Origins Exemplars

Page 1

To what extent do you agree that religious and scientific views on the origins of the universe are compatible (20 marks)

Scientists use the scientific method to gain knowledge about the origins of the universe. The scientific method starts with an observation of something in nature, the scientists then forms a hypothesis which is an educated guess to explain the observation. They then design an experiment to test whether their hypothesis is correct. If the experiment supports the hypothesis other scientists can repeat the experiment to verify their findings. One weakness of the scientific method is that it cannot give us proof of anything because it is a process of induction, which means that the best it can do is give us the most likely answer given the evidence available at the time.

Scientific materialists believe that the scientific method is the only reliable method of explaining the origins of the universe. They argue that the Big Bang Theory can explain how our universe came to exist. The classical BBT states that 13.8 billion years ago the space, time and matter from which our universe is made began to exist in a small, hot and dense state which began to rapidly expand and cool, eventually forming the universe we see today. Before this point there was nothing. One weakness of the BBT is that science cannot explain what happened in the moments of the BB because at this point the laws of physics as we understand them break down.

However, the BBT has lots of evidence to support it, for example red-shift. This is when the light from the galaxies furthest away from us is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum, because the light has been stretched. This suggests that the universe is expanding. This implies that at some point in the past the universe must have been much, much smaller.

Professor Brian Cox has said, "you can't say that the Big Bang didn't happen because we can see it." What he means is that using telescopes we can still see the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is the remnants of the first light to shine in the universe.

Religious people gain knowledge about the origins of the universe through revelation, which is God revealing something of Himself to us. For example, Christians believe that God revealed how he wants humans to behave to Moses in the 10 commandments. One weakness of revelation is that often it cannot be verified by others, this makes it a less reliable method of gaining knowledge about the origins of the universe than the scientific method which can be verified.

Literal Xians understand Genesis 1 literally, so they believe that God created the universe in 6 24-hour days and rested on the 7th because they believe that the Bible is the exact word of God faithfully written down by humans. One consequence of this approach is that it is completely incompatible with the scientific view because Literal Xians argue that if the science contradicts genesis 1 then the science must be wrong. Ken Ham, a Literal Xian has said that "if we accept that Genesis 1 is wrong, then that would undermine everything else in the Bible." This means that he believes that the Bible would not be a reliable guide for Christians if any part of it could be shown as wrong.

Liberal Xians like Pope Francis believe that God was the cause of the Big Bang. Pope Francis has said that, "we should not imagine that God is a magician with a magic wand." This implies that he doesn't believe that God created the universe in 6 24-hour days and interprets Genesis 1 metaphorically which would allow the days to be much longer periods of time.

Christians would also use the Kalam cosmological argument to support their claim that God is responsible for causing the BB. The Kalam cosmological argument states that whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause. This is a convincing argument because reason and common sense suggest that we cannot get an entire universe from nothing like the classical BBT claims. This has led Pope Francis to make the claim that although the BB happened "it requires the intervention of a divine creator." I think that this shows that science and religion can be compatible when a variety of methods for understanding our universe are used, this is further supported by the fact that many scientists are also religious.

Page 2

How convincing are religious views on origins? 20 marks

Liberal Christians believe that God is ultimately responsible for the origins of the universe. They would argue that God was the cause of the Big Bang and set the laws of physics in motion which resulted in the universe we see today. They would use the Cosmological argument to support their that the the BB needs a cause. The Kalam Cosmological argument states that everything that began to exist must have a cause, the Universe began to exist, so the universe must have a cause and that cause is God. The BBT supports the claim that the universe began around 14 billion years ago, so the BBT can be used to support the idea that God is responsible for the creation of the universe. They would also interpret Genesis metaphorically, arguing that whilst Genesis tells us the important truth that God created the universe, it is not an accurate historical record of events. Pope Francis has said that "God is not a magician with a magic wand" by which he means that God did not zap the universe into existence just as it is today but that the BB was the process God used to create the universe. This response is very convincing because many scientists would agree that the BB does not give us the full story. They would argue that because science cannot explain the singularity that we do in face need a cause for the BB. This means that Liberal Christians can explain how the universe got here with science and the question of why it is here with God. However, this might be less convincing in the future because it falls into the God of the Gaps problem and as scientific knowledge expands then we may one day have a scientific answer which does not need God. On the other hand, some scientists argue that to even ask what caused the BB makes no sense because the BB marks the beginning of space, time and mater which would meant that there cannot be anything 'before' the BB. This also makes the Liberal Christian response less convincing because if there cannot be anything before the BB then that would include God.

Literal Christians also believe that God is responsible for the creation of the universe, however they argue that God created the universe over a period of 6 days around 6000 years ago. They believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and that Genesis 1 is an accurate historical record of the creation of the universe. They would argue that God created the universe with the appearance of age in the same way that God created Adam as a grown man and not an embryo, so the universe will show signs of age which has led scientists to believe that the universe is much older than it actually is. However, some parts of Genesis 1 don't make sense, for example on day 1 God creates night and day but doesn't create the sun and the moon until day 4 and it is difficult to see how we can have night and day without the sun or moon. Also the account of creation in Genesis 2 contradicts the account of Genesis 1. This makes the Literal Christians response much less convincing than the Liberal Christians view because they understood Genesis literally which makes much less sense. The Literal response is also less convincing because it completely rejects the scientific evidence for the BB. For example, red-shift shows that the universe is still expanding which means that it had to be much smaller at some point and wasn't just created with the appearance of age. Professor Brian Cox has said that you "can't say the BB didn't happen, because you can see it." By which e means the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation (CBMR) which is the leftover light from the very early universe which you can see on a de-tuned TV.

