| From: Michael | 29/04/99
23:46:31 |
| Subject: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
8948 |
| Has science replaced theology? It
is in itself a faith in many ways, when it comes to gaps in the fossil
record etc. Evolution is a theory, otherwise it would be a law and there
would be little conflict between the two. Why is it such a leap of faith
for many scientists to accept things which are not tangible and
quantifiable? | |
| From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) | 30/04/99
1:14:39 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
8953 |
| Science is, by necessity, subject
to constant revision and refinement (and occasionally revolution) in the
light of hard experimental evidence. Religion is not. In this sense they
are fundamentally different. Sure, the technological advancement of modern society rests upon accepting the laws discovered by the more fundamental sciences such as physics in some ways similar to faith. However it is not blind faith for two reasons. Firstly, such faith unquestionably works for technological advancement (computers ARE getting faster), and so faith is constantly being empircally justified by hard experimental fact. Secondly, things like bridges and 747's maintain their predicted performance within the limits of their design with AN ASTONISHING RELIABLITY. You have about as much chance of being kicked to death by a donkey as you have of dying in a plane crash. Finally, scientists are happy to believe in things that are outside their intuition... take quantum mechanics. Even though quantum mechanics is astoundingly accurate at predicting phenomena in the measurable Universe, the fact that the Universe appears to work this way are completely counter intuitive, and some might say inexplicable... but we don't need faith to make accurate predictions. Now, you rightly claim that the Darwin's theory of evolution (and its successive refinements in the light of new evidence) does not have the same certainty as, say, Newton's basic law of gravity (at the inertial, low mass limit)... but to say that it is therefore fatally flawed is ridiculous. It DOES have predictive power and has been used to pre-empt the existence of many fossils BEFORE their discovery. Many of the so called "missing links" of decades ago are now no longer missing. In order to fairly judge the relative efficacy of various theories of evolution SCIENTIFICALLY, it must be judged on its ability to both explain and predict experimentally observed variation in biological systems (including the fossil record), RELATIVE to any other theory that attempts to explain those same systems. When this is done, I'm sorry, but no others theories even come close!!! Soupie twist, Ed G.  | |
| From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) | 30/04/99
1:17:28 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
8954 |
| p.s. in answer to the question in
the title, no. Science has not divorced the church. Science has divorced
anybody who is unwilling to revise their understanding of the Universe in
the light/scrutiny of EVIDENCE! Soupie twist, Ed G. | |
| From: Michael | 30/04/99
1:41:24 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
8956 |
| Science has its origins in the
church does it not? was it not for the relatively 'free thinking'clergy
who began to question things and begin to have a look at the natural
world. Was Darwin the son of a minister? I think or rather agree that
higher sciences are bordering on a belief system, the fact that you can
use scientific rules to PREDICT things, does not mean that it is any less
belief based then religion and it could be asscerted that science is only
understanding of our perception also.We belive what we are told.747's do
stay up with REMARKABLE CONSISTENCY this is not necessarily science
though, is it? | |
| From: bob s | 30/04/99
7:34:03 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
8965 |
| One thing noticed about religion
is that there is great conflict between the different varieties. Some even
going so far as to say "if you don;t believe what I believe then I will
kill you". I have not seen scientists making this statement, but we have
examples of the church offering severe punishment for science views
opposing teaching of the church. | |
| From: Chris W (Plebeian) | 30/04/99
9:49:12 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
8978 |
Regarding the 747 and its ability
to fly - it is every bit science. Consider this subset:
all the result of scientific endeavour and application of scientific results. | |
| From: James Richmond (Avatar) | 30/04/99
11:28:46 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
8985 |
| Has science
replaced theology? It is in itself a faith in many ways, when it comes to
