Is religious faith compatible with scientific evidence?

Booklet 4 Including Past Exam Questions and Mark Schemes

AO1 Specification content

Philosophical definitions and concepts of miracle, including inherent difficulties with the concepts of ‘laws of nature’ and ‘an interventionist God’

Challenges to belief in miracles, with particular reference to Hume, and arguments in defence of the reality of the miraculous. Candidates will be expected to be familiar with several definitions of ‘miracle’ and be able to outline the concepts and theories mentioned

The relationship between contemporary religious and scientific world views of the origin of the universe and human life, including concepts of creation and evolution and theories of Intelligent Design, Big Bang and continuous creation

Scientific views of the origin of the universe and of human life should include those of Darwin, Dawkins and Hawking, and candidates will be expected to be aware of the variety of religious responses to these views evidenced in the writings of such as Teilhard de Chardin, Peacocke, Stannard and Polkinghorne.

AO2

1. The adequacy of philosophical definitions of ‘miracle’2. How far belief in miracles is reasonable3. To what extent arguments against the occurrence of miracles are convincing4. Whether belief in miracles is essential for a religious believer5. How far attempts to reconcile religious and scientific views of the origin of the world and of

the origin of human life are successful.

1

Creation

The relationship between religion and science

Science is the systemic examination of the world using experimental methods to determine physical laws and principles in order to explain the way things are. It is used as a basis for prediction and for the development of technologies. Clearly, it has had a powerful impact on people’s lives, such that to question the validity of science and scientific method seems to fly in the face of four centuries of advance in human understanding.

So it would seem that religion and science offer alternative ways of understanding the world. If that is so, then – given the success of science and technology – religion is likely to lose credibility, or be seen as a pre-scientific or outmoded way of thinking. But is that necessarily so?

It is possible to define the roles of science and religion in a way that prevents them coming into conflict with each other. For example, one could say:

Science is concerned with facts, religion with values Science examines the world in an impersonal way, religion in a personal Science engages the analytic mind, religion addresses feelings and emotions

However, such divisions will only avoid conflicts provided that religion does not attempt to make factual statements about the way the world is, and science does not have any influence on people’s overall values and behaviour patterns.

But neither side will accept the restrictions. Religion makes claims about God’s actions in creating the world, or intervening in response to prayer or producing miracles – events that go against the scientifically predictable order of things. These things concern the same world that is examined by science and both sides will want to make factual claims. Science is not neutral, it does not deal with just facts. The possibilities opened up by science automatically feed into people’s expectations and understanding of life.

2

However, religious beliefs also claim to give an overall view of the nature of life, to explain why things happen, and to influence events, through the help of God or gods, or through the acting out of moral principles.

Religious beliefs about creation

Introduction

Virtually all religions include an explanation for life on Earth in their scriptures. In March 2006, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, joined the evolution versus creationism debate when he said in an interview with the Guardian newspaper that he did not believe that creationism - the scriptural account of the origins of the world - should be taught in schools.

I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said well, how am I going to explain all this... 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...'

Rowan Williams in The Guardian, 21 March 2006

So what is creationism all about - what does it mean, and why does it matter so much to many religious people? And what is intelligent design and how does it differ from creationism?

The Book of Genesis

The Book of Genesis contains two accounts of creation – the Priestly tradition (Gen 1:1-2:4a) and an older version from the Yahwistic tradition (Gen 2:4).

One way of understanding these two stories is as myth. A myth is a pre-scientific ways of understanding creation.

There are similarities between Genesis 1:1-2:4a and Babylonian creation myths. Myths attempt to answer the same Ultimate Questions as philosophy but in a different way. The creation stories are anthropocentric – i.e. they don’t try and answer why creation exists,

they try and answer the question why do humans exist. The purpose of the creation stories is to introduce the ongoing relationship between God and

humanity starting with Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham…the Patriarchs…the Israelites, Moses…etc.