Scientific Materialists would argue that the scientific method is the most reliable way of discovering the truth about the origins of the universe. The scientific method starts when someone makes an observation about something which they want to explain. The scientist would then make an educated guess to explain what is going on, this is called a hypothesis. Next they would design an experiment to test whether their hypothesis was correct. If their results supported their hypothesis then other scientists would repeat the experiment to verify their findings. However, if their hypothesis was not supported by the evidence from the experiment then they would have to reformulate their hypothesis. This process makes the scientific method a reliable way to discover the truth. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has said in support of the scientific method, "It works, planes fly, computers compute." By this he means that all of our modern technology relies on the discoveries science has made. Modern medicine for example, which has been able to cure many diseases which previously killed people has developed reliable techniques using the scientific method. However, the scientific method has limitations, it cannot provide us with 100% proof. This is because it is a process of induction, which means that it can only provide us with the most likely explanation given the evidence that we have available, if new evidence were to be discovered then the explanation may have to change. This means that the scientific method can only ever be partially successful at providing us with an answer to the question of the origins of the universe.

Page 3

Scientific materialists on origins of life/the universe

Scientific materialists would argue that the scientific method is the most reliable way of discovering the truth about the origins of life/the universe. The scientific method starts when someone makes an observation about something makes an observation about something which they want to explain. The scientists would then make an educated guess to explain what is going on, this is called a hypothesis. Next they would design an experiment to test whether their hypothesis was correct. If their results supported their hypothesis then other scientists would repeat the experiment to verify their findings. However, if their hypothesis was not supported by the evidence from the experiment then they would have to reformulate their hypothesis. This process makes the scientific method a reliable way to discover the truth. Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins has said in support of the scientific method, "It works, planes fly, computers compute." By this he means that all of our modern technology relies on the discoveries science has made. Modern medicine for example, which has been able to cure many diseases which previously killed people has developed reliable techniques using the scientific method. However, the scientific method has limitations, it cannot provide us with 100% proof. This is because it is a process of induction, which means that it can only provide us with the most likely explanation given the evidence that we have available. If new evidence were to be discovered then the explanation may have to change. This means that the scientific method can only ever be partially successful at providing us with an answer to the questions of the origins of the universe/life.

Page 4

"Religious and scientific views on the origins of life are incompatible" How far do you agree?

Scientists use the scientific method to discover knowledge about the origins of life. The scientific method has 4 steps, first you make an observation then you develop a hypothesis to explain the observation, this is just an educated guess. You then design an experiment to test the hypothesis. If the experiment supports the hypothesis the other scientists will repeat the experiment and verify the findings. If the experiment does not support the hypothesis you start again. Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, has said "It works". What he means is that modern technology has all been developed using the scientific method, planes fly, computers compute. This shows that it is a reliable method of discovering new knowledge. The major weakness of the scientific method is that is cannot give 100% proof of anything because it is inductive, which means that it can only give us the most likely answer given the evidence available at the time. When new evidence comes along scientific knowledge often changes.

Christians use revelation to discover knowledge about the origins of life. Revelation is God revealing something of himself to us. There are two types of revelation, special revelation is revealed to a specific person at a specific time, for example the authors of the Bible are believed to have received the information from God. One consequence of this is that people have interpreted the Bible in different ways depending on whether they believe the authors were writing the exact word of God or whether they were only inspired by God. General revelation is available to everyone, for example the awe and wonder we experience when we contemplate nature is understood as revelation. One weakness of special revelation is that it cannot be repeated or verified in the same way as the scientific method, we cannot for example know for sure that Moses got the 10 commandments from God.

Scientific materialists believe that we can explain the origins of life without the need for a creator God. They believe that evolution can explain the origins of life. Evolution by natural selection is a process where due to natural variation those creatures who have an advantageous mutation are more likely to survive for long enough to breed and therefore pass on the mutation to the next generation. Over time this leads to the formation of new species, Richard Dawkins has said that 'evolution is a fact'. What he means is that he believes it is a fact because there is so much evidence to support it, for example the DNA shows that all life on earth has a common ancestor, humans share 25% of their DNA with a banana and 99% of their DNA with chimpanzees, which demonstrates that we are related to both but more closely related to chimps than to bananas. The major weakness of evolution is that although it clearly shows how simple life can naturally become more varied and complex it does not actually explain how life got started int he first place.

Liberal Christians also believe in evolution but since it cannot explain how life got started, they believe that God is responsible for starting this process off. They interpret Genesis 1 metaphorically, this means that they do not believe that it is an accurate historical account of the origins of life but that it is telling us that God is the ultimate creator. Pope Francis, a Liberal Christian has said that 'God is not a magician with a magic want' which means that God did not just zap everything into existence in 6 days but that God set the initial conditions and then evolution determined the variety of species we see today. A weakness of the view is that it falls into the God of the Gaps problem, this is where God is used to explain gaps in the scientific knowledge unfortunately as science continues to progress these gaps may disappear leaving no room for God.

Literal Christians

Literal Christians interpret Genesis 1 literally. This means that they believe that it is an accurate historical account of the origins of our universe and that God created everything over a period of 6 24-hour days. This is because they believe that the Bible is the exact word of God. Therefore they do not believe that evolution actually happened. Ken Ham, a Literal Christian, has said that "if we question Genesis, then that undermines everything else in the Bible". This means that he believes that the Bible would not be a reliable guide for Christians if any part of it could be shown to be wrong. This viewpoint is weak because it ignores the huge amount of empirical evidence supporting evolution like the fossil record which clearly shows that dinosaurs did not live at the same time as humans.