gaps in the fossil record etc. Science hasn't replaced theology, but it has somewhat restricted the scope of things which require a theological explanation. In the past, people looked at the sky and wondered why it was blue. The best explanation they could come up with was that God made it that way. We now have a deeper scientific understanding and can say that the sky is blue because of the Rayleigh scattering of light. Science explains how light behaves very well. But it still doesn't explain why it behaves as it does. One explanation is to say "God makes it behave that way." So, at this level, theology is still relevant. There is some faith involved in science. However, the faith is not in the particular statements which science makes about the world, but rather in the scientific method itself. Scientists have faith that examining the world using the scientific method will give useful and meaningful insights. Scientific faith is not blind faith, however, since the scientific method demonstrably does give useful and meaningful insights into how the world works. Scientists, perhaps unlike theologians, are not over-concerned about "gaps" in scientific knowledge. Their faith in the method makes them confident that the problems will sort themselves out when all the data is in. Of course, science is not always right. But one of its great virtues (compare theology again) is that it is self-correcting. All scientific ideas are provisional, not dogma handed down from by a "higher" authority. Evolution is a theory, otherwise it would be a law and there would be little conflict between the two. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, evolution is a theory. But every useful scientific statement is a theory, other than bare observations. The important factor is whether the theory is useful and supported by the observations. Evolution stands up very well to this sort of scrutiny. What distinction are you trying to make between theories and "laws"? Why is it such a leap of faith for many scientists to accept things which are not tangible and quantifiable? It's a leap of faith for anyone to accept something that is not tangible and quantifiable, not just scientists. If there's no evidence for something, faith is the only possible basis for belief. JR | |
| From: Sue | 30/04/99
12:43:57 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9019 |
| The thing I would like to ask is
why evolution is such a big issue for many people who profess to believe
in God. I suspect it's because organised religion usually asks people to
accept "on faith" a certain world view, and then anything that clashes
with that world view is seen as suspect. That doesn't strike me as very
thoughtful, but maybe someone from that side could explain that to me if I
am doing them an injustice. | |
| From: Michael | 30/04/99
14:23:55 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9037 |
| I am only posing a question. If
the reason that god fearers have problems with anyone or anything
challenging their world view creating a clash, then the same could be said
of strict evolutionists. Many people have difficulty dealing with others
opinions no matter how much EVIDENCE there is on the subject. Is there no
room for intergration? or is the world so black and white that any
compromise is seen as failure. I must also add that being able to weigh
the virtues of both sides is a difficult process and full of pitholes.
however it should also be said that all religions do tend to have a strict
world view. Are the millions of people round the world deluded or has the
truth of science only been revealed to a select few million scientists.
Are scientists who investigate the supernatural scientists or cranks? Is
there no scope for the existance of something "higher" than us. Was it not
Einstein(good jewish boy)who stated that "the people who are not aware of
the mystic are the living dead"(or words to that effect) I am not trying to create(evolve?) conflict over this I do have problems with some aspects of the evolutionary model, there are many fortunate circumstances which seem to be intergral for the beginning of life. I find this just as difficult to accept as the creation model. | |
| From: Sue | 30/04/99
15:03:32 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9050 |
| Michael I think James' post already addressed a lot of the points you are raising. My question still stands. Are you able to assist in answering it? Also: It is my personal impression that scientific points of view are usually far less black and white than the points of view espoused by the various religions. | |
| From: Michael | 30/04/99
15:52:20 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9065 |
| Sue,No I probably cannot assist
you in answering this question because I cannot comment for the various
religious groups points of view. Yes james did address some of the points
I was raising, however the grey areas i was attempting to highlight are
not explained by science or theology, it was more of an attempt to enrich
