In five pages these two theorists are contrasted and compared in terms of their scientific, religious, and philosophical beliefs. One source is cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: RT13_SA203sci.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
and religion. How does one reconcile the two different points of view? Gould notices right away that there is a fundamental problem when looking at science and religion. A student
writing on this subject might want to compare this idea to similar discussions which occur in contemporary society. For example, while Darwinism is taught in the classroom, the teaching of
creationism is prohibited. Interestingly, Darwin who was a trained minister, did not see a conflict with his theories as they respect religion (Jacobus, 2001). Yet, many who take religion literally
cannot reconcile the idea that God created man from dust in just a day, whereas evolution was something that occurred in the course of centuries. Another idea that Gould
presents, that may also be related to contemporary arguments is that if God is good, why does he create despair and suffering in nature?; Gould uses an example of animals
who kill their prey (Jacobus, 2001). The same argument comes forth in respect to animal rights. Many activists believe it is wrong to kill animals. Yet, on the
other hand, animals kill other animals. Gould brings God into the issue and suggests that if God is good, man would not suffer. There are many arguments in that realm.
Many contend that while God is all good, man has free will and brings the suffering on himself. At the same time, animals cannot reason, which brings up even more
difficulties between nature and the idea of goodness. Gould has an answer. He looks at things scientifically. He sees the ichneumon predatory powers as something that is normal and thus,
the scientist does not label predators good or bad (2001). Rather, they are just a part of nature. He accepts things that way that they are. He makes