Kansas Citizens for Science

[curt]

[lizard6849]

curt,

Unfortunately, all ABO and FL can talk about is Bible stuff. And all G. Gaulin can talk about is I.D. (his own unique version of it), which, of course, goes right back to the Bible, via "intelligent design."

None of them has a scientific degree or background. Gary will dispute that, feeling that he's an autodidact with considerable knowledge. But his "theory of I.D." comes up short of explaining anything.

[Gary S. Gaulin]

[Aster]

Here's how I personally see the situation :

1- The theory of evolution (ToE) explains adequately some aspects of biological evolution (at the level of what may be called “microevolution”).

2- ToE presents a lot of evidence to explain how “macroevolution” took place. But, this can be challenged as a mere interpretation of the evidence concerned. I personally hold no views on the subject.

3- ToE has nothing to show, in the field of abiogenesis, that goes beyond the level of mere speculation. Most propositions in abiogenesis work belong to the domain of science fiction, rather than to that of science. This is not to say that work in the field of abiogenesis is illegitimate. No field of inquiry should be considered as illegitimate in scientific work, so long as one applies to it the scientific method in a most rigorous way. It simply means that this is a field of inquiry which is still at its very beginning and will take decades of work to advance to a more meaningful level of results.

4- In none of the preceding domains does ToE have anything of a scientific standing to say about God or Creation. This is normal, because God and Creation fall outside the domain of scientific work. But, authors may have their own personal opinions on the subject of Creation and the Creator, like any other individuals, although their opinion has no particular scientific standing or merit.

5- However, some of the conclusions reached by scientists are at times in conflict with (or diverge from) what people have been told to believe, based on their religious books of reference. That's not a problem that ToE has to address, or to concern itself with. The age of Earth is a case in point. Geologists have their findings, analyses and conclusions concerning the age of Earth (subject to periodic revisions as their knowledge of the field progresses.) Religious people hold a different view on the issue. But, clearly, their opposition based on the propositions contained in religious books of reference cannot be taken into account to challenge the findings of geologists. One cannot rely on religious propositions to successfully challenge scientific findings which are based on hard physical evidence. To challenge scientific findings, one must show where they are wrong, using the framework of the scientific method.

6- Based on the preceding considerations, I do not see why science teachers should ever need to talk about God and Creation in a science class, when they teach evolution. Their role is to teach the scientific aspects of the subject. They must leave it to religious authorities to determine how they will deal with the issues in which there are differences between religious beliefs and ToE findings.

7- But science teachers should stick to hard facts and scientific findings which are well-grounded, well-verified, and not complement them with their own personal opinions and preferences concerning any of the issues involved.

For example, a scientist has nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of Creation, if he sticks to scientific hard facts. There may very well exist an act of Creation, for all he knows. There may very well be a Creator behind all the things that science studies. For example, biological evolution may very well be part of a system of Creation, for all we know. In that case, the scientist is right in studying the evolution phenomena on Earth, but he would be wrong in concluding that random events are the sole factors at the origin of life and of all its processes.

8- To sum up, I would say that scientists should stick to the things that they really understand in the scientific field, and not unduly draw from their knowledge conclusions which are not, in fact, supported by their findings. Scientists should be able to say flatly that they do not know the scientific answer to many fundamental questions concerning life on Earth.

9- At the same time, religious people should realize that there are many propositions in their religious books of reference which diverge from scientific findings, and which need to be reviewed in the light of these scientific findings. But, in my opinion, the only fundamental thing that should matter to them, in the end, is whether science disproves the existence of God. The answer to that is that science doesn't disprove the existence of God, based on all we know on the subject of evolution, at the present time.

10- Concerning the subject of "intelligent design", my personal feeling is that it is essentially a religious movement which tries to disguise itself and its pronouncements under the pretense that it is a scientific body doing scientific work. I do not see anything scientific in most of what it says, and do not think that it should be taught in a science class. But lots of people seem to think that intelligent design has to do with some profound truth which they have been unable, so far, to demonstrate to the world in a satisfactory way. So, I'll wait and see how it evovles and what results it will be able to achieve in the scientific field.