the conversation. i believe the unknown things in life are what provide it
with some beauty and uniqueness. If science attempts to explain everything
from a human point of view then it is limiting in this context. I can
provide you with my position if you like but that may not answer your
question anyway. I hold a B.App.Sci in Horticulture and a M.App.Sci in
Coastal resource management, I was brought up like most Aussies as a
non-religious type even though I did go to a COE school for my primary
years. there was always rebellion and I never took onboard any of the
doctorine, my parents never forced me into anything vaugely religious, I
went to the COE school because it was down the road. I can say from my own
experiences that I was "lucky" or "fortunate" in quite a few life
threatening circumstances, I have not tried to explain this as a reasoned
process because I think it defies explanation. You don't want me to go
into details, do you? I have been studying evolution as an intergral part
of my science education for years. I recently returned from galapagos
where I thought that many of my questions to do with evolution would be
answered, this was not the case, in fact it raised many others. Maybe some
people with religious beliefs have never taken the time to consider the
processes of evolution and are reacting through ignorance and popular
opinion from the people who surround them. Ignorance is no excuse.My
sister belives in "guardian angels" but strongly refutes the possibility
of God and creation. I think we are living in confusing times and it seems
that you can only have one model and not the other. I don't quite know what you mean by science being more black and white then theology? I was suggesting that why can't we have some grey in the world and be content with it."temptation to take the precious things we have apart to see how they work, must be resisted cause they never fit together again" (Billy Brag) Anyway makes you think doesn't it! michael | |
| From: Terry Frankcombe | 30/04/99
16:25:20 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9068 |
| Personally, Billy Brag shits me
to tears. | |
| From: Chris (Avatar) | 30/04/99
17:10:48 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9072 |
One thing noticed about religion is that there is great conflict between the different varieties. Some even going so far as to say "if you don;t believe what I believe then I will kill you". Hehe... you want to spend a little time at sci.physics.relativity and see the SR and the aether crowds go for each others' throats!! But I take your point. I once heard a rather religious person say "God made man. Man made religion." One of the more profound things I have heard such a person say. (Apologies about the gender bias - it was that sort of religion). Which is why I would eschew it. More people have killed each other in the name of their religious "clubs" and their gods than for any other reason. Such conflict has resulted in the death of many people I know and am related to, and has taught people in my home town to hate. In all my studies of science I have never seen the hatred mirrored therein, and that is a significant difference for me. Chris | |
| From: Sue | 30/04/99
17:12:57 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9074 |
| Michael: I don't quite know what you mean by science being more black and white then theology? I was suggesting that why can't we have some grey in the world and be content with it." I will run an excerpt from my post past you again: It is my personal impression that scientific points of view are usually far less black and white than the points of view espoused by the various religions. | |
| From: Sue | 30/04/99
17:41:58 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9080 |
| Hhhmm, Bosnia is an illustration
of that sort of thing right now. What really struck me about that is the
immunity many Serbs seem to have from being affected by the obvious
suffering of the displaced Albanians. I really, really can't understand,
not as a biologist and not as a human being, how somebody can be cold in
the face of someone else's agony. And how somebody can be cold enough to
cause agony to someone else. Do they block it out? In a class discussion about this once, one of my male students thought it might be a gender thing. He was talking about an emotional off-switch which can be activated. He wasn't comfortable with that, just trying to explain it. He found that quite bewildering. I guess it also gets back to the question of aggression being hardwired into an organism, and things that can trigger it. | |
| From: cindy | 30/04/99
17:57:41 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9083 |
| I recently returned from
galapagos where I thought that many of my questions to do with evolution
would be answered, this was not the case, in fact it raised many others.
