In its second phase, following the Enlightenment,
the mechanistic worldview became materialistic and atheistic.
Yet there always has been a stream of thought and life that rejected
the mechanistic worldview.
There is now a growing realization that science, as such, does not require
a mechanistic worldview.
The Hebrew understanding of «the land» certainly implied relations to nature that are excluded in
the mechanistic worldview.
Rolston laments that many influenced by
the mechanistic worldview of industrial civilizations think of nonhuman nature as something devoid of value until assigned importance by human beings.
Without these, there will be no progress in science and specifically now, no breaking of the power of the deeply entrenched
mechanistic worldview.
A second response was to develop a different worldview in which Christians could both affirm the empirical evidence for evolution and deny that it has the reductionistic implications given it by
the mechanistic worldview.
My point here is that evolutionary theory, developed in the context of
a mechanistic worldview, was a real threat to faith.
Scientists, in any case, continued their work through the nineteenth century on the assumption of
the mechanistic worldview.
Not exact matches
The concept of a
mechanistic universe became the dominant
worldview soon after the rebirth of science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
On the other hand it presented the case for the modern
worldview as
mechanistic and bound inevitably to progress on the wings of science.
The
worldview that has been increasingly dominant since the seventeenth century, due to the work of Galileo, Descartes, Boyle, Newton and others is a
mechanistic view of nature.