1.
William Paley -The Watch Maker
Nicole Bonar
University at Buffalo
LAI531
Science and Religion

3. 
There were at least two major disputes
between science and religion that had a
lasting impact on both disciplines.

4. 

The conflict between Galileo and the Pope over
the church's belief that the earth was the
center of the universe.
The conflict between Charles Darwin and
religion about the origin of the different species
of animals, including humankind.

5. This seems to be the major source of
contention
between opposing sides

6. 
With the advent of the telescope, Galileo’ s
astronomical observations led to his support of
Copernicanism. It was his foothold in
Helicentrism coupled with the views of his most
famous work, “Dialogue Concerning the Two
Chief World Systems, that ultimately resulted in
separation from the church.

7. 
According to Darwin's theory, the
whole history of life is the outcome of
random variations and survival of the
fittest.

9. 
God created the cosmos with a plan in mind.
This affirmation is among the most basic in
all of Christianity. And that plan included
human beings as the final outcome of the
creative process: we are created in the
image of God. (Book of Genesis)

10. EVOLUTION/CREATION
:
A Glossary of Terms

11. 
The belief that the creation story in the Old
Testament or Hebrew Bible of Genesis is
literally true and is akin to a scientific
explanation for the creation of the Earth and
the development of life.

12. 

A movement that has attempted to uncover
scientific evidence to show the biblical
creation story is true.
Some in the creation science movement,
known as “young Earth creationalists,” reject
not only evolution but also the idea that the
universe and the Earth are billions of years
old

13. 
The theory, first articulated by Charles
Darwin, that life on Earth has evolved
through ‘natural selection,” a process
through which plants and animals change
over time by adapting to their environments.

14. 
The belief that life is too complex to have
evolved entirely through natural processes
and that an outside, possibly divine force
must have played a role in the origin and
development of life.

15. 
A belief that Darwin’s evolutionary theory
can be applied to human society and that
groups of people, just like in the wild, are
subject to “survival of the fittest.”

16. 
A statement or principle, honed through
scientific observation, reasoning and
experimentation, that explains a natural
phenomenon.

17. 
A belief held by some religious groups,
including the Catholic Church, that God is
the guiding force behind the process of
evolution.

18. In the past few years the Evolution/Creation
debate has been refocused within the Life
Sciences as an Evolution/Intelligent Design
debate by a group of scientists defending
their religious beliefs. This strategy has not
been as successful as the originators would
have liked.

20. 
A similar Pew Research Center poll, released
in August 2005, found that 64% of Americans
support teaching creationism alongside
evolution in the classroom.

21. 
This view is not shared by the nation's
scientists, most of whom contend that
evolution is a well-established scientific
theory that convincingly explains the origins
and development of life on earth. Moreover,
they say, a scientific theory is not a hunch or
a guess but is instead an established
explanation for a natural phenomenon that
has repeatedly been tested through
observation and experimentation.

22. 
It is said that Science sets the rules of
engagement and refuses to accept discussion on
the concept of God claiming that His existence is
improvable in “scientific” terms.

23. 
Michael Behe, supporting the argument of
intelligent design, contends that most
scientists refuse to consider the obvious
hypothesis that molecular machines could
conceivably appear to look designed because
they really are designed

24. 
In his book Darwin's Black Box (The Free
Press, 1996), biochemist Michael Behe claims
that many biological systems are "irreducibly
complex", that in order to evolve, multiple
systems would have to arise simultaneously.
He claims that such systems exist in biology
and that the existence of "irreducible
complexity" argues for an intelligent
designer. Behe describes in detail several
biochemical systems and alludes to others,
claiming that they are "irreducibly complex."

25. 
Behe says “by irreducibly complex I mean a
single system composed of several well-matched,
interacting parts that contribute to the basic
function, wherein the removal of any one of the
parts causes the system to effectively cease
functioning. An irreducibly complex system
cannot be produced directly (that is, by
continuously improving the initial function,
which continues to work by the same
mechanism) by slight, successive modifications
of a precursor system, because any precursor to
an irreducibly complex system that is missing a
part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly
complex biological system, if there is such a
thing, would be a powerful challenge to
Darwinian evolution.”

26. 
A similar argument for the Creator model is
an analogy known as the Watchmaker
argument given by William Paley (1743–
1805), an English clergyman. Paley proposed
that if a person found a watch in an empty
field, its obvious design would lead him to
rightly conclude that this watch had a
watchmaker. Likewise, the even more
complex design of the world would then
compels us to conclude there is a great
Designer behind it.

