Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Discussion 2: Wonder and the “God Spot”
In the interview this week, Dr. Sharpe explores the relationship between science and the spirit, and discusses how the two realms can coexist with one another. One possible bridge between scientific and spiritual thinking consists of the so-called “God spot,” which Dr. Sharpe describes as the neurological drive to comprehend the “big picture” of the Universe. At the heart of this drive rests humanity’s wonder at the Universe, and this wonder is shared by both scientific and spiritual thinkers alike.
To prepare for this Discussion:
· Listen to the Radio Laureate Interview with Dr. Kevin Sharpe: “The Role of Wonder,” in which Dr. Sharpe describes how Science and Religion can coexist.
· Consider how the notion of “wonder” drives both scientific and spiritual thinkers to learn more about the Universe.
· Reflect on how the scientific and spiritual fields might inform and influence one another rather than simply existing in conflict.
With these thoughts in mind:
By Day 4
Post a 2- to 3-paragraph response explaining how the drive to see the “big picture” of the Universe can still exist in an era dominated by scientific reductionism. Describe the role of wonder in both the spiritual and scientific realms, and explain how it might be possible for science to serve a spiritual function or for spiritual thinking to influence the direction of science.
Resources
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow |
Analyze the Water Footprint Results