New Scientist on evolution

[The Procrastinator]

I'm finding it painful to read them all too, but only because I have a painfully slow dialup connection! I have given up, having only read a handful, but so far I didn't spot any emotional stabs either. Perhaps I haven't read the right articles, or perhaps its a subject I'm not so emotional about?

I've always had the idea that both "sides" need to listen to one another - thats common sense. So I'm listening - I would be interested to know which parts Jonesy finds arrogant etc.

[Anthony G Williams]

I agree with Dave. There is no compromise or meeting point between the Creationists and the scientific approach. You either believe the overwhelming accumulation of evidence from many different sciences concerning the vast age and slow development of this universe and the life on our planet, or you believe one of the ancient creation myths (of which there are many). It's one or the other.

[j. d. worthington]

As you say, Anthony, when it comes to fixed, unchangeable positions, science doesn't deal in facts. To clarify, however: when it comes to the things upon which the "theories" (a term which means something entirely different in science than it does in common usage) are based, it does deal in facts -- or, if you prefer, evidence. That is, the facts of observable reality, which can be tested, retested, challenged, etc.

The problem with creationism is that it simply does not take this as the basis for drawing conclusions, but looks only for "facts" that bolster an already existing position. This is no way to arrive at the truth; this is rationalization. That being the case, there is no reason whatsoever for any scientific writer/magazine to pay any attention to creationist "theories" (common usage) until they alter their approach and begin with the existing facts (or evidence) and work from there, rather than the other way around....

[clovis-man]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

The problem with creationism is that it simply does not take this as the basis for drawing conclusions, but looks only for "facts" that bolster an already existing position.

Exactly. Deductive logic as opposed to inductive logic. In flawed deductive logic (not all deductions are flawed), you could say that horses have four legs, therefore all animals with four legs are horses. Inductive logic might conclude: In an examination of 100,000 horses, all those seen had four legs. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that horses usually have four legs.

Not as dramatic, but certainly more grounded in fact.

[The Procrastinator]

Good-o, we've identified the problems with creationism. Go us.

Now what are the problems with science? (Anyone who says none, has to write lines after class.) Science is right, and provably so, about so many things - yet not exactly winning the battle for hearts and minds in the good 'ol US of A. What's wrong with this picture?

[Anthony G Williams]

Originally Posted by The Procrastinator

Good-o, we've identified the problems with creationism. Go us.

Now what are the problems with science? (Anyone who says none, has to write lines after class.) Science is right, and provably so, about so many things - yet not exactly winning the battle for hearts and minds in the good 'ol US of A. What's wrong with this picture?

There's nothing "wrong" with the scientific method as a way of discovering how the material world works. It has a remarkable record of success running for thousands of years, which it continues to build on. If it didn't work, we'd still be in the Stone Age.

What science does not do is address the possibility that there might be a non-material world. It doesn't offer any certainty about the meaning of life, any promises of divine guidance, forgiveness, or any kind of life after death (let alone a wonderful one, with X number of virgins, or raisins, or whatever). These are the Unique Selling Points of religion. Unfortunately, unlike the output of the scientific method, they are entirely untestable. And the fact that all religions differ from each other in the certainties they offer has to raise a rather large question mark about their validity.

It's just as well that religions aren't subject to the Advertising Standards Authority, or they'd have to drastically change their message. Like in James Morrow's novel 'City of Truth', in which the cathedral has a large illuminated sign saying "Assuming God Exists, Jesus May Have Been His Son".

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by The Procrastinator

Good-o, we've identified the problems with creationism. Go us.

Now what are the problems with science? (Anyone who says none, has to write lines after class.) Science is right, and provably so, about so many things - yet not exactly winning the battle for hearts and minds in the good 'ol US of A. What's wrong with this picture?

It isn't only the U.S. -- look at how religion and mysticism have made such a resurgence all around the world in recent decades; the more fundamentally superstitious and counter to scientifically observable reality, the better.

For my money, it is likely to be chalked up to the following: Science removes a feeling of "certainty" based on ignorance rather than knowledge; it offers no absolutes in its place, only that which follows the strongest probabilities; in order to understand science, it takes effort, study, a lot of thought, and even then some things are simply going to be too complex for the majority -- heck, as even some of those in the field have noted, "if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory".

Religion, or mysticism, on the other hand, presents things that sound logical and reasonable (if you don't have a fairly good grasp on the evidence), are reassuring, have a "commonsense" structure ethically (unless examined closely, which most people simply don't do), and is often emotionally satisfying by dint of having evolved over a long period of time, adapting to the emotional needs and responses of people.