27. 
Keith Robinson challenges this thesis in his
review of Behe’s Black Box in saying “A
system is labeled "irreducibly complex" if he
cannot postulate a workable simpler form for
the system. There is no way to prove such a
claim. All we can do is look at the facts and
logic presented, and judge whether it makes
sense.”

28. 
Behe uses a mousetrap design to illustrate
his irreducible complex theory, using the
components of the mouse trap as interlinked
pieces that without even just one, would
render the trap useless.

29. 


Robinson systematically reduces the mouse
trap theory by breaking it down step by step
and showing how in fact, you could still have
a fully functional trap devoid of a piece.
Robinson admits the inferiority of the design,
but maintains its functionality.
He further states “This neatly illustrates the
problem of "irreducible complexity". It is
simply a claim. Only as good as the logic and
facts used to generate the claim.”

30. 
Behe’s response to this discredit is simply to
state that another base (the ground) was
substituted for the original wooden base that
was provided, proving that the trap still can't
function without a base. Which completely
misses the point. The base-free mousetrap
still functions; it simply uses a component of
its natural environment in its workings.

31. 

In some aspects, this argument appears to
reduce to semantics. Does changing the
material, or the sequence render the
subject’s irreducible complexity null?
In Behe’s mousetrap example, whether using
the original parts, or an adaptation, isn’t the
same goal achieved?

33. 

In another attempt to defend Intelligent
Design, Behe takes on Dr. Ken Miller on his
proposal of pseudogenes.
Behe’s claim was that Miller neglected to
explain in a Darwinian step-by-step process
the intricacy of the DNA design, nor point out
any literature that may corroborate his
findings, because the information was
nowhere to be found.

34. 

“The fact of the matter is”, Robinson says, “the
answer can be found in almost any genetics
textbook. There are two major mechanisms for
producing such duplications in biology, and both
have been demonstrated experimentally.”
He further states that Behe is apparently
completely ignorant of the enormous amount of
literature on tandem duplication, in which one
copy of a gene spawns multiple copies. A
common mechanism is unequal crossing over,
due to the recombinational machinery
misaligning two chromosomes. These can be
shown to occur in the lab.

35. 
if evolution is as established as the theory of
gravity, why are people still arguing about it
a century and a half after it was first
proposed?

37. 
Steve Donoghue reviewed Behe’s second
book, Edge of Evolution, and has this to say:
“The Edge of Evolution is a deeply deceitful
book, a screed for religion-inspired mental
apathy masquerading as a disinterested
inquiry into scientific truth. It lies to its
readers on virtually every page, pumping out
a noxious atmosphere of half-truths, leading
assumptions, wheedling insinuations, and
intellectual cowardice. If it were possible for
mere text to be evil, this book would easily
qualify.”

38. 
From Sickle Cell to Malaria, Donoghue
disseminates each postulate Behe puts forth
point by point using hard, provable facts and
reinforces Darwinian theory

39. 
Behe writes: “Is the conclusion that the
universe was designed—and that design
extends deeply into life—science, philosophy,
religion, or what? In a sense it hardly
matters.”

40. 
Donoghues response: “It matters. In a world
gripped in the greatest wave of dangerous
religious zealotry seen in the last five
hundred years, in a world every day engulfed
in religious fundamentalism of all stripes,
and saddest of all, in a world where a
professor of biological sciences can dress
religious fundamentalism in the sheep’s
clothing of science and be warmly aided in
doing so by a major allegedly secular
publisher, it matters now more than ever.”

42. "Science and religion are two windows that people
look through, trying to understand the big universe
outside, trying to understand why we are here.
The two windows give different views, but both
look out at the same universe. Both views are onesided, neither is complete. Both leave out
essential features of the real world. And both are
worthy of respect."
( Physicist Freeman Dyson)

43. "Science
without religion
is lame, religion without
science is blind." (Albert
Einstein) "

44. 









Behe M. 2002. The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity: Every living cell
contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines. Action Bioscience
Journal: p. 2-3.
Brinton HG. 2009, February 16. How to Honor Religion and Science. USA
Today, p. 11A.
Darwin's Black Box - Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible
Irreducibility?
Copyright © 1996-1997 by Keith Robinson
Johnson P. 1991. Darwin on Trial. New York: Intervarsity Press.
Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life
February 4, 2009
Science, Religion, and All That Jazz (1998) by Massimo Pigliucci
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/a-very-singular-revolution/ by
Steve Donoghue
http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html Darwin v. Intelligent Design
(Again) H. Allen Orr
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
http://mysociologicalimagination.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/thedebate-intelligent-design-or-evolution-by-natural-selection/