11- Meanwhile, I am personally satisfied that Paley's argument, which was developed two centuries ago, about the watch and the watchmaker (in a nutshell, if there is a watch, there's bound to be a watchmaker who produced it), is perfectly coherent and convincing. Moreover, I see no incompatibility, for my part, between accepting Paley's teleological argument and believing in the scientifically-validated propositions of the theory of evolution.

12- As I said, these are only my personal thoughts on this complex subject. I know most people will disagree with one segment or another of the ideas expressed. I would be, of course, very interested in any comments which would help me see more clearly how things stand in this domain, from a scientific point of view.
_________________
think

[Aster]

The following may have a bearing on the above discussion.

There have been innumerable world-renowned scientists who saw no incompatibility between their scientific reasoning and work and their religious beliefs. Pasteur comes to mind. Pierre-Paul Grassé, a leading French biologist and writer in the field of evolution, also comes to mind. But I think particularly of Jacques Monod. Here's an introduction to Monod from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Monod

"Jacques Lucien Monod (February 9, 1910 – May 31, 1976) was a French biologist who was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965. Monod (along with François Jacob) is famous for his work on the Lac operon. Study of the control of expression of genes in the Lac operon provided the first example of a transcriptional regulation system. He also suggested the existence of mRNA molecules that link the information encoded in DNA and proteins...[...]

The experimental system used by Jacob and Monod was a common bacterium, E. coli, but the basic regulatory concept (described in the Lac operon article) that was discovered by Jacob and Monod is fundamental to cellular regulation for all organisms. The key idea is that E. coli does not bother to waste energy making such enzymes if there is no need to metabolize lactose, such as when other sugars like glucose are available. The type of regulation is called negative gene regulation, as the operon is inactivated by a protein complex that is removed in the presence of lactose (regulatory induction)."

Monod spent all of his professional life doing fundamental research in biology, ending up with the position of Director of the Institut Pasteur in Paris.

Throughout his career, he was puzzled by what he saw while performing his research, and the implications of it all. He had a hard time trying to reconcile the proposition that life evolved by chance, with the proposition that everything he saw in living organisms was clearly based on design, everything existing with a purpose, to fulfill a function.

In an effort to go deepter in the discussion of this subject, Jacques Monod asked the question : can one compare usefully known artefacts, i.e. artificial objects "designed" by Man, with Natural objects, i.e. objects found in the raw in Nature ?

In his book "Chance & Necessity" published in 1970 in Paris, he makes the hypothesis that a machine from outer space has landed on earth, and has a built-in software capable of comparing objects it encounters, to try to distinguish objects produced by an "intelligence" from others that were not designed by an intelligence. He says :

“And if [...] we were to ask the machine to compare the structure and performance of the eye of a vertebrate with that of a camera, the program would have to acknowledge their profound similarities : lenses, diaphragm, shutter, light-sensitive pigments : surely, the same components could not have been introduced into both objects except with a view to getting similar performances from them. [...] “..."I have cited [this example] only to emphasize how arbitrary and pointless it would be to deny that the natural organ, the eye, represents the materialization of a “ purpose” – that of picking up images – while this is indisputably also the origin of the camera.
“It would be the more absurd to deny it since, in the last analysis, the purpose which “explains” the camera can only be the same as the one to which the eye owes its structure.”

Monod then presents the underlying theme of his book :

“Every artifact is a product made by a living being which, through it, expresses, in a particularly conspicuous manner, one of the fundamental characteristics common to all living beings without exception : that of being objects endowed with a purpose or project , which at the same time they exhibit in their structure and carry out through their performances (such as, for instance, the making of artifacts).” (Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, Afred A. Knopf, 1971, pp.8-9)

Simply put, Monod could not believe in the role of Natural Selection and Chance operating over millions of years to create complex artifacts such as “living beings”. On the contrary, he thought they existed with a purpose.