The Genesis account of creation

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

3

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25

God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,in the image of God he created them;male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

4

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Summary of the first Genesis account of creation – ex nihilo, fixity of species, God decrees

Day Events

5

Write a summary of the second Genesis account of creation –God is more anthropomorphic and involved in creation

Include – the role of the women, the term ‘formed’ or fashioned, the order of events

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

6

Two versions of creation found in GenesisGenesis 1 1 – 2 3 Genesis 2 4 – 3 24

The story - Read the Bible extract and write a summary of this version of creation

The story- Read the Bible extract and write a summary of this version of creation

Analysis and commentary Analysis and commentary

When was it written? When was it written?

What is God’s role? What is God’s role?

Where do humans fit into the story? Where do humans fit into the story?

How long did creation take? How long did creation take?

Any comments?

7

The Concept of God as Creator

Neither Judaism nor Christianity attempts to argue the existence of God as God is assumed as a matter of faith.

The Bible explores the relationship between God and humanity. The Book of Genesis is the main source for Judaism and Christianity’s understanding of creation.

God and Creation

In Genesis God is portrayed as the Supreme Being having no equal. God is separate from his creation - He is transcendent. It is not clear as to whether God creates out of nothing – creatio ex nihilo. God appears to bring order (Gk cosmos) out of disorder (Gk Chaos). Both Judaism and Christianity assume that God did create out of nothing. Some scientists have problems with creation ex nihilo as they argue that matter cannot simply

come into existence. Augustine suggested that time itself is an aspect of the created world – beginning and creating

out of nothing do not refer to some particular moment in time. For Augustine the universe could be eternal, while at the same time created, sustained and

dependent upon God.

God and Humanity

In Genesis humanity is the pinnacle of creation – God looks back on the sixth day and declares that it is VERY good.

God places all creation under humanity’s stewardship to look after and care for it. Both stories suggest an anthropocentric view of creation – it has been placed here for the benefit

of humanity. This is in stark contrast to evolutionary theories of creation – i.e. Darwinism whereby humanity

has come about via ‘blind design’.

Creation Elsewhere in the Bible

The Bible is full of references to God as creator. The Psalms often sing God’s praises as Creator:

The heaven’s declare the glory of God, the vault of heaven proclaim his handiwork; day discourses of it to day, night to night hands on the knowledge.

Ps 19:1-2

Yahweh, what variety you have created, arranging everything so wisely! Earth is completely full of things you have made.

Ps 104:24

8

Christian responses to scientific theories of creation

Creationism – literal accountsThe main points of creationism are these:

All life was created by the actions of God

Some Creationists say God did this in a single creative event

Some Creationists don't limit creation to one event

All the forms of life existing today were created by the actions of God

The organisms created by God can't produce new forms of organism - only God can do this

The most common theory follows the accounts in the Biblical Book of Genesis, but most religions have their own creation story

Modern creationism uses scientific evidence to support scripture

Most scientists say the creationism theory is false and unscientific

Creationism teaches that:

everything in the universe has God as its ultimate cause

the nature of life on Earth is the direct result of God's creative actions

An alternative way of putting the same idea is:

the universe and everything in it could not have come into being without a supreme being causing it to happen

Creationism is largely based on religious belief, but gains much support from what its protagonists see as the failures of other theories to explain the evidence properly.

Forms of creationism Creationism teaches that life on Earth is the result of God's creative action, and not the result of blind scientific processes. Creationism doesn't attempt to explain how God did this:

We do not know how God created, what processes He used, for God used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to divine creation as Special Creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God.

Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say No!, 1979

Young Earth creationism - literal The Book of Genesis is literally true

The Earth and all forms of life were created by God in 6 days, around 10,000 years ago.

Scientists are almost unanimous in saying that as the Earth is 4 billion years old, and that the Young Earth theory is false.

