
king, Jesus the Messiah. The miracles in the Gospels and Acts closely parallel each other and often find
their meaning when one recognizes Old Testament backgrounds as well. It does little good to believe in
miracles in Bible times but not to be open to them—or to any of Paul’s more supernatural gifts of the
Spirit—today. Those who still defend cessationism risk quenching the Spirit (contra 1 Thess. 5:19) and
inappropriately closing themselves and others off from the full range of blessings God might have for
them and from potentially the greatest amount of effective service for his kingdom. Without swinging the
pendulum to the opposite extreme and embracing the various abuses of the charismata or trying to imitate
the Spirit’s work in one’s own strength, cessationists really should cease trying to limit God in how he
chooses to work in his world today. It is, in essence, a form of antisupernaturalism for all the
postapostolic eras of Christianity. The position is inconsistent with belief in a living and active God,
amounts to a practical deism, and smacks of humans trying to usurp God’s sovereignty by dictating what
his people can and cannot do with respect to spiritual giftedness.

Oxford scholar G. B. Caird long ago remarked regarding Luke, the first Christian historian:

Luke has often been accused of credulity because he has packed his narrative
with signs and wonders, but it would be more in keeping with the evidence to
commend him for his faithful reproduction of one of the major constituents of
early Christianity. For the Epistles bear their concurrent witness that the
preaching of the Gospel was everywhere accompanied by exorcisms and healing
and by other forms of miracle.

Craig S.Keener argues that one should not a priori reject the possibility of eyewitness testimony behind
reports of cures and signs in the Gospels and Acts; whatever miracles mentioned are purely written from
the eye-witness account and no doubt it involved a divine activity, even if one were to remain skeptical
about miracle claims one would not need to reject the rest of the testimony of the Gospels and Acts
regarding other events.

Unit-7

Emerging Science and Technologies

Tegmark, Max. Life 3.0 being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligent. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2017.

Ford, Martin. Rise of the Robots Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. New York: basic books, 2015.

Frickel, Scott and Kelly Moore, eds. The New Political Sociology of Science Institutions, Networks, and Power.
Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1930.

Bostrom, Nick. SUPERINTELLIGENCE Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2014.

Lanier, Jaron. You are not a gadgets: A manifesto. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010.

1. An introduction to nanotechnology, Biotechnology and Synthetic Life, Robotics, Artificial

Intelligence and Neuroscience.
 Compiled by:

Nanotechnology:

nanotechnology are the study and application of extremely small things and can be used across all the
other science fields, such as chemistry, biology, physics, materials science, and engineering. The ideas
and concepts behind nanoscience and nanotechnology started with a talk entitled “There’s Plenty of Room
at the Bottom” by physicist Richard Feynman at an American Physical Society meeting at the California
Institute of Technology (CalTech) on December 29, 1959, long before the term nanotechnology was used.
In his talk, Feynman described a process in which scientists would be able to manipulate and control
individual atoms and molecules. Over a decade later, in his explorations of ultraprecision machining,
Professor Norio Taniguchi coined the term nanotechnology. It wasn't until 1981, with the development of
the scanning tunneling microscope that could "see" individual atoms, that modern nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology involve the ability to see and to control individual atoms and molecules. Everything on
Earth is made up of atoms—the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the buildings and houses we live in, and
our own bodies. But something as small as an atom is impossible to see with the naked eye. Today's
scientists and engineers are finding a wide variety of ways to deliberately make materials at the nanoscale
to take advantage of their enhanced properties such as higher strength, lighter weight, increased control of
light spectrum, and greater chemical reactivity than their larger-scale counterparts.

Biotechnology:

Biotechnology is technology based on biology - biotechnology harnesses cellular and biomolecular

processes to develop technologies and products that help improve our lives and the health of our planet.
We have used the biological processes of microorganisms for more than 6,000 years to make useful food
products, such as bread and cheese, and to preserve dairy products.

Modern biotechnology provides breakthrough products and technologies to combat debilitating and rare
diseases, reduce our environmental footprint, feed the hungry, use less and cleaner energy, and have safer,
cleaner and more efficient industrial manufacturing processes.

Currently, there are more than 250 biotechnology health care products and vaccines available to patients,
many for previously untreatable diseases. More than 13.3 million farmers around the world use
agricultural biotechnology to increase yields, prevent damage from insects and pests and reduce farming's
impact on the environment.

Biotechnology are broadly designed to heal the world, to feed the world and to fuel the world.

