Nick Lubic
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
16 September 2008
Science vs. Religion
Throughout the novel “Challenging nature”, Lee M. Silver proposes many scientifically facts and ideas that tend to refute the basis of many religions today. More specifically, Silver discusses that evolution has become a major threat to these religions, and he believes that science will eventually prove some religions, especially Christianity, to be incorrect. He feels this way because recent advancements such as DNA analysis have shown that human beings are descended from apes. In addition, he argues that the physical nature of human beings occurred in a gradual process, rather than a spontaneous event like Christians believe. However, these facts and future research will have no direct threat towards religions such as Christianity.
The most obvious argument that Silver makes on this topic is our DNA, when compared to chimp DNA, has similar features that can lead one to believe that human race arose not from God, but from a series of genetic mutations. Evidence of this argument is shown when Silver states, “If you compare human DNA with chimp DNA, you’ll find that it’s about 99 percent the same” (Silver 85). He goes on to say, “Of course, it’s highly unlikely that any single change in DNA could be responsible for the many ways in which human minds differ from those of chimps, but many scientists have come to the startling conclusion that subtle changes in DNA next to just a few thousand genes might have done the trick” (Silver 86). These statistics refute what Christianity and other religions believe in, but they pose no threat to religion because scientists will probably never be able completely distinguish humans from apes. Until there is solid proof that genetic mutation is the source of the human race, religious believers will refuse to believe this idea on the basis of the beliefs that were instilled in them throughout there lives. For, some people, even cold, hard facts are not enough to cause them to completely lose faith in there religion. Until this aspect of the human soul is destroyed, this particular evidence has no threat on religion in the future.
There is also another set of scientific data in the same passage that Silver uses to challenge the religions of today. Silver specifically states in the same chapter that scientists will eventually be able to tract down a specific moment in time when human beings were raised from chimps. This moment in time would, he presumed, refute the ideas of when the human race began according to the bible. He uses a passage involving the Pope to add to this saying, “The pope accepted the possibility that scientists would narrow the critical window of time during which traits ‘specific to the human being’ appeared, but he was adamant that science could never identify ’the moment of transition to the spiritual’” (Silver 94). Again, although this idea could eventually prove certain aspects of religion to be wrong, the Pope states correctly that certain aspects, like the human spirit, can never be traced or proven to be related to chimps. Because of this reality, Silver’s argument does not directly threaten this aspect of religion. There are certain aspects of the human race that will never be truly accepted no matter how much scientific data there is to back it up.
Silver’s view on evolution contrasting the views of many religions today is evident throughout these passages in the book. He attempts to show the reader the facts instead of trying to be morally and socially accepted. The truth remains, however, that people are often unwilling to accept information, no matter how important or convincing it may be. In the future, religion will be safe from the disputes that scientists put on it because of a strong sense of faith passed down from generation to generation. Only when people start to look at scientific data such as evolution in a new light will they be able to let go of the religions that they hold close today. Until then, Silver’s arguments are irrelevant to people who have a strong faith in God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I liked your first paragraph the thesis was clear, but I felt like maybe u shouldnt have cited some eveidence as to why Silver felt that way in the introductory paragraph. But it does not take that anything away from the paragraph.
In the second paragraph, I wouldnt say "most obvious argument", but most compelling or strongest. Because it is not look the author is trying to be subtle about his stance against religion. The scientists arent going to prove their point by distinguishing humans from apes, but rather like you said in the next sentence prove that dna mutations occured. THe last sentence says "aspect of the human soul", their faith isnt part of their soul(Silver doesn't believe they exist), it is part of their human nature, or you can say part of their brain chemistry(at least according to the book). But i dont know what your beliefs are so to you the sentence might make sense.
You use the word refute too much, and u should have put the actual part of the passage where he says they will track down that moment in time. But the pope quote does clear things up a bit. Although I believe u are right that people arent completely logical when it comes to the facts, an example of pigheadedness would have been a nice addition to your argument. For the readers cannot just go on your judgement of human nature.
Because of the missing examples to solidify your argument it seemed like a little was missing in the essay. It seemed like the theme of it was Silver proves this and that but people wont listen because theyre stubborn. There werent that many grammatical errors just a couple.