9

Old Earth creationism – non-literal The Earth is as old as scientists say (around 4 billion years)

The universe, Earth, and life were created by processes in which God played an active part

There have been countless divine acts of creation throughout history

God acts both by direct creation and by guiding the processes he created

Humanity was directly created by God

The difference between this theory and Theistic Evolution is that in Theistic Evolution God doesn't play an active part after the original creation of the universe and the forces that operate in it.

Gap creationismGap creationism adds a new idea:

There were two creations - one before Adam, and a second one, which included Adam and Eve, after a lengthy time gap

This theory reconciles the age of the Earth with the story in Genesis

Most scientists say that the geological evidence shows that this theory is false.

Day-Age creationismDay-Age creationism adds an element that reconciles the long period of time shown by the fossil record with the story in Genesis.

Each 'day' in the Biblical '6 days' of creation wasn't really a day, but a period of millions of years. The theory is supported by Biblical references that show that one of 'God's days' is a lot longer than 24 hours.

‘For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by...’

Psalm 90:4

‘With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.’

2 Peter 3:8

Progressive creationismProgressive creationism accepts the scientific timetable of creation, and gives evolution a small part to play in the story of life.

God created the various 'kinds' (some people would say 'species' but other categories have been suggested) of plant and animal one after another - according to the timetable shown by the fossil record. The scientific timetable of creation reflects the timetable that God used to create life on earth. God created each kind of organism as we find it. Different forms of organism are separate creations, not the result of evolution from an earlier form. Some created organisms do become extinct. Micro-evolution can take place within a kind of organism to produce subtle variations e.g. Lions, tigers and cats within the cat family and the different sizes of beak within the Galapagos finches.

10

Intelligent design

The current state of life on Earth has come about through the actions of an intelligent Designer. This is because:

Some living things contain certain types of complexity that are best explained as the result of an intelligent cause

Some aspects of the universe show positive evidence of having been designed by some form of intelligence

This designer need not be God but most proponents of intelligent design seem to have God in mind. This theory has been accused of being creationism in disguise. Although a few scientists have supported intelligent design, the majority of those working in the field regard the theory as false and unscientific. The Intelligent Design theory claims that some sort of supernatural designer was involved in the creation of life on Earth. It differs from Creationism because it divorces Creationist ideas from their roots in Scripture.

The argument in favour of Intelligent Design has two parts:

Evolutionary theory doesn't fully explain the origin and development of life on Earth

Life on Earth - and more generally the universe - shows so much order, purpose and design that there must have been a designer

The important part of the Intelligent Design theory is "design", and the idea that the Universe and life must somehow be designed is a very old one, going right back to Aristotle.

Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century used the argument to try and prove the existence of God:

wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer

nature is complex

therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer

Most intelligent design arguments avoid any reference to scripture and try to eliminate anything that might look as if it was derived from religious belief. The modern concept of intelligent design owes much to Phillip Johnson, an American professor of Law. Johnson published the book Darwin on Trial (1991), and in 1996 established the Centre for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. Johnson put ID forward not as a creationist theory, but as a theory that acknowledged that there was more to the development of life on Earth than could be explained by a totally naturalistic account.

The theoretical foundations of ID were provided by Michael Behe (author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, 1996), William Dembski and others.

11

Why ‘scientific’ creationism denies the evidence of evolution?

Noah’s floodThe occurrence of the worldwide flood (Noah’s flood) destroyed most animal and plant life and greatly affected the processes operating on earth. The water resulted in weathering and made rocks appear older than they actually were.

Carbon datingCarbon dating has been discovered to be incorrect; for example, the ‘evolutionary’ history of the horse has been proven to be flawed and so has the belief that humans descend from apes.

Evolutionary historyScientists already accept that much of evolutionary history has been discovered to be incorrect and it is believed that, eventually, all such ‘histories’ will be proved wrong. For example, an idea called biogenetic law was used as evidence for the theory of evolution. This hypothesis stated that during its development in the womb, the human embryo retraces its evolutionary history – that it has gill slits like a fish, and a tail like a monkey. Modern biology now rejects this theory.

