Carlos Carpizo Mr. Jensen TOK 23 February 2013 Where Does the Evidence Lead?

1) Is it possible to provide some rational or logical justification for a religious belief through the collection of evidence, using the same kind of data that a scientist might collect for the development of various theories which attempt to explain the nature of the universe? I think the key word in the question is some. Yes, it is possible to collect scientific data that can strengthen ones belief in religion. However, science will never be able to prove the existence of a Creator, let alone discern which, if any, of the mythologies humanity has created over thousands of years is true. To use the example of irreducible complexity, this theory leads to the conclusion that Darwinian theory does not sufficiently explain the origin of life. Because it does not offer an alternative theory, it leads to uncertainty as to what the origin of life is. This theory, as the rest of science, does not wholeheartedly support the idea of an Intelligent Creator, rather leaves the door open for the discussion. Therefore, a Leap of Faith will always be necessary to justify ones religious beliefs. 2) The ID theorists obviously have a particular worldview that they are pushing. However, with that in mind, are the scientific theories that have dominated the cultures paradigms prior to the introduction of the new ID theories without any bias? Can nonreligious belief systems which claim to provide all-encompassing explanations for the

universe be purely philosophical, or do they function like a quasi-religious belief system for many people? Yes, societies and cultures will always have biases in terms of interpreting scientific data. Cultures in the past have generally tried to find information that coincides with their religious views and reject discoveries that seem to contradict their religion. A good example of this would be the Pope declaring Galileo a heretic for publishing his findings on the solar system, which were eventually proven to be correct. The two primary purposes of religion throughout history are 1) forming an explanation for the creation and nature of the universe, and 2) establishing a set of laws/ a moral code. Although non-religious belief systems can serve the first function, they cannot serve the second. Because of this, they are purely philosophical and cannot operate in the same way a religious system of beliefs can. 3) What did you think of the kind of arguments used by scientists in the ID movement to justify their new theories? Were their arguments confusing, interesting, compelling, or do you think they are a form of propaganda? Explain your answer. The complex material was presented simply and with good use of graphics, so the arguments were not confusing. The matter of the origin of life is fascinating, so they were definitely interesting. I think that the arguments presented by the ID scientists were very factual and logical, therefore compelling. However, I think that they were not propaganda because of the intent of the research behind them. The scientists did not go into the process of researching cell structure in order to prove Intelligent Design or to try to disprove Darwinian theory. The researchs intended end was knowledge. On the other hand, research with the direct intent of proving or disproving something lends itself to

being manipulated easily, leading to the opposite of the truth, which is the supposed goal of scientific research in the first place.