regarding this comment, Michael, I would hope that such an experience would lead you to question why it was not as you expected. If you choose to analyse such an experience in a religious light, then you are likely to get a relgious answer. If, alternatively, you analyse the experience from a scientific perspective and question what aspects of the Galapagos experience do not appear to match your expectations of evolution, then your outcome will hopefully be scientific. Another point regarding Darwin, I once got into shocking trouble in a tutorial at Monash Uni when I said to the gathered group of science students that Darwinian evolution was not necessarily right in all situations. They assumed I was a creationist, but there are basically two types of evolution; phyletic gradualism (Darwinian, one type of organism undergoes gradual change thereby developing new species over time such as the Galapagos finches) or punctuated equilibrium where a type of organism exists for long periods of time with little change until a sudden mutation occurs(linked to changing natural selection as a result of a change in environment or random genetic mutations). Michael, perhaps there are rational scientific reason/s for your observations/experiences without necessarily needing to rely on religion to provide an answer. Such is life.......... | |
| From: Sue | 30/04/99
18:01:33 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9085 |
| Yet another thing I don't get is
religious people running around looking for proof! Seems
paradoxical to me. | |
| From: James Richmond (Avatar) | 30/04/99
20:50:48 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9095 |
| Michael, As I've hopefully explained above, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Many scientists have religious beliefs which in no way clash with the scientific world view. However, science and religion deal with separate questions. There is no real overlap. Religion deals with matters of faith, science with matters of evidence. Where science ends, religion begins. You seem particularly concerned about evolution vs. creation, so I'd like to address this issue directly. If someone wants to believe in the literal truth of the bible or some other religious document, that's fine. They can choose to believe that the world was created literally in seven days and that it is only 4000 years old. But such a belief is one of faith, not evidence, and is therefore the province of religion, not science. There is abundant scientific evidence that evolution has occurred and is currently happening, whereas there is no good scientific evidence that creation as set out in the bible took place. The distinction between creationism and evolution has been deliberately clouded by religious fundamentalists who wish to have their faith taught in schools in the United States. The US Constitution prevents religious education in schools, so the creationists say that creationism is science and should be taught as such. But creationism is really religion masquerading as science. Fundamentalist creationists refuse to even consider any scientific evidence which may undermine their beliefs (and there's a LOT of it). The opposite is certainly not true. Scientists have examined the claims of creationist "science" and refuted them in detail on the basis of available evidence. As science, creationism just doesn't cut the mustard. Evolution is the best scientific explanation we have at the moment. That's not to say that every problem raised by the theory has been solved, but it is the best working hypothesis anyone has come up with. Evolution, like other scientific theories, is not dogma. If someone comes up with a theory which explains all the relevant observations better, scientists will quite happily dump evolution in favour of the new paradigm. But creationists stubbornly cling to their "scientific" theory, even in the face of mountains of contrary evidence. Now, don't get the wrong idea. I'm not saying creationism is incorrect. But, if it is a true explanation, it doesn't advance science at all. If it's true, we're reduced to "Well, we don't know why or how, only that God did it". To accept its truth is a matter of faith, not evidence, unless God suddenly decides to reveal Himself unambiguously. Therefore, creationism is not science, but religion. Some specific comments on things you've said: ... Is there no room for intergration? or is the world so black and white that any compromise is seen as failure. I must also add that being able to weigh the virtues of both sides is a difficult process and full of pitholes... On the creationism vs. evolution debate, there can be no integration. Either they are theories in different realms (religion and science), or they are contradictory scientific theories, in which case the one with the most evidential support (evolution) should be accepted as provisionally correct. Are scientists who investigate the supernatural scientists or cranks? It depends on whether they investigate scientifically or not. For example, are their experiments or observations sufficiently tightly controlled (e.g. double blind tests)? I could go on, but this really deserves a separate thread in itself, so I won't do it here. Is there no scope for the existance of something "higher" than us. Of course there is. But, science can't tell us anything about such matters. i believe the unknown things in life are what provide it with some beauty and uniqueness. If science attempts to explain everything from a human point of view then it is limiting in this context. I agree with you that the unknown can be interesting. Science is an attempt to push back the boundaries. Religion does the same thing, though in a different way. Personally, I find as many awe-inspiring things in science as in religion. Science may be limited in explaining things from a human perspective, but at the moment that's the only perspective we have! All known scientists are human, after all. I recently returned from galapagos where I thought that many of my questions to do with evolution would be answered, this was not the case, in fact it raised many others. Maybe you should post some of your questions here. Someone knowledgable in such matters may be able to help. I was suggesting that why can't we have some grey in the world and be content with it."temptation to take the precious things we have a | |