Synthetic Life:

Synthetic Life/ biology is the attempt to reengineer living organisms as if they were machines for us to
tinker with, or even to build them from scratch from the component parts—stems from a decidedly
modern construct, a “reverence for life.” In the past, fears about this kind of technological hubris were
reserved mostly for proposals to make humans by artificial means—or as the Greeks would have said, by
techne.

The first identifiable use of the term "synthetic biology" was Stéphane Leduc a French biologist who
sought to contribute to understanding of the chemical and physical mechanisms of life. Craig Venter once
said “Life is basically the result of an information process, a software process. Our genetic code is our
software, and our cells are dynamically, constantly reading our genetic code.”

Robotics:
 Compiled by:

Robotics is an interdisciplinary branch of engineering and science that includes mechanical engineering,
electronic engineering, information engineering, computer science, and others. Robotics deals with the
design, construction, operation, and use of robots, as well as computer systems for their control, sensory
feedback, and information processing. In 1948, Norbert Wiener formulated the principles of cybernetics,
the basis of practical robotics.

There are many types of robots; they are used in many different environments and for many different
purposes depending upon the potential application and its demand.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science that aims to create intelligent machines. It has
become an essential part of the technology industry. Research associated with artificial intelligence is
highly technical and specialized. The core problems of artificial intelligence include programming
computers for certain traits such as: Knowledge, Reasoning, Problem solving, Perception, Learning,
Planning.

Ability to manipulate and move objects Artificial intelligence (AI) is an area of computer science that
emphasizes the creation of intelligent machines that work and react like humans. Some of the activities
computers with artificial intelligence are designed for include: Speech recognition, Learning, Planning,
Problem solving.

Neuroscience:

Neuroscience is a multidisciplinary science that is concerned with the study of the structure and function
of the nervous system. It encompasses the evolution, development, cellular and molecular biology,
physiology, anatomy and pharmacology of the nervous system, as well as computational, behavioural and
cognitive neuroscience. Neuroscience is a new and important field with implications for every aspect of
how people move, think, and behave. It also contributes to a better understanding of a wide range of
common conditions. A greater understanding of neurological factors can help in developing medications
and other strategies to treat and prevent these and many other health issues.

2. Deterministic Chaos

Deterministic chaos, often just called "chaos", refers in the world of dynamics to the generation of
random, unpredictable behavior from a simple, but nonlinear rule. The rule has no "noise", randomness,
or probabilities built in. Instead, through the rule's repeated application the long-term behavior becomes
quite complicated. In this sense, the unpredictability "emerges" over time.

"Deterministic Chaos," suggests a paradox because it connects two notions that are familiar and
commonly regarded as incompatible. The first is that of randomness or unpredictability, as in the
trajectory of a molecule in a gas or in the voting choice of a particular individual from out of a population.
In conventional analyses, randomness was considered more apparent than real, arising from ignorance of
the many causes at work. In other words, it was commonly believed that the world is unpredictable
because it is complicated. The second notion is that of deterministic motion, as that of a pendulum or a
planet, which has been accepted since the time of Isaac Newton as exemplifying the success of science in
rendering predictable that which is initially complex.

3. Exploration of its implication for human welfare and creation care-ethical Issues.

The Contributions of Science and technology is massive and indispensable to humanity. The ultimate goal
of new inventions, innovative science discoveries and Technological innovation is the propelling force of
 Compiled by:

the world. We live in an age in which the power of science becomes evident every day. A better quality of
life, the advancements in medicine and public health have doubtlessly contributed to an increase in the
life expectancy. Human beings have a natural instinct to gain more comfort in their life. They want easiest
way for recovery from diseases. They want to travel maximum distance in minimum period. They want to
communicate with each other without making barriers by long distance. They want good food, clothes,
shelter and all other things which make life luxurious. Science and technological developments are
helping human population with many ways. The fast change in equipment certainly advances the human
life

The exploration of our genetic patrimony could be the solution in the near future for the most different
public health problems. Explore means to map the genetic resources, study them, know their properties
and applications and use them in a scientific, rational and equilibrated way. First, however, we have to
create conditions for a better utilization of this relative advantage - our mega-biodiversity - establishing a
policy for regulating the access to and the use of these resources.

Research on the genome of plants, microorganisms and animals, use of fungi with therapeutic action,
recombinant DNA technology, improvement of ex situ conservation techniques for biological material,
cloning of plants and animals. There is a great number of possibilities for a commercial exploration not
only of our biodiversity but also of the knowledge of the indigenous populations about use and
preservation of species. Only this way, abuse resulting in destruction of the tropical forests can be
avoided. It is absolutely necessary to amplify the debates involving all interested sectors: the academic
world, private enterprise, the government, scientific societies, non-governmental organisms, politicians,
the media and society at large.

