Religion and Science Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 1

Religion and Science - Essay Example However, in the midst of all those controversies, there are individuals who try to establish a compromise between religion and science. This paper will include the explanation of two quotes, in light of Kenneth Miller’s ideas and thereafter my critical comments regarding the quotes. The first quote to be explained will come from the third chapter of Millers’ book Finding Darwinian’s God, known as ‘God the Charlatan’ (Miller 57). Miller, as a Roman Catholic and as a Biologist, tries to bring a compromise between religion and science. In the third chapter, there is a statement â€Å"†¦creation science †¦corrupts...science and religion†¦deserves†¦intellectual wastebasket, (Miller 67). Here, Miller argues against creation science, since it is limited on the idea that the universe in its entirety as a creation of God, cannot borrow other theories that in its explanation, and most importantly the evolution theory. Miller does not choose sides when it comes to understanding the universe in terms of religion and science. In the statement, he proves that it is not pragmatic or realistic to apply creation science as the ultimate explanation of events taking place on earth. Miller purports that, creation scientists, mislead in terms of applying the version of religious creation to help in understanding the universe. From the statement, Miller further points out that creation scientist entangle the chances of understanding the universe through both science and religion. As a pragmatist, who understands and appreciates religion and science, Miller, affirms on the idea of kicking creation science into wastebaskets. Miller is lead to that idea to the fact that creation scientists embrace God only through disowning science (Miller 80). Miller is a pragmatic individual, has embedded in him religion and science. He understands that understanding the universe, cannot be based on only religion as creation scientist try to claim (Miller 60). When

Ecological Ethics, Anissa Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Ecological Ethics, Anissa - Essay Example The essay points out that Taylor would have said species and matter are vital due to the fact that we need to have respect for nature. I also agree with the idea that man is part of nature and ethics as extending to the whole biotic community. This is regarded as the only view that actually incorporates the biotic community and the land and atmosphere are indispensable to the continuation processes of natural selection and evolution. It has been found that a collective approach intuitively unveils the underworking conditions and webs that actually keep us interdependent and connected. Besides it is very beneficial to be able to economically quantify the values of environmental surrounding. However, the opinion provided by Meadows is a little bit redundant. He claims that in the anthropocentric value system, humans are the fundamental focus of value. On the other hand, Russow brings back the discussion of one individual versus whole. Russow’s standpoint is that we value and protect animals just because of their aesthetic value. I also agree with the author that species matter more than just for the aesthetic value of their individual members. I may add that aesthetics is regarded as a philosophical category, and therefore, every human being across the globe has his own opinion what to consider as aesthetic. Besides, every culture has different perceptions on aesthetic values. What Western civilization regards as beautiful African or Asian cultures would consider as ugly (Carter, 2010). In my opinion, the intrinsic values of species are actually dependent on biodiversity. There are numerous reasons that justify the existence of species. For instance, reductions in biodiversity result to the ecosystem functioning negatively. We should not treat animals differently just because they are not humans. This is because the fact that whether to consider a being a member or not of a species is not morally right. This