“Whe shall maintain that [living beings] are distinct from all other structures or systems present in the universe through this characteristic property, which we shall call teleonomy .” (author’s italics)

He was a Communist sympathizer, and could not invoke God as an explanation. He ended up defending the teleonomical argument, which is what you get when you remove God from the “teleological argument” while maintaining all the other elements of the argument intact. He ended up with a very confused position, which had nothing to do anymore with science, but all to do with philosophy and metaphysics.

Here's how his (ambiguous) stand, as developed in the above-mentioned book, is described in the Wikipedia article :

"He was a proponent of the view that life on earth arose by freak chemical accident and was unlikely to be duplicated even in the vast universe. "Man at last knows he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged only by chance," he wrote in 1971. He used this bleak assessment as a springboard to argue for atheism and the absurdity and pointlessness of existence. Monod believed we are merely chemical extras in a majestic but impersonal cosmic drama—an irrelevant, unintended sideshow."

Maybe the author of the article on “Teleology” of the Columbia Encyclopedia’s 6th Edition had Monod in mind when he points out that : “A more recent evolutionary view finds purpose in the higher levels of organic life but holds that it is not necessarily based in any transcendent being.”
_________________
think

[Aster]

Another example that comes to my mind, and that is relevant to this discussion, is that of Charles Hard Townes "(born July 28, 1915), an American Nobel Prize-winning physicist and educator. Townes is known for his work on the theory and application of the maser, on which he got the fundamental patent, and other work in quantum electronics connected with both maser and laser devices. He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1964." (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hard_Townes )

"A member of the United Church of Christ, Townes considers that "science and religion [are] quite parallel, much more similar than most people think and that in the long run, they must converge".[1] In 2005, he was awarded the Templeton Prize for "Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities."" (Wikipedia)

Here's a segment of an interview he gave to Steve Inskeep of NPR Radio on the subject of religion and science on March 10, 2005

Steve Inskeep: Even as some Americans debate teaching evolution or creationism in schools, one scientist says religion and science do not have to disagree. Charles Townes is a Nobel Prize winner and co-inventor of the laser, and in 1966, he wrote that religion and science should converge. Yesterday, he was awarded $1.5 million, the annual Templeton Prize, for work in the field of religion.

Charles Townes: Let's consider what religion is. Religion is an attempt to understand the purpose and meaning of our universe. What is science? It's an attempt to understand how our universe works. Well, if there's a purpose and meaning, that must have something to do with how it works. So those two must be related. In addition, we use all of our human abilities to understand both. Science has faith. We call them postulates and we believe in them but we can't prove them. And sometimes these postulates are wrong. For example, most scientists in the past thought, well, the universe could not have had a beginning. It had to always be here, always be the same; Einstein felt that very strongly. And now scientists discovered, yes, there was a beginning to our universe, of all things.

SI: You also write about the fact that it's presumed that religious knowledge is revealed as opposed to unearthed in an experiment. Scientific knowledge, you think, is sometimes revealed in a similar process.

CT: Yes. I think there are even revelations in science. We don't generally call them that, but as I think of my own recognition of how to amplify light and microwaves, discovery of the maser and the laser, I'd been working on this some time. I sat on a park bench and thought and suddenly I had the idea. A lot of it was a revelation. I say it's a little bit like Moses wondering about how to help his people and so on. Then in front of a burning bush one time, he suddenly said, "This is what ought to be done."

SI: As you've been trying to figure out the way the universe works, do you find yourself sometimes wondering about the nature of G-d?

CT: Yes, certainly. I have a very personal feeling that, yes, there's a spiritual being there and it interacts with me and that's important for me and so on. On the other hand, exactly what it is, I don't know. I don't picture him as some old man with a long white beard. I can't describe it. I don't think anyone can appropriately.

SI: In this famous essay, Charles Townes, in 1966, you wrote that science and religion should at some time clearly converge. It's been almost 40 years since you wrote that.

CT: Yes.

SI: Seen much sign of convergence?

CT: I think there has been, yes. Within the last few decades in particular, I think more and more science has noted the really very special nature of our universe. The laws of physics have to be certain particular ways in order for us to be here at all. And if it changed just a little bit, then we couldn't be here. Unfortunately, if we start labeling that intelligent design,
then that kind of a label is just fundamentalist or something like that, but many scientists recognize, "Well, gee, maybe there's been some systematic thing here that's been affecting us and planned and so on," and it is very suggestive.