Applied science seems to be the hit, but we must not forget the fundamental role of basic research. Today,
any policy restraining basic research seems to me as irresponsible as the repression of basic research at
the times of Galileo, little before the Newtonian revolution. To invest in basic research means to invest in
new ideas, new solutions, and new knowledge and in the continuity of science itself.

It is also necessary to strengthen and amplify the technological development. Using, nanotechnology our
ways of life, our materials at the nano-scale enhance with higher strength and in larger scale.
Biotechnology boost our lives and health. Synthetic life reengineers the living organisms and bring better
understanding of the chemical and physical mechanism of life. Robotics eases in processing many works,
applications in different arena of human welfare. Artificial Intelligent (AI) are highly technical and
specialized which can be used in speech recognition, learning, planning, problem solving and many more.
Neuroscience soothes the nervous system and help in medication and other strategies of health issues.

God has given human beings the caliber, capacities, potential and a dynamic intelligent to harnessed all
these innovative exploration. We should never implied to rule out God or for playing with the Creator or
deviates from his intentions. We should utilize it to expand the memory given to us in a harmonize ways
with the creation with due care. All these innovations should not destroy or exploit the creation rather it
should enhance and foster the handiworks of the creator.

Unit-8
Critique of Euro-centric Science: Post-Colonial and Feminist Critique

Harding, Sandra. Sciences from Below: Feminism, Postcolonialities and Modernities. Duke: Duke University Press,
2008.

Sokal, Alan and Jean Bricmont. Fashionable Nonsense Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse o f Science. New York:
Picador, 1998.
 Compiled by:

Ralte, Rodinmawia. The Interface of Science and Religion: An Introductory Study. New Delhi: Christian World
Imprints, 2017.

1. Basic Introduction to the Eurocentric and male centric nature of Science with Criticisms from
Post-Colonial and Feminist perspective.

Post-colonial critique and Eurocentric Science

Post- colonial is a condition of a period after colonialism. It also refers to a theory and which refers an
attitude of position with de-centralised with the Euro-centrism. A postcolonial critique is a primarily
critique of the influence of modern Western science on other cultures. It is also fit within a broader
framework of critiques of Eurocentrism, colonialism and the construction of the Non-West as other.
Within Science, the postcolonial critiques argue that Western Science has resulted in partial and distorted
accounts of nature and social relations. Modern science and technology has dislocated the so called third
world countries and societies, distorted the traditional cultures and played havoc with the environment of
these nations. It has also replaced a way of knowing which is multi-dimensional and based on synthesis,
in these societies with a linear, clinical, inhuman and rationalist mode of thought.

The emergence of post colonial critique of science shows that the Western sciences are just one kind of
culturally specific ‘ethnoscience’ among the many that have existed. According to Sandra Harding,
western science which is simply science for Eurosentrists is conceptualized as fundamentally pure ideas,
not as the culturally determinate institutions and practices that historians, sociologists and anthropologists
report. The post colonial studies of science intent to address such as distortion of ideas in the realm of
science.

Post- colonialism argues that Euro-centrism is not the best. Post- colonialism basically means
perspectives which explore/highlights the potential of colonialized. Looking at the reality through the
eyes of colonialized.
1. Post- colonial critique argues that science is multi-faceted socially form embodied knowledge.
2. Science and technology where integral part of civilising machine of Europe. In other words,
Science and technology Dominate and control the colonialized. This modern science was a partner of
colonialized.
3. Some tools: Medicine- was the one of the tools of colonisation, Steam ships, Guns, Different crops
and plants.
4. Modern European science always ignores the local knowledge. And this modern science actually
destroys the local knowledge system. Modern science and technology basically destroy our
knowledge system and expanded the boundaries of their empire.

Joseph Neodham_ Scientific contribution to military, factory, industry, railways, etc.