Artificial selectionArtificial selection cannot be considered as natural selection because it is deliberate, guided by intelligence, and supports selective breeding of certain species by mankind. For example, the liger, ‘created’ by man via artificial selection, is a hybrid cross between a male lion and a female tiger.

Fossil recordsFossil records have never supported the theory of evolution. Even Darwin himself was concerned about what he referred to as ‘imperfection of the geological records’. A fossil has yet to be discovered that demonstrates a species in transition, even though evolutionists have been looking for one for 130 years.

Also, mistakes have been made with the evidence that is found, as was made with ‘Lucy’. Lucy is yet another evolutionary fable, and an example of the inevitable circular reasoning behind evolutionary theory. Lucy had nothing to do with human origins, as had initially been believed, but was simply an extinct primate – an australopithecine. There is already evidence which shows that humans appeared in the fossil record before the australopithecines, suggesting that humans and australopithecines lived as contemporaries throughout the australopithecine history, and therefore that Lucy could not be a hominoid.

The case for the australopithecines as human ancestors has been based on three evolutionist claims that:

they were relatively big brained

they were bipedal

they appear in the fossil record at the relevant time

12

In reality, the fossil record shows us that the australopithecines do not appear at the relevant time; they are far too recent. Although brain organisation is more important than brain size, the significant gap between the cranial capacities of the largest australopithecine and the smallest human has not been bridged. There is no smooth transition from non-human to human fossils in this regard.

Australopithecine bipedalityThe evidence for australopithecine bipedality is controversial. First, bipedality does not indicate a human relationship: birds are bipedal, but no one suggests that they are closely related to humans. Evolutionists make much of the alleged australopithecine bipedality because to make a case for human evolution, they must demonstrate the origin of bipedality from a primate stock.

TaskExplain why scientific creationism denies evolutionary theories.

Statement Evidence and example Explanation

13

The origin of the universe

Science assumes that the universe has a fundamental unity and coherence, and that it is capable of being understood: hence the scientific quest for a TOE (a Theory of Everything), a set of principles that will explain how the universe originated and came to be as it is today.

The scientific quest to do this is not so different from the religious desire for an overall source of creative power and reason (God), which will make sense of everything.

Therefore, once again, we find that science and religion are on parallel tracks, each seeking a goal in terms of understanding the nature and significance of life as we experience it.

Dimensions

You do not need detailed knowledge of cosmology, but some idea of the scale of the universe is valuable, simply in order to put theories of origin and religious views into some overall perspective.

There are at least ten billion galaxies in the universe. Our own galaxy is thought to contain 100 billion stars, and to be about 100,000 light years in diameter. The sun, about 32,000 light years from the centre of the galaxy is a relatively modest star – one of ten billion trillion in the known universe.

It is generally held that the universe is 13.9 billion years old, and that our sun (a second generation star) is around five billion years old. The dimensions of the universe are determined by our ability to observe it. We cannot, for example, observe anything that is moving away from us at a speed greater than the speed of light, simply because the light from it would never reach us. Indeed, we cannot even know whether such a thing is possible.

We are part of the universe, not external observers; we can only see the universe from our own perspective.

The Big Bang theory

Tracing the expansion backwards lead to a ‘hot big bang’, when all space, time and matter started to expand outwards from an infinitely small point, called a space time singularity. The ‘hot big bang’ creates time and space, in the sense that space and time as we know them are a feature of what is

14

The Big Bang theory is an explanation for the origin of the knowable universe and the development of the laws of physics and chemistry. It is thought to have taken place some 10 – 15 billion years ago.