Science, on the other hand, deals with the evidence, regardless of how cold or even repulsive that reality may be to people. A good example of the difference -- and one particularly suited to this forum, given it is a sff forum -- is Tom Godwin's "The Cold Equations". No one wants that outcome; it's brutal, it's cold, it's uncaring, it has no "humanity" in it... but that's the point. In reality, when facing the universe, humanity will periodically come up against the inexorable facts of physical reality; and, if we don't accommodate those facts, we don't stand a chance, as there is nothing out there to alter them for our sake. People don't like that. The fact that the universe is (according to all the evidence, and for all intents and purposes) simply a mechanism, without reference to us or our cares, concerns, or even existence, is simply something most people reject. It doesn't feed our egos. The more science advances, the more we find that not only are we not the center of the universe, some special object of a god's care and attention, but that we aren't even that important in the history of our planet (save for a very brief time, perhaps), but only one very brief moment in a very long history that both precedes and is likely to follow the existence of our entire species, let alone individuals. Any "meaning" to existence is something we must put into it ourselves; it doesn't exist inherently.

That's something that's just too alien to most people's perceptions for them to feel comfortable with. Instead of seeing the awe and wonder of it all, they are repelled by the fact that reality simply doesn't wear a human face, doesn't have human feelings....

[Parson]

JD, well reasoned as always. I find it especially interesting that even in the West with precipitous decline in Christianity there is a corresponding rise in "mysticism" and non-Christian religions. It seems as though human beings as a whole cannot tolerate the sense of there being nothing in the universe with more intelligence/compassion/justice/ than what we have. In some sense the SETI endeavors could be seen as another aspect of this search.

I believe that the time will come that we will arrive at some kind of synthesis between science and religion. I think that both are true and point to truths but in different ways. In the same way that both a non-fiction story and a myth can be true. Religion and science are not the same but they do need each other.

As to the main thrust of this discussion; I wonder if evolution is any more poorly understood than any other complex science. I would bet that trying to have the average Joe/Jane explain chemistry would result in something that would sound more like magic than science.

[Anthony G Williams]

Originally Posted by Parson

I believe that the time will come that we will arrive at some kind of synthesis between science and religion. I think that both are true and point to truths but in different ways. In the same way that both a non-fiction story and a myth can be true. Religion and science are not the same but they do need each other.

I have to say that I doubt that. Religion got along without science just fine for a very long time, and science pays no heed to religion (except when aspects of religion claim to have a scientific basis, as with 'intelligent design'). They basically occupy different worlds, which isn't to say that scientists can't be religious - many are - but that just reflects different sides of their personalities.

About the only possible connections between science and religion that I can see coming may result from some research into how the mind works, which could point to reasons in the brain structure why people are so prone to belief in matters which are not subject to proof.

As to the main thrust of this discussion; I wonder if evolution is any more poorly understood than any other complex science. I would bet that trying to have the average Joe/Jane explain chemistry would result in something that would sound more like magic than science.

The basic concept of evolution is quite straightforward (whereas "chemistry" is a huge and diverse subject). I don't think that the militant creationists fail to understand evolution, they just refuse to accept it because it conflicts with their fixed beliefs.

[TorrnT]

"True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers." Bishop J.S.
ohhhh, so does that make Creationism a cult, now they sound more eerie LOL.

[Anthony G Williams]

Originally Posted by TorrnT

"True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers." Bishop J.S.

It would be nice if that were universally believed. Sadly, you're not likely to find the fundamentalists of any religion agreeing with it.

[The Procrastinator]

Truth, now there's a thing.

Anthony, you have hit the nail on the head with this:
What science does not do is address the possibility that there might be a non-material world.
It can't address this possibility. Non-material world aside, I don't think any of us would go so far as to think science can explain everything, because not everything is measurable, we have gaps in our knowledge, and our own limitations as a species mean that we will not be able to theorise about or measure everything there is in any case. I think where scientists can come across as "arrogant" is in claiming that science holds all the answers, or that science is the only truth. Science is a journey toward the truths of the material realm, a journey of discovery, a seeking for measurable answers; and a good scientist (as noted by many already) will discard a "truth" if it becomes superseded or disproven, and move on to the next theory, looking for ways to test it, seeking to deepen and widen our pool of knowledge and our understanding of the world in which we live. If scientists dismiss as valueless those things they cannot measure, I can understand why people who have a belief in or value the non-material world would get annoyed.