Sasitharu- Book_ in Glories Empire- the British Empire louted our resources with all the sophisticated
methods and equipment.
K.S. RathaKrishna- the statement of Lord Macaulay_ India had no science to worthy to be taught in
school or college.
Vergirius Xaxa- the introduction of euro centric communication facilities and transportation basically
affected the life of tribal people.
1. It allowed The entry of non-tribal into tribal light
2. Disposes of tribal lad and tribal resources
 Compiled by:

3. Factory based production let to the large scale exploitation of mineral resources particularly
tribal.
4. Euro centric came and encourage to tribal to cultivate the crops which really need. (shifting
cultivation)
Frantz Fanon- Settlers used gun to control the colonist. This gun culture made the colonist violent.
Nelson Mandela- “we are soldiers who will never fight for we have no weapons to fight with”
Desmond Tutio- “we had land after becoming Christians, we have the bible, they have land”.
Albert Memmi-Book_ colonies and coloniser_ in every colonies, coloniser is always privilege.

Feminist critique on Science

The feminist discussion of science is part of the whole feminist movement, done within the walls of
feminist discourse. Scholarship on feminist critique on science emerged in the 1960s and got momentum
in 1970s. Feminist of science raise various questions concerning the androcentric nature of science and
scientific research mostly male biases in scientific research. Feminist of science are not happy about
science and scientific development as it is more androcentric with all its biases in favour of men
neglecting women and women issues. Feminist critique mainly argues- exclusion in science,
discrimination of women in science job, the androcentric biases in sciences, western dualism and male
science superiority, lack of women’s contribution in science, negative portrayal of women in science and
a gender free science.

Euro- centric science is basically man centric science. Feminist critique on science exposed the male
centre of the science. Women are almost completely excludes the science.

Some of the Feminist or Scholars on Science and Feminism:

Evelyn Fox Keller and Ruth Hubband- Women are excluded from scientific institution and women
participation are very less in scientific invention and scientific project. Most of the scientific studies are
man centre. In the past women are excluded from higher education.
Edward Clark in 1873- women would ruin their help if they go to college. It will also to damage
The western society also thinking that women are not capable therefore, they cannot do scientific
invention.
Where were women in scientific studies? Where is women voice?
Sandra Handiy- while accepting the utility and value of scientific endeavour, scientific judgement are
not uninfluenced by cultural, individual, values and beliefs.
Viginia Woolf- science is not sexless he is a man, a father.
David Noble- in the middle ages clericalism envisioned and attempt to maintain a society without
women. Though in the 19th century women were able to enter into academia, they have to face another
clericalism that is a male scientific professionalism.
Eco feminist scholar- modern science and technology to dominate women
Vandhana Siva- nature and women suffer because of modern scientific and technological invention.
Marya Mies- women and nature becomes an object of experiment

Reflections’:

Most of the Feminist critique question objectivity. They argue against one perspective and one value. It is
the myths that women are unfit for science. Why scientific jobs are given only men rather than women?
The ideologies or theories that project women as inferior or emotional.
 Compiled by:

Feminist perspectives on science therefore reflect a broad spectrum of epistemic attitudes toward and
appraisals of science. These perspectives range from urging the reform of gender inequities in the
institutions of science by calling attention to the underrepresentation of women or neglected questions
while still embracing the standards and practices of the sciences they engage, to critical and constructive
alternative programs of research that, to varying degrees, aim at transforming the framework assumptions,
methodologies, substantive content, and epistemic ideals that shape the sciences. Feminist perspectives
appear to have had greater impact on sciences that deal with objects of inquiry that are understood as
gendered—those in the social and human sciences—and, secondarily, on sciences where the objects of
inquiry are often characterized in gendered terms, metaphorically or by analogy (projectively gendered
subjects)—chiefly the biological and life sciences. Feminist perspectives are relevant to sciences that deal
with non-gendered subject matters, but perspectives vary substantially in content and in critical import
depending on the sciences and the particular research programs they engage.
Science is conventionally understood as objective in the sense that scientific work and the results of that
work are free of contextual/non-epistemic values, i.e., moral, social, or political values. Feminist
philosophers of science have offered alternative accounts of objectivity in order to explain how science
that incorporates feminist values can be better, more objective, science. They do so with the aim of giving
accounts that are empirically adequate to the case studies as they stand, without excessive rational
reconstruction. This focus on case studies also calls for alternative analyses of how objectivity is
understood. We have reviewed a variety of alternative approaches that use feminist empiricism and
feminist standpoint theory. In summary, feminist perspectives on science arise from concerns to improve
the lives of all who are affected by gender inequity by encouraging and using better understandings of the
natural and social worlds.
In a world dominated by the dualities of victors and victims, oppressors and the oppressed, haves and
have-nots, the strong and the weak, producers and consumers, creators and beneficiaries, the powerful and
the powerless, there will never be a spirit of harmony, even in such a collective and purely intellectual
enterprise as science.
.
Unit-9

Indian Christian Contribution to Science and Religion Interaction

Ralte, Rodinmawia. The Interface of Science and Religion: An Introductory Study. New Delhi: Christian World
Imprints, 2017.

