You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Why does Ruse say that Creationism should not be understood as a Science
Pages 3 (753 words)
Creationism-science is an epitome of an oxymoron; a phrase that has built in it two institutions of knowledge that do not amalgamate. Taking the literal senses of the words that make up phrase is taking up a much bigger debate; the debate of religion versus science. …
The two have not had fecund collaboration in history except the uneasy relationship philosophy, religion and science had during the medieval period. Called the dark ages, it shows that combining religion, philosophy and science does little good, if any. The burning of Giordano Bruno at the stake for pushing the envelope past what the church accepted underscores the uneasy marriage that was philosophy (and by extension science) and religion. At the center of this discussion are creationism and why the philosopher and historian Michael Ruse holds that it should not be understood as a science. First, it is necessary to look at what creationism is. Creationism is understood as an explanation of the existence of the earth, the universe and all that is in it from a biblical perspective. Creationism and the Christian creation story found in the book of genesis of the bible are inextricably tied as it is the creation story that lays the foundation for creationism. Scientific creationism (which will be used interchangeably with creation-science) is the scientific explanation and vindication of the creation story. ...
Not exactly what you need?