SI: If we were just going to give a thumbnail definition of intelligent design, we might say it's the idea that the universe is so complicated that somebody must have designed it, it couldn't have happened by chance.

CT: It's not just that it's complicated, but, in fact, that it comes out in just such a way that we can be here.

SI: It sounds like you're deeply skeptical of the debate over intelligent design as it's been presented in the public. But when it gets right down to the way that things have worked out, you really are filled with a sense of wonder.

CT: There is a sense of wonder, and it's very peculiar that we come out this very special way and what did it. And maybe there was something that kept directing us or planned it or something, and that's very striking. And many scientists are impressed with that now.
_________________
think

[Aster]

Why did I mention Monod and Townes in this discussion ?

I think that Townes is perfectly representative of this group of scientists who, throughout the world, carry out their scientific work without feeling the slightest discomfort with their religious beliefs.

Monod, on the other hand, feels this discomfort to the utmost level. He has no religious beliefs, quite to the contrary. He has Communist sympathies, of the kind that people had in France between the 1930's and the 1960's. Communism doesn't go well with religious beliefs. But, he couldn't do away with the idea that there was design in living organisms. So, he invented his own explanatory variable, "teleonomy", as a substitute to what others called "teleology". His "teleonomical" explanation died with him, because it didn't make sense to anyone else.

But in both cases, these scientists show that the "design" argument, as developed first by Paley, is still alive and well, and that scientists are still at a high level of discomfort when they have to deal with it.

Some of them dismiss it as obsolete, not based on scientific grounds, but essentially as the expression of their personal opinion on the subject. Others accept it as a factor that comforts their personal religious feelings. In both cases, this has nothing to do with science, only with personal choices.

My own feelings on the subject, for what they're worth, is that scientists should say that they know no more about this subject than any other individual, and that it's up to each individual to determine for himself what he believes in, concerning the orign of life (because that's what this whole discussion is really all about).

As for evolution, science is doing its best to penetrate its mysteries and intricacies, and it's probably still only at the beginning of the road, for that matter. I personally think that the explanatory variables in the theory of evolution will undergo a drastic recasting, as our understanding of the mechanisms of life improve, because that's how scientific progress is always achieved.
_________________
think

[Aster]

It seems to me that the issues which make up the bulk of the Creation-Evolution controversy could be narrowed significantly, if one applied the following guidelines:

- In the classroom, the scientific findings of the scientists working in the field of evolution should be presented within the scientific framework, in a most rigorous way. Teachers should distinguish clearly between things which are established with certainty, things which are still at a speculative stage, etc.

- Issues in which the findings of ToE and the propositions of religious books differ (regarding the age of Earth, the origins and evolution of mankind, and the like) should be dealt with only in their scientific aspects, without any discussion of their religious aspects. If necessary, the teacher should tell students that, in the science class, there is no room for the discussion of religious issues, and that they should discuss the religious aspects with members of their family, their church, etc.

- Regarding the origins of life, teachers should stress that all work in abiogenesis represents, today, no more than very speculative scenarii, none of which has received any scientific validation. But, this has no effect on the scientific aspect of evolution, because “origins of life” and “evolution of life on Earth” belong to separate domains. ToE carries out its scientific research activities on existing life, and this can be done in a satisfactory way without having to know anything about how life originated on Earth. nor needing to say anything about this latter subject.
_________________
think

[Aster]

The following is a kind of summary of my thinking on this subject.

The Creation-Evolution controversy has its roots in the clash between two groups, one with deeply held religious beliefs on the one hand, and the other with deeply held scientific beliefs.

In an ideal world, one should be able to have his religious beliefs in one compartment in his mind, his scientific beliefs in another, his political beliefs in a third one, etc. None of these beliefs should mix, not if their meeting makes things untenable, in any case.

