This course examines the nature of both science and religion and attempts to explore the possible relationships between them. The primary purpose is to dispel the popular myth that science and religion are entrenched in a never-ending conflict. As a result, this course argues that if the limits of both science and religion are respected, then their relationship can be complementary.
Topics include: Science and Religion Categories and Foundational Principles, Definitions of Science and Religion, Science-Religion Models and Relationships, Intelligent Design and Natural Revelation, the Galileo Affair, Geology and Noah’s Flood, Evolution and Darwin’s Religious Beliefs, the Modern “Evolution” vs. “Creation” Debate, the Problem of Evil, and Interpretations of the Biblical Accounts of Origins in Genesis 1-11.
The course employs a Constructive Teaching Style in order that students can develop their personal views on the relationship between science and religion and on each of the topics listed above.
St. Joseph's College is a Catholic, undergraduate, liberal arts college on the University of Alberta campus. It is an independent institution that is affiliated with the University of Alberta.

SL

Amazing information offered, more than what I could ask for at NO cost. Well instructed course with a wealth of knowledge to attain.

CM

May 06, 2018

Filled StarFilled StarFilled StarFilled StarFilled Star

Great and interesting course for the theologian, philosopher,

From the lesson

Models on the Relationships between Science & Religion

This is one of the most important weeks in the course. We outline the Science and Religion models of two of the founding members of this new academic discipline. Their models each include four different relationships between Science and Religion. John Haught’s model incorporates the relationships of Conflict, Contrast, Contact, and Confirmation. Ian Barbour has Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration relationships in his model. During this week, we will consider the hermeneutical principle of Historical Criticism. This is the notion that ancient Near Eastern motifs of origins—De Novo Creation, Lost Idyllic Age, Great Flood, and Tribal Formation—have been re-cycled and re-interpreted in the biblical accounts of origins (Genesis 1-11).

Taught By

Denis Lamoureux

Associate Professor

Transcript

Episode 87. Our discussion on intelligent design leads us to an Excursus on what is called Intelligent Design Theory. This is a very popular American evangelical anti-evolutionary movement, that emerged in the 1990s. Regrettably, they created a false dichotomy between biological evolution and intelligent design, in that they have forced people to chose either revolutionary design. But, as we've just seen in the previous episodes, with Michael Denton and Simon Conway Morris, why can't evolution reflect design? The central claim of Intelligent Design Theory is that, intelligent design is detectable scientifically. But, this group fails to understand that intelligent design is a belief and it's not a scientific theory. As we have seen previously, the traditional definition of intelligent design is that, it is a belief that the beauty, complexity, and functionality in nature, reflect rationality and point to the mind of an intelligent designer. The focus is on the belief that nature reflects design and not on how design arose in nature. Therefore, it is very important that you do not conflate or confuse Intelligent Design Theory, the anti-evolutionary movement, with the traditional belief in intelligent design. The central concept with Intelligent Design Theory is irreducible complexity. These anti-evolutionists argue that some biological structures are too complex to have arisen through evolution. The favorite example of so-called irreducible complexity, used by the Intelligent Design Movement, is the bacterial flagellum. This motor-like structure in the cell membrane of bacteria spins a hair-like filament at about 1,000 revolutions per minute. And this acts like a propeller, moving the bacteria. Therefore, according to these anti-evolutionists, divine intervention is needed to create flagellum. In other words, this is a God-of-the-Gaps theory of origins. With this being the case, Intelligent Design Theory should really be called the Interventionistic Design Theory, because divine interventions are needed for introducing design into nature. It's worth pointing out that most of the parts of the bacterial flagellum are already present in the cell membrane performing other functions. The reuse of cellular parts to make new structures is a well-known evolutionary mechanism turned recruitment. Therefore, there was no need for a divine intervention to create the bacteria flagellum. Instead, it's self-assembled because most of the parts were already there. Now, there's no doubt about it, the bacterial flagellum is absolutely amazing. And I believe it reflects Intelligent Design, when I look at it. From my perspective, another aspect of design is that the world through evolution self-assembles. This speaks to me of God's incredible foresight and planning in setting up evolution, to create the creation. Therefore, for me, recognizing the flagellum self-assembles is a stunning example of Evolutionary Intelligent Design. The most important leader of Intelligent Design Theory, is Michael Behe. He is a biochemist who coined the term, irreducible complexity. Behe claims that the first cell arose, to quote him, in one fell swoop. And of course, the one fell swooper, is God. So again, this is clearly a God-of-the-Gaps view of origins. Supplementary quote ten is a passage from this famous book, Darwin's Black Box. And it presents his belief in irreducible complexity. It must be pointed out that the science of biochemical evolution is in its infancy. We're only starting to understand how inorganic molecules self-assemble into organic molecules, that then self-assemble into complex biological structures like the flagellum. Currently, there are many theories being proposed but none are accepted throughout the scientific community. And the question must be asked, is this lack of agreement in science evidence of a gap in nature as Behe claims, or is it a gap in knowledge? In that we just don't know yet, how inorganic molecules evolved into organic molecules. In my opinion, this is a gap in knowledge and not a gap in nature requiring divine intervention. Along with natural theology, Ian Barbour's integration relationship, includes Theology of Nature, which can be simply defined as Science being used to reformulate traditional theological doctrines. In Quote 37, Barbour further explains, Theology of Nature holds that some traditional doctrines need to be reformulated in the light of current science. Here, science and religion are considered to be relatively independent sources of ideas, but with some areas of overlap in their concerns. In particular, the doctrines of creation, providence, and human nature are effected by the findings of science. Theology of Nature is the work of 20th century liberal Christianity. But conservative Christians will be concerned, myself included, with the reformulation of traditional Christian doctrines. End of episode.

Explore our Catalog

Join for free and get personalized recommendations, updates and offers.