The Big Bang Theory is a scientific concept that says that the Universe was created about 13.7 billion years ago when a concentration of mass exploded. The material slowly collected into stars and galaxies as it spread. Observations by astronomers show that the stars and galaxies are spreading apart and that the Universe is expanding. The spectrum of light changes and shifts towards the red if a body being observed is moving away at very great speed. In 1929 E.P. Hubble observed this red shift in the light coming from distant galaxies. This indicated that distant galaxies were moving away from us and away from one another. He also noted that those galaxies that are furthest away, are receding faster than those nearer to us. Hence the universe is expanding and from the speed of its expansion it is possible to calculate its age, probably around 13.0 billion years.

happening within that expansion. It is therefore problematic to try to ask what happened before the ‘hot big bang’ because ‘before’ is a function of time, and the only time we know is time within our expanding universe. To ask about that ‘before’ we would have to step outside time and space.

However, it is always possible to imagine earlier states, other universes before this one, and so on. That is because, as Kant explained, the mind imposes ideas of space and time on everything it experiences or even thinks about.

This theory has great religious implications. Some religions accept the Big Bang theory, while others are opposed to it.

Religious implications

This idea of the Universe being created at a specific time, years ago, has religious implications. It points to the idea that God or some Supreme Being created the Universe and our Earth at that time. A number of religions allude to such a situation in their Holy Books. On the other hand, if evidence shows that the Universe did not to start at a specific time, then the concept of God creating the Universe years ago takes a hit and may seem doubtful.

Christians accepting the theory

Many Christians accept the Big Bang theory as within the realm of possibilities and not contrary to their religious beliefs. The Biblical story of the creation of the world shared by both Christian and Jewish religions says that God created the Heavens and Earth in six days. However, the interpretation considers the question, "How long is a day to God?" This would allow the possibility of 13.7 billion years in formation. In the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Pius XII was a proponent of the Big Bang Theory and the Church follows the idea that creation from nothing stated in Genesis is consistent with the Big Bang. These religions do not take the creation story in the Bible literally, but instead consider it more of a metaphysical tale.

Christians rejecting the theory

There are several religions that reject the possibility of the Big Bang Theory, because it goes against their religious beliefs. Many Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christian religions believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. They believe that the Bible is fact, word-for-word, and that the Earth and Universe were created by God in six 24-hour days.

The concept of the Universe being billions of years old is also contrary to their belief that the Earth is less than 7000 years old.

Summary

The Big Bang Theory is a scientific concept that says that the Universe was created about 13.7 billion years ago when a concentration of mass exploded. This theory has great religious implications of a Supreme Being creating the Universe. Many Christians accept the Big Bang concept. Other Christians such as Fundamentalists are opposed to it.

15

The Steady State– Theory:

The basis of this theory goes against the “cosmological” argument for the existence of the universe. Steady State suggests there was no beginning to the universe. Rather it states that matter and energy cannot be created; therefore the universe cannot be created because it has always been there. This is based on the notion that it has always held the same appearance from whatever time or place it could be observed from.

It further proposes that although the universe is expanding– its galaxies are moving apart from each other and new galaxies replace old ones by filling in the gaps left by dying galaxies. So there is a continuous creation of new particles and matter, and the rate at which this takes place is determined by the expansion of the universe. This happens at a steady rate and always stays the same. The universe is - self-sustaining, self-regulating and can reorganise itself “ad infinitum.”

What problems would the suggestion of the Steady-State theory pose for people who believe in God?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

16

There is no beginning and no end to the universe; it has always been there! 

If the universe is indeed continually expanding and there is no end to the cycle, does this mean that the Bible is wrong and there will not be a day of judgement?

What answer might a believer say in response to this question? Explain:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The evolutionary model for the origin of life

Through the study of simple organisms and the chemistry of living things, we can develop scientific theories about how life on Earth began. The main theory is that living things developed from molecules that could replicate, or copy, themselves, rather like DNA does.

There are two possible origins for these replicating molecules:

they were produced by the conditions on Earth at the time

they came from somewhere else, such as another planet in our Solar System, or further out in space

Over many millions of years these molecules joined with other molecules, becoming gradually more complex and dependent on each other. The process of evolution by natural selection eventually led to all of the different living things that we see on Earth today.

