The Vaticans Position of Pope Francis I - Assignment Example

PART A Determine the Vatican’s position on the authenti and value, as a Holy Relict, of the Shroud of Turin to the Church The shroud of Turin is regarded as a part of linen cloth. As per the perspective of the tradition of the Catholic Church, the shroud of Turin is presumed to have wrapped the body of Jesus Christ after his death on the cross. It has an image of a man in a length which is a full photo negative image on both sides and also that image contains some signs of wounds that clearly correspond to the Biblical point view of crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The skeptics point of view concerning on how the image was created is not well known but they believe it was forged while according to the devotees, it is believed to have being burnt into the cloth during the time of Christ’s resurrection. The first three popes have been so keen not to be involved definitively in the authenticity and value of the shroud of Turin and taking it as an important icon that encourages genuine faith to the people regardless of its first historical origin. The Vatican’s position of Pope Francis I, is to showcase the pilgrim of love and that of faith to the people. Scientifically, a test from the radiocarbon dating that was performed from a few samples of the icon in three different laboratories showed that the samples that were tested dated from the age well known as the middle ages, that is, between 1260 and 1400 and also the results were similar from the three laboratories. The refutation from other scientists is that the results from the radiocarbon could be off by centuries. They argued that the results could be off by centuries due to the contamination of the cloth by bacteria. For example, the burial shrouds of Egyptian Pharaohs may test two centuries later than their actual ages. The scientific position of the church is that the shroud is older than the carbon dating while the non-scientist is that the authenticity is not a good reason for faith. Pope Francis I, should know that the shroud of Turin is not real since there are a lot of irrefutable evidences. 2. Identify the similarities and differences between the methods of natural sciences and social sciences There are two tradition methodologies that exist. One state that the social sciences and the natural sciences are similar and this is highly evident by the economists. The other tradition methodological states that the social science is involved with specified problems that expect specified methodology in social science as in the same case with the natural sciences. Taking an example of actors, the way they go through or rather tackle situations and the way they bring out their motives. The actor’s behavior is being determined by the actor’s motives, the situation at hand and how the actor defines that situation. According to both the natural science and the social science, the behavior is the one that determines the actor’s sense of tackling the situation at hand. . Also, there is similarity between the social science and the natural science when it comes to painting. The image that is to be painted is the representation of social science while the calculations involved when painting represents the natural science, implying that both social science and the natural science are involved in painting. According to humanities, social science is obtained from the field of history and philosophy, but sometimes it is presumed that the social science is created in a way that is much different from the humanities as they represent the scientific branches in sociology that include the sociology and economics while the natural science brings out the major skills that are extracted from scientific branches of natural like the physics, chemistry and many more. In the case of painting, the difference between the natural science and social science is well brought out. When painting, the energy that is applied by the painter, the contraction and relaxation of the muscles and also the calculation applied brings out the concept of natural science while the image to be painted brings out the concept of social science, hence the difference between the natural and social sciences. 3. The contribution of each of the scientists and how their contributions fit together and how they further our scientific knowledge Maurice Wilkins contributed to the discovery of the DNA’s structure which is a very crucial aspect of life and he is among the scientists who attained their dreams. Maurice Wilkins worked hand in hand with Rosalind Franklin and they came up with a molecular structure of the DNA, which is well known as the deoxyribonucleic acid. The DNA is now widely used in investigation by police to determine the pinpointing criminals. Francis Crick also solved the structure of the DNA. Francis Crick had the purpose of solving the puzzle of DNA and also to come up with a way in which it builds proteins. Francis Crick together with his fellow scientist, James Watson, centered their research on the central dogma which is the DNA’s storehouse of the genetic details or rather information as the RNA was the carrier of this information from the nucleus to the central of the cytoplasm where proteins are created. After the concept of RNA coding was discussed in a motion well known as debate, Francis Crick together with Sydney Brenner came up with a proof concerning the genetics that a triplet code was involved in the reading of the genetic materials. Oswald Avery did experiments on so many bacteria as he used different methodologies like the immunological together with chemical methods and eventually, Avery came up with a publication of a clinical study concerning the tuberculosis bacterium. Frederick Miescher used to isolate new molecules well known as nuclei from nucleus cell and do some experiments on them. He discovered that the components of the nucleus where the hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorus and they exists a ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus. Erwin Chargaff came up with DNA rules that are known as Chargaff’s rules, that is, the number of adenine equals to thymine, guanine equals to cytosine and finally purines equals to pyrimidine. PART B: 4. How Bishop James Ussher computed the age of the earth to be approximately 6000 years old Bishop James Ussher keenly calculated the dates by going back to the creation time from the perspective of the Bible. The Annals of the New Testament were his first chronology as he calculated the date in a Christian way as 4002 BC. The calculation wasn’t scientific since he used historical periods like the genealogies, period of kings and the period between the testaments. According to the scientists, the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old. It is correct as scientists deal with evidence. Through science, earth’s age is determined through noting the relative ages of units of rocks in a given region through stratigraphic relations. Then the radiometric dating proofs the ages as per the stratigraphy and the paleontologist, which is always the same. 5. Might We Fit Inside a Sponge’s Cell Might we fit inside a sponge’s cell essay states that the fossil population is too little and also the strongest parts of the fossil are the only ones that fossilize. Some structures may seem to be similar in all ways but they may not be homologies. This is a good example of evolutions which are convergent. For instance, the bats, insects and the birds’ wing, which support flight, but none of them shared the same ancestors who could fly (Gould. 1992). Might we fit inside a sponge’s cell is crucial to the course since it bring out clear information to the community of scientists concerning the present life which has evolved from the ancient life. It tries to explain where the current life originated from. The insight involved is that, a common similarity was recognized when the universe accepted the concept of evolution either through natural selection or rather mechanism as the evolution implied the same or rather one common origin in everyone’s life. This is well known as homologies which imply a common ancestry. Works cited Gould, Stephen J. The Pandas Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: Norton, 1992. Print. Read More