| From: James Richmond (Avatar) | 30/04/99
20:52:37 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9096 |
| [continued] I was suggesting that why can't we have some grey in the world and be content with it."temptation to take the precious things we have apart to see how they work, must be resisted cause they never fit together again" Are you saying that scientific reductionism destroys beauty? It is true that things should be appreciated as a whole. But surely by investigating things in detail we gain a more profound understanding of them? Appreciating something as a whole and as a sum of its parts can be qualitatively different experiences, but both approaches complement each other. (At the risk of violating copyright) Hope this helps, JR | |
| From: Michael | 30/04/99
21:57:38 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9102 |
| James, thanks for all the time you have spent on this question, its satisfying to know that someone out there also considers these issues. I am not trying to promote one over the other. I am left in this position due to many factors; the state of the world at the moment and the conflict which exists between the two models. You are right in many of your views and present a balanced discussion. You know how things go some times, you think of things and your position changes or is reviewed during the course of the conversation. Some things are VERY complex and cannot always be explained in simple examples. The only issue I might raise at this stage is, yesI do think things loose a certain amount of beauty by pulling them to bits. The totality of things always appears more "beautiful" when viewed as a whole. Say a whale oposed to a part of a whale. Poor example I'm sure. This could just be my point of view and thats ok. This subject certainally generates healthy debate. I will post some Galapagos questions,later. Have a good weekend. I'll check later. | |
| From: bob s | 1/05/99
7:47:02 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9122 |
| On the evolutionary bit, Do we
not see it now in the rapidly reproducing species, "insects, bacteria etc
becoming immune to insecticides and to antibiotics. Also rabbits a fast
breeding species becoming immune to
myxomytosis. | |
| From: jason | 1/05/99
9:52:45 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9131 |
| Michael, you say that a whale
appears morer beautiful than part of a whale. I'm not sure exactly what
you mean by that, but I think your saying that science takes some of the
mystery and hence beauty away from nature. (please correct me if im way of
the mark). I like to use the following analogies when discussing this point. If joe bloggs reads a book called "crime and punishment" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky -a 19C Russian novelist. Viewed as a whole, it is an intense story about Raskonikoff and his self delusions of grandeur, that lead him to his mental demise and eventual retribution. Joe gets a good read, but if literature student Kellie studies the book, she pulls out sentences which provide a window into the mind of the author and his existential problems in life. The reader joe gets a good read, but Kellie gets a good read and a deeper understanding of the author and what he was trying to say about himself and the world of his time. If joe then reads Kellie's book about the book, it could be a very boring read which, reduces the book to fragments and doesen't flow like the original. Joe might think that the book has been devalued because he has never trained to study books. I hope this makes sense and is a reasonable analogy for science and nature. Another example is mechanics and cars. I know nothing about cars so a car manual or magazine is boring, but i do like the look of some cars. The mechanic on the other hand, gets a deeper understanding of the cars from the manuals and magazine as well as the same appreciation of the appearance. I've prattled on enough Jason | |
| From: Michael | 1/05/99
14:50:46 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9147 |
| Jason, I agree with what you are saying. Though I did mention that this was possibly my point of view, hey everybody sees things differently. Billy Bragg was a poor example.The human body is beautiful in many ways, the optometrist may see more beauty and fascination with the eyes and the functions of the eye and yes gain a deeper respect and understanding of it, so I could say that i also appreciate eyes though I prefer to see them in context with the rest of the body. rakka rakka michael. Hey sue,why is it so paradoxical that people with faith want to investigate and find proof of it. I understand that faith implies the acceptance of many concepts at face value, though there is deeper meaning to everything and the nature of people is to question.It seems that if people of some faith or another just accept"blindly" than they are arrogant and non-thinking and if they question they are hypocrites. is this a fair response? | |
| From: Terry Frankcombe | 1/05/99
18:18:46 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9166 |
| Hey sue,why is it
so paradoxical that people with faith want to investigate and find proof
of it? I'm not Sue, but I would respond by saying that people who go out and look for proof have a tendancy to completely ignore all the evidence that is counter to their belief. That is not the scientific way. | |
| From: Michael | 2/05/99
15:34:24 |
| Subject: re: Has science divorced the church? | post id:
9235 |
| I don't know who exactly you are
refering to but I could suggest that some scientists like some religious
sorts avoid the overwhelming evidence of something in pursuit of their own
perceived objectives...proof? I know what science is about and I believe
in it for that. I don't however cling to old arguements about religious
stereotypes, ie; turning a blind eye to the evidence for reasons of
faith. Cheers Michael | |