Darwin's theory of evolution

Darwin's ideas caused a lot of controversy, and this continues today, because they can be seen as conflicting with religious views about the creation of the world and the creatures in it.

The basic idea behind the theory of evolution is that all the different species have evolved from simple life forms. These simple life forms first developed more than 3 billion years ago (the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old).

17

Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882)

Charles Darwin was an English naturalist who studied variation in plants and animals during a five-year voyage around the world in the 19th century. He explained his ideas on evolution in a book called, 'On the Origin of Species', published in 1859.

Natural selection

Conditions on Earth

Life on Earth today exists because of the conditions that were present when life was evolving. If, in the past, conditions had been different e.g. hotter, colder, or the Earth more or less massive, then evolution by natural selection could have produced some very different results. Our bodies would have changed to suit the Earth's conditions.

Origins of life

Living organisms on Earth today, and the chemicals which work together to keep them alive, are extremely complex, even in single-celled micro-organisms. Some people find it hard to accept that such complexity could have evolved through natural selection. Some religious people believe that all living things on Earth were made by God, or that life was begun by God but then evolved through natural selection. We will probably never be absolutely certain about how life began, as no one was there to observe it. But scientists must base their theories on evidence.

Evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution

Fossils

18

Fossils of ammonites - sea creatures that became extinct about 65 million years ago

Most of the evidence for evolution comes from the fossil record. Fossils show how much, or how little, organisms have changed over time.

One of the problems with the fossil record is that it contains gaps. Not all organisms fossilise well. And many fossils are destroyed by the movements of the Earth, or have simply not been discovered.

The theory of evolution states that evolution happens by natural selection. The key points are that:

individuals in a species show a wide range of variation this variation is because of differences in their genes individuals with characteristics most suited to the environment are more

likely to survive and reproduce the genes that allow these individuals to be successful are passed to their

offspring Individuals that are poorly adapted to their environment are less likely to

survive and reproduce. This means that their genes are less likely to be passed to the next generation. Given enough time, a species will gradually evolve.

Darwin’s effect on creationism

Darwin’s theory of evolution undermined the biblical account of creation for a number of reasons:

He showed how living things developed in small steps, and how this development could be the result of chance. Darwin thus demonstrated that life-forms were not in their final form at the time of creation, and might not be the work of a designer.

Evolution showed that things changed to fit in with the environment rather than the environment being shaped for their needs. This conflicted with the biblical account that God created the environment for the benefit of various life forms.

Nature red in tooth and claw did not match the idea of a gentle and kind deity, as the exponents of natural theology deemed God to be.

Darwin had accounted for all human characteristics by natural selection from other life-forms, and concluded that humans descended from apes.

Darwin had attacked the Christian idea that humans were unique and made in ‘God’s image’. Christians believed that humans had a spiritual soul, which distinguished them from animals. God put the soul there – but if mankind developed from animal origins then were did Darwin’s theories leave this idea? Were human’s soulless beings like the animals? Darwin cast further doubt on the biblical account of Creation, especially the story of Adam and Eve.

Briefly explain the Big Bang theory.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

19

Briefly explain the Steady State and continuous creation theory.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Briefly explain the theory of evolution.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Briefly explain Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

20

Do religion and science have to be in conflict?

Compatible Conflict

Not literal Scientific discoveries meant that . . .

God of the Gaps

Scientific discoveries have shown that the church has made mistakes. . .

21

2011

3. (a) Examine differences between religious and scientific accounts of the origins of the universe. [30]

NB Candidates should be drawing out differences as opposed to reeling off information about the respective accounts. The better answers, then, could include the information below, but in the form of: "Religious accounts occur in a relatively short period of time, whereas Science...."

Religious view- purpose/meaning; choice; looks at the "why", God/gods; found in sacred writings and/or traditions; different interpretations of creation stories; values the spiritual; faith; fixity of species; divine creations, including humans in "image of God;" timescale etc.

