How do responses to the creation evolution debate

Since the idea of the world we live in being a result of evolution was clearly put forward by Charles Darwin in 1859, in 'Origin of the species', it has been the subject of much debate as to its validity facing the traditional view of creation. Evolution is based upon science and the material realities of the world around us and although, like religion, it asks questions about the world and how it became like it is today, it goes about it in very different ways.Creation is very much proposed throughout religious history as an act of god, and such notions are based on a lot more than what we can see, but more what we believe and hence are conceptual. Evolution is the idea of change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. This view is based on logic and reason and in scrutiny of what we can see, looking only at this and not beyond.

The question that needs to be asked however, is whether or not these views can integrate in any way, and how so. The two views that can be taken need to be analysed in more depth to understand the fundamental differences that lie between the two claims. Looked at from a modern perspective and in our existing society, the issue is where we came from; Adam or the apes? Indeed, base materialism uses genetic variation in much of its claims and sees evolution as a continuous but gradual process. But with such beliefs, god is made redundant and is no longer part of the equation.Darwin's theory of natural selection was backed up by his classification, which was logical, in showing that although many species are dominant, they are only the most advanced of that particular variety, or branch.

Also backing him was the vast fossil record. The further back you trace them, the greater the differences between species, which suggests progression and consequently, evolution. Fisher took this on, using maths and physics to talk about thermodynamics and natural selection towards equilibrium, which led to 'neo-Darwinism'.However, there is another side to the story and in terms of creation, we look at the same issues but through conceptual ideas and faith, as opposed to the material world and the proof we can find within it. Creationists argue that if we take evolution, then humans are just like animals, with the idea of the 'survival of the fittest'.

However, man is different, in terms of intelligence, consciousness and morality and so is not controlled by the same evolutionary laws as other animals, which is showed by altruism amongst humans, with compassion for sick and others.These ideas are very anti-scientific and show that there is more to the world that we live in than the material dimension. Creation, therefore argues that the world we live in is the result of an act of god, and rather than a systematic manufacture, it was made for us and for the creatures within it. Creationists deny any discoveries of science, and their beliefs are taken from scripture and from religious values. Science has been wrong in the past and can be proven wrong again but scripture remains and has never talked for example of the earth as the centre of the world, as the scientists of the time believed.

Science and religion are often looked upon as distinct disciplines, which do not engage with each other, yet science began with study by philosopher (Aristotle was a scientist) and for centuries theology and science were handmaids of each other. Gradually, since the enlightenment, tensions have arisen and today some consider that science either makes religion irrelevant or that science and religion are separate fields, which have nothing to say to each other.Nevertheless interest in the relationship between religion and science has grown rapidly over the last twenty years. Many people are aware of only one or two of the ways that science and religion can relate to each other.

These relationships have been modelled by physicist and theologian Ian Barbour in a way that has become a standard for scholars because of its clarity. Barbour sees the relationships as falling into four categories: Conflict: In the conflict model of the relationship between science and religion, the two disciplines are at war.They try to describe the same reality using such different assumptions and methods that the two views are literally mutually exclusive. One example of a religious discipline that is in the conflict model is Biblical literalism. In this view, the account of creation recorded in the first few lines of Genesis is the only source of valid information about how the world was made; any other explanation offered by science is therefore not only false, but misleading.

Science can also be practiced within a conflict model, and the general term for this is Scientific Materialism.Scientific materialism assumes that only measurable data studied with a specific "scientific method" can reveal truth about creation or anything else that is happening or has happened in the natural world Independence: The independence model of the relationship between science and religion is also called the "Two Worlds" view, because it basically sees religion and science as so different that conflict between them is not possible. Neither is cooperation, however.According to this view, science and religion ask questions about different things: science asks questions about the natural world, whereas religion asks questions about God and about such things as evil, the existence of an afterlife, or reincarnation. It also sees the two disciplines as using very different methods of inquiry. Whereas science uses deduction, experimentation, and analytical reasoning to investigate the questions it poses, religion acquires knowledge through divine revelation, even if that revelation is written about and analyzed later by scholars.

Dialogue: Religion and Science have a great deal in common in the Dialogue model of their relationship. They investigate the same things and ask many of the same questions, but some fundamental differences in methods prevent their complete overlap. Nevertheless, the dialog that can occur between them is substantial and enlightening. Barbour places Nature-Centred Spirituality within this category of science and religion relationships. Integration: The integration model of science and religion relationship is the most synergistic proposed by Barbour.

In this view, science and religion pose the same fundamental questions about reality, and ultimately use the same methods to try to answer them. As a result, wherever the two disciplines appear to suggest very different answers to a particular question, it is up to us to investigate the shortcomings in our own perceptions of what must be (by this view) a single, universal truth. Barbour places Natural Theology and Theology of Nature within this category.