After all, religious beliefs differ from one person to another, from one group to another, from one human society to another. No particular set of religious beliefs is superior to another. Because, if one set were superior in a demonstrable way, other beliefs would gradually dwindle as people would switch from their old religious beliefs to the demonstrably superior ones. That's clearly not the case. Nevertheless, so long as one is satisfied with his own set of religious beliefs, there's no reason for anyone to challenge them, to try to demonstrate to him that they are wrong, on whatever grounds. Religious beliefs raise no problem to anyone, if put in their proper perspective.

Scientific propositions, on the other hand, once they have been established beyond any reasonable doubt, using the scientific method, do not change from one community to another, although they change more or less significantly over time, as knowledge progresses.

As for political beliefs, it is evident to anyone that they differ from one person to another, from one group to another, and that the same individual may undergo drastic change in his political beliefs, over time.

But, people do not accept the proposition that religious beliefs should change, the way scientific beliefs change, and the way political beliefs change. That's the heart of the problem.

But, it takes only a few minutes of thought for anyone to realize that faith, in any religious set of beliefs, is essentially a human product, contrary to popular belief. Religious books of reference have been written by men, sometimes over a period of several centuries, and have been modified profoundly, from time to time, before they became set, by a human decision, as the ultimate texts of reference, attributable to the pronouncements of a deity.

When religious texts and scientific texts conflict over some issue, religious people often take the stand that the scientific propositions are wrong, simply because they are incompatible with the pronouncements of the religious texts. But this is no way to treat scientific findings. One should challenge science within its own framework, using the scientific method, to show where it's wrong, if it is wrong. The latter situation should happen quite regularly, since every scientist knows that all scientific findings are subject to revision and improvement, as knowledge progresses.

But when a scientific finding is demonstrably true, beyond any reasonable doubt, then that's what one should retain as true, even if it conflicts with a religious proposition. It's the religious belief that has to be adjusted, to fit the new situation, and not the scientific one.

If this approach were respected in the analysis of the issues in the Creation-Evolution controversy, much confusion would be dissipated, and people would be able to focus on the real issues on both sides of the controversy.

It would then become clear that one can hold his own personal beliefs, of whatever kind, and accept, at the same time, the findings of science on specific issues.

If one believes that life is the resulting product of a Creator, there's no reason to challenge this belief. On the one hand, it's perfectly defensible, based on Paley's argument. On the other, it's impossible to demonstrate that it's wrong.

But believing in the existence of a Creator (rather than in the specific detailed teachings of a particular religious doctrine) does not conflict with any scientific findings whose truth has been established. The two sets of beliefs are perfectly compatible.
_________________
think

[ABO]

Aster

Your thought sound well established and reasonable for one who has been indoctrinated with todays interpretation of religion by those who don't use the scientific method to understand it.

Different conclusions can come form the selection of data which has been chosen to support and idea wile rejecting or ignoring information which might be unfavorable for the hypothesis proposed.
For instance, the global warming subject. There is plenty of very capable climatologist of both sides of the fence. Both claim to be using the scientific method and both have completely different conclusions. Different aspects of each conclusion is viewed with more value than another producing different results. Who is wrong would depend on what is consider as expectable evidence.

Your thinking that the creation/ evolution controversy being over two groups, one deeply held scientific beliefs and one with deeply held religious beliefs may be more accurate than you realize.

Not all religious people believe in a creator because of a religion or their religion. And not all creationist are Christian. However the Christian Bible does describe the creation event in some detail. There is quite a bit of scientific evidence to back the claims of the Bible and the Bible backs a lot of scientific claims. By the same token there is a lot of scientific data which has been compiled to support the hypothesis necessary for the self assembling events of evolution to take place. But just like the creation events described in the Bible none have ever been seen or duplicated. But evolution stands as factual because a group of like minded believers called it peer reviewed science. There are those who believe that evolution as portrayed today is as factual as a sue-aside bomber believes he's going to pick up 72 virgins after the blast. Having been shown multiple lines of convincing evidence ( peer reviewed), why should he doubt, push the button. This is religion pure and simple,the belief in undirected self assimilation and this load of virgins all fly in the same plane.