Scientific view- Big bang; accident; looks at the "how"; based on human observation; values the physical and reason; humans - not part of process at the very beginning etc. [30]

(b) ‘Religious and scientific views of the origins of the universe cannot be reconciled.’

Evaluate this contention. [20]

Agree

• The big bang does not need God;

• Literal understanding of Creation stories; Creationism.

• Steady state theory does not necessitate a God.

• Later Hawking (no need for God).

• Newton's mechanistic universe does not need a God.

• God of the gaps-so few gaps as to be non-existent etc.

Disagree

• Big bang could have been a conscious decision of God.

• Non-literal interpretation of Creation stories.

• Steady state allows for a god.

• Earlier Hawking; Newton-God "set up" mechanistic universe; god of the gaps serves a purpose; specific scholars e.g. de Chardin, A. Peacocke, R. Peacock, Polkinghorne etc. [20]

2012

3. (a) Explain why belief in miracles may be challenged. [30]

Candidates may use some of the following:

Hume's criticisms.

Just a coincidence.

Leads to an arbitrary God who is "not worthy of worship".

Not compatible with love and justice.

Not compatible with Creator establishing laws of nature.

"Breadth or depth" applies here. [30 AO1]

22

(b) ‘Belief in miracles is essential for a religious believer.’ Assess this view. [20]

Agree Candidates may refer to:

Attested in sacred writings.

Basis of faith.

Gives credibility to the ministry of founders of faith.

Evidence today e.g. healing.

Shows God's revelation etc.

Disagree Candidates may refer to:

Other parts of sacred writings are just as essential.

Miracles may not be the basis of a faith.

Religion is more than belief in just one phenomenon.

Not compatible with an impartial God.

Belief involves free-will which miracles usurp etc. [20 AO2]

2013 3. (a) Examine what philosophers understand by the term ‘miracle’. [30]

More than one definition is expected. Any philosopher can be credited.

Below are the ones often read in scripts:

Aquinas’ three types.

Holland ‒ ‘a coincidence taken religiously as a sign’.

Hume ‒ ‘a violation ... invisible agent’.

Swinburne ‒ look for references to ‘timescale’ and ‘religious significance’.

Hick ‒ ‘evoking and mediating awareness ...’

Mackie ‒ ‘a violation ... supernatural’.

(b) ‘No definition of miracle is adequate’. [20 AO2]

This will involve working with the definitions of miracle and assessing their adequacy. Arguments may include the following but credit any valid arguments:

Some definitions are too restrictive/too broad.

A coincidence is not a miracle.

A definition must/not involve God/gods.

Laws of nature can/not be broken.

A miracle is what the individual defines it as, etc.

23

2014

Q.3 (a) Examine religious views of the origins of human life. [AO1 30]

Candidates are likely to include some or all of the following but credit other relevant points:

Creation stories from any religion; differing interpretations are acceptable to cover the plural 'views'-

myth, metaphor, literal and so on.

Conscious decision of God or gods.

Possible involvement of God in the Evolutionary process/Anthropic Principle.

Answers "why?"

Fixity of species.

God's design.

Intelligent design.

(b) 'Religious and scientific views of the origins of human life are incompatible.' Assess this view. [AO2 20]

Candidates are likely to include some or all of the following but credit other relevant points:

Agree

Literal understanding of Creation stories does now allow for compatibility with science.

Fixity of species is incompatible with scientific origins.

God of the gaps -so few gaps as to be non-existent.

Evolution-no need for a God.

Scientists who say they are incompatible.

Disagree

Non-literal interpretation of Creation stories.

There are theologians who claim they are not incompatible.

Anthropic principle-God designed the conditions necessary for Evolution.

ID claims to justify religious views via scientific means.

There are theologians who say they are compatible.

2015

(a) Examine reasons for not believing in miracles. (30 marks)

(b) ‘Challenges to belief in miracles are unconvincing.’ Assess this view.. (15 marks)

24