Gosling, David L. Science and the Indian Tradition When Einstein met Tagore. New York: Routledge, 2007.

1. An introductory survey of some pioneer Indian contributors to the field of science and Religion.

Science and Religion conflict, contrast and problems touches every people all over the world which
confront Indian people also. So, Indian Christian can no longer ignore the gravity of the issues. A number
of Catholic theologians are deeply and seriously involved in the dialogue between Science and Religion.
In some of their institution they have science and religion studies, Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth, JDV
(Pontifical Institute of Philosophy and Religion), Pune is one such institutes which gives effort to the
study of the interaction between science and religion. Let’s discuss the contributions to science and
religion by Indian philosophers of science.

Kuruvilla Pandikkattu, a well-known scholar in the field of science and religion dialogue and Professor
of Philosophy, Science and Religion at JDVidentifies few challenges faced by science and religion in
Indian context.

Three main challenges that face science and religion interaction

 Compiled by:

1. The divine between religion and science in freeing ideas. There is no need for dialogue.
1.1. Religious elements are involved in Indian science. Ex. Ayurveda.
2. Science has nothing to offer which Indian religion have not discover earlier.
3. Dualistic view holds that religion and science are two independent domain which cannot interact.
Dualistic view science and religion are different.
Ex. For Indian realm of ultimate reality Paramarthika and other realm is practical level
vyavabarika

Both science and religion are at the service of humanity. For him nurturing life is the starting point
between science and religion interaction, it is approachable but never attainable.

Kuruvilla arguments:

- He says that, religion can teach humanity about basic value of life.
- Science can make human life easier.

Why should we need Science and Religion? (Kuruvilla)

1. Science and Religion can help us a renewed vision of God and human.

2. Science and Religion interaction can go beyond absolutisation and redaction. Religion can teaches
the value of human life. Science and Religion helps us to know that what we know about Science and
Religion.

3. Dealing the spirit and body respectful. Soul is fact and soul is precious. Matter and soul is integral
part of reality.

4. Learning respecting the autonomy of both disciplines.

Four main values of Science and Religion

1. Acknowledge
2. Accommodate
3. Accept each other
4. Affirms each other
Key movements a Science and Religion dialogue
1. Admire: the arguments of science.
2. Advice: to inculcate right steps
3. Admonish: to correct
4. Advance: to move forward
Job Kozhamsthadam- Science and religion dialogue, challenge and opportunities

One of the best known among Indian Christian in Science and Religion dialogues is Job Kozhamthadam,
a Professor of Philosophy of Science in JDV. His whole idea in science and religion dialogue can be
summarized as “Constructive Collaboration”. He says Science and Religion should not be adversaries
attacking each other. But they can and should comrades collaborating in a common cause. A correct and
unbiased understanding of the nature and the ideals of science and religion will reveal that the relationship
between the two should be one of constructive collaboration aimed at satisfying the human quest for
explanation and understanding and at helping quest of human into total and integrated persons. Science
and religion are two living dynamic discipline. Therefore, they cannot remain the same. Science and
religion are subject to change. This change can happen through meaningful and. This relationship or
dialogical relationship can take these two disciplines into another level of new experiment and producing
 Compiled by:

new knowledge. Both Science and religion is brought for the betterment of human being. While engaging
the dialogue both Science and religion must be aware of their limitation.

Many Jesuit missionary and protestant missionary were not simply missionary, there were also scientist.
52 plants are named after Jesuit missionary and their great contributions in science was undeniable.

William carry- Botany and agriculture-1st person who published first scientific text book in India. He is
basically scientist.

John Mack- he was accomplished chemical science.

These missionary never felt that science is an enemy of religion.

Agriculture research was one of the interesting areas of result of their pastoral concerns.

Allahabad agricultural institute was started with the pioneering works of missionaries.

P. Chenchiah- He reveals by creation… God sense atom, but does not sent with it a treatise on physics
and chemistry.

At a closer looks, science and religion are nor incongruent as it has been proclaimed by thinkers such as
William Draper, Andrew Dickson White and a number of Atheistic rationalists of the nineteenth century.
The Historical instances of conflict between science and religion were shallow and mainly due to
incorrect or limited understanding of both science and religion. A number of Scientists who had deep
theological conviction were of the opinion that science and religion are not enemies, this includes
Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, etc.