Religion is purportedly a seeking for the truths of the non-material world, including morals and values and the meaning of Liff, and what makes a person a person. What annoys me personally about religious people, though, is when they talk about truth while ignoring facts. Not all religious people do this thank goodness, but there's a large amount of ones who will and do. As noted by others above, there are many who are only interested in the facts that will bolster their own particular beliefs, and other facts can go hang. This is dishonest and self-deceiving, and no seeker of truth should be either of those things if they can help it.

Being human beings, there are those on both sides of this "spectrum" who tend to believe that in discovering a truth, they have discovered the truth. (Don't ask me who said that, someone literary, but its true in both science and religion all too often.)

I don't think there needs to be or can ever be a synthesis of science and religion, but there certainly should be a dialogue between them. Perhaps the resurgence in "mysticism" is part of the pendulum movement that always accompanies change, but I think science and those who accept it should always do what they can to diminish the influence and prevalence of "magical thinking". That will always be with us, its part of human nature it seems, and all of us possess it to some degree - I think we will never banish it entirely, nor should we let it run rampant - but after all, what's life without a little magic?

And now I have blurbled myself into aimless oblivion, I should probably go and get a bit of hunny...

[j. d. worthington]

The problem is that nearly all religions (I can't think of one that is an exception, off the top of my head) also emphasize how this "non-material" realm interacts with and effects changes in the material realm -- how it often supercedes the physical "laws" of the material realm. Once something purportedly enters that material realm, then it becomes the province of science to investigate and either confirm or invalidate it. So far, there hasn't been one iota of any of this stuff able to stand up to scientific scrutiny.

So I'm by no means inclined to accept this definition of religion. After all, every major religion also claims to have the story of the origins of everything -- yet they do not tend to agree, nor do they tend to match any aspect of scientifically verifiable evidence. Yet there is nothing more important to the genuine truth of a religion than some sort of proof that the deity of that religion exists and is able to affect the universe. Without that, what you are left with are a set of philosophical precepts and wonderings about realms the existence of which we have no worthwhile evidence whatsoever. (What "evidence" we do have on various levels can almost invariably be shown to have its origin in the psychological states of those presenting it as "proof".)

As long as religion claims to have some form of deity (and without such, it isn't a religion, it's a philosophy) which has an impact on the material realm, it cannot be separated from refutation by a study of said realm. When looked at honestly, without rationalizations or evasion, religion and reality simply do not (and cannot) mix that well....

[Parson]

Perhaps I misunderstand the idea of synthesis. When I said synthesis I meant that science and religion would eventually get to a point where they could be in a dialog of mutual respect, each understanding that the other pointed to truth in different and meaningful ways without the adversarial relationship so often seen today.

Speaking as a Christian, I might be the rare exception, I would certainly like to think I am not. But I believe the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and living, but as to history, science, etc. it paints with broad brush strokes that are seen more clearly as what can be tested by the scientific method is understood and applied. Where science is able to give us a clear picture, I accept that and look again at my Biblical interpretation to see how the two can be held together. The truth any Biblical commentator must admit if s/he is honest is that while the Bible might be infallible in matters of faith and life, our interpretation is far from infallible and we must like good scientists be willing to revise our understanding when new light comes to be seen.

Any honest scientist and any honest person of faith will say "We don't know it all..." Perhaps the willingness to say that separates the Bible of faith, from the fundamentalists of that same faith.

The basic concept of evolution is quite straightforward (whereas "chemistry" is a huge and diverse subject). I don't think that the militant creationists fail to understand evolution, they just refuse to accept it because it conflicts with their fixed beliefs.

AGW> I do not agree with much of this statement at all. First, I would say that evolution is also a huge and diverse subject, like Chemistry, and chemistry, like evolution, has a basic concept that is quite straight forward. Almost all of the creationists I know not only know little about evolution, they have no desire to understand it or study it. Some of this may come because they hear "theory" and hear "guess." They ask then: "Why guess when you can know?"

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by The Procrastinator

Science is a journey toward the truths of the material realm, a journey of discovery, a seeking for measurable answers; and a good scientist (as noted by many already) will discard a "truth" if it becomes superseded or disproven, and move on to the next theory, looking for ways to test it, seeking to deepen and widen our pool of knowledge and our understanding of the world in which we live.

But they aren't all "good scientists" are they? The scientific establishment can hold on to a pet theory for a long, long time in the face of increasing evidence against, and come up with complicated rationalizations to fit the evidence to already existing theories. They can fight against something for decades, not because it is incredible, but because those who have built their work around a contrary theory would have to sacrifice reputation and begin again.

Science has many virtues; but these are not necessarily the virtues of the scientist, who can be as stubborn and egotistical and self-serving as anyone else.