Nick Lubic
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
20 September 2008
Science vs. Religion
Throughout the novel Challenging Nature, Lee M. Silver proposes many scientific facts and ideas that tend to refute the basis of many religions today. More specifically, Silver discusses that evolution has become a major threat to these religions, and he believes that science will eventually prove some religions, especially Christianity, to be incorrect. He feels this way because recent advancements, such as DNA analysis, have shown that human beings are descended from apes. In addition, he argues that the physical nature of human beings occurred in a gradual process, rather than in a spontaneous event like Christians believe. However, these facts and future research will have no direct threat towards religions such as Christianity.
The most compelling argument that Silver makes on this topic is that our DNA, when compared to chimp DNA, has similar features that can lead one to believe that the human race arose not from God, but from a series of genetic mutations. Evidence of this argument is shown when Silver states, “If you compare human DNA with chimp DNA, you’ll find that it’s about 99 percent the same” (Silver 85). He goes on to say, “Of course, it’s highly unlikely that any single change in DNA could be responsible for the many ways in which human minds differ from those of chimps, but many scientists have come to the startling conclusion that subtle changes in DNA next to just a few thousand genes might have done the trick” (Silver 86). These statistics discredit what Christianity and other religions believe, but they pose no threat to religion because scientists will probably never be able to completely distinguish the DNA of humans from apes. Even if there is eventually solid proof that genetic mutations from chimp DNA are the source of the human race, religious believers will refuse to buy in to this idea on the basis of the beliefs instilled in them from birth. An example of this religious stubbornness can be found in the past achievements of the famous astronomer, Galileo. He was imprisoned for his discovery of moons that orbited Jupiter, which gave proof that not all bodies circled the earth, as the Catholic Church had claimed (Silver 39). This only further supports that, for some people, even cold, hard facts are not enough to cause them to completely lose faith in and defend their religion. Until this spiritual aspect of the human psyche is destroyed, this particular evidence has no threat on religion in the future.
There is also another set of scientific data in the same passage that Silver uses to challenge the religions of today. Silver specifically states in the same chapter that scientists will eventually be able to track down a specific moment in time when chimps evolved in to human beings. This moment in time, he presumed, would disprove the ideas of when the human race began according to the bible. He uses a passage involving the Pope to add to this, saying, “The pope accepted the possibility that scientists would narrow the critical window of time during which traits ‘specific to the human being’ appeared, but he was adamant that science could never identify ’the moment of transition to the spiritual’” (Silver 94). Again, although this idea could eventually prove certain aspects of religion wrong, the Pope states correctly that certain aspects, like the human spirit, can never be traced or proven to be related to chimps. Because of this reality, Silver’s argument does not directly threaten this aspect of religion. There are certain aspects of the human race that will never be truly accepted no matter how much scientific data there is to back it up.
Silver’s view on evolution disputing the views of many religions today is evident throughout these passages in the book. He attempts to show the reader the facts instead of trying to be morally and socially accepted. The truth remains, however, that people are often unwilling to accept information, no matter how important or convincing it may be. In the future, religion will remain safe from the disputes that scientists put on it because of a strong sense of faith passed down from generation to generation. Only when people start looking at scientific data such as evolution in a new light will they be able to let go of the religious beliefs they hold close today. Until then, Silver’s arguments are irrelevant to people who have a strong faith in God.
Giovanni - Good, detailed work.
Nick -
Nitpick - it's not a novel - novels are always narratives, and generally fiction. This is just a book.
At the outset, you're in danger of dodging the assignment, which calls for you to focus on a precise challenge that Silver raises. Evolution, broadly conceived, is important through the entire book - this isn't going to get you much of a focus (as proven by the fact that you don't start out citing a passage!)
I think your main idea here - that history shows that people will ignore the facts where religion is concerned - is fine; it also has the merit that Silver more or less agrees with you.
Nonetheless, you make a cascade of mistakes. For instance, paraphrasing gets you into trouble - Silver does not argue (nobody does!) that people descended from chimps, but that people and chimps both descended from a common ancestor. This kind of error, while it doesn't directly wreck your argument, makes it seem like you don't know what you're talking about. When you paraphrase, *be careful*. Make sure you've got it right.
A more serious problem is a simple issue of logic. You claim that resistance to Galileo proves your point - that people will take faith over facts. Ok - can you show me anyone now who believes that Galileo was wrong? Your example, if anything, disproves your argument.
You get into these kind of difficulties, I think, because you started out with an excessively broad argument, which also led into a chaotic structure (long paragraphs covering several topics instead of one, etc.).
Conceptually this was fine, but you bit off more than you could chew, instead of focusing narrowly, which led you into a series of errors.
Post a Comment