Adjusting ones belief to fit the ever changing scientific claims of the day makes those claims their religion.

There may be some religious doctrines which will fit with evolutionary theory, but I think you'll find that the Bible is totally incompatible with most if not all claims that the elements and man himself has arrived here unassisted.

[Aster]

ABO,

Thanks for your comments.

I hope it's clear from my preceding posts that I neither promote nor denigrate any religious beliefs, in relation with this discussion. I merely try to answer in all good faith, in a rational, objective way the question under discussion in this thread. My own conclusion, as I developed it in the preceding posts, is that belief in evolution and belief in the existence of a “deity” are compatible. I base this conclusion on the following grounds :

Belief in evolution is justified because its central hypothesis (living beings evolve) is demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt (even if one questions some of the generalizations associated with this theory).

But neither the theory of evolution nor “abiogenesis” have demonstrated, up to now, that life originated on Earth based on purely natural phenomena.

It is therefore possible to believe in the existence of a “deity” on the basis of Paley's argument from design (if there's a watch, there's bound to be a watchmaker).

But it is not possible to believe in the religious propositions which are incompatible with clearly established scientific findings (such as the age of Earth, for example). They have to be reviewed and adjusted to the scientific facts having a bearing on them.

The preceding reasoning may seem elementary to some people, while it may look to other people like a cavalier way of treating some religious beliefs of some communities. But it seems evident to me that one cannot reject scientific findings which have been established beyond any reasonable doubt, merely because they conflict with one's religious beliefs. After all, religious beliefs change from one community to another. Scientific findings cannot be left at the mercy of the beliefs of every religious group, or they would dwindle to very little.

I explained, in my posts, my personal conviction that scientists should not intrude in the domain of religion to make questionable statements about the existence (or nonexistence) of God, because they can say nothing in this field, based on scientific grounds.

Religious groups, for their part, should adjust to the necessity of accepting scientific findings which do not conform with religious propositions, once they have been established beyond any reasonable doubt. They have no choice in the matter, if they want to maintain their credibility within the community, which lives in a constantly-evolving state of human knowledge.
_________________
think

[ABO]

Aster

Thanks for you thoughts. You have some great points and I think you're right on with most of it. The issue that scientist should not intrude in the domain of religion to make statements about the existence of God when it goes beyond their ability to test the evidence is more than just reasonable.

Much of the same evidence that evolutionary science uses as conformation for it's conclusions creationist view as conformation for there conclusions. Such as similar structure and design. One say's evolution the other says foot prints of a creator.

Many religions do blend with evolutionary theory and some don't. Some old time religious cults such as Moon of Sun god worship might work fine. Adjusting ones beliefs to fit what is considered the facts base on the latest scientific conclusion of evolutionary theory make the theory a higher form of revelation than whatever religion is being subjected to it.

You brought up the fact that in the recent past scientist thought the earth had always been and had no beginning. The Bible says it had a beginning and will have and end. So those who doubted that the earth didn't have a beginning were simply wrong. This might just be one example of scientific error, but relying on todays description of mans evolution from bush babies, stands far beyond the testable bounds of the scientific method and should qualify as a religion itself from what I can see.

The problem of reasonable doubt is one that remains with most of the conclusion science has proposed about the origin of life and molecule to man evolution. Science has developed a few seniroes which make the three stooges look like geniuses.

There is a real problem with implicating that conclusions of the age of the earth and origins have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. If the intent was to provide honest discoveries and assumptions as assumptions there would be no creation /evolution controversy, perhaps only a debate.

Today's method of enlightening the populous with the latest excepted theory has little difference with an onslaught of Jehovah Witnesses. That method of having an ulterior motive seems to resinate with what is presented.

[curt]

Hello Aster

In summary would you say that a god or gods of the gaps are the only ones compatible with science? I think there are many scientists who believe in a god that would not be happy with your stipulations.
What do you think about the atheists who rather than justify their paternalism with religion try to justify it with just so stories that masquerade as science?
My flavor of science relies on materialism. Only explanations that are based upon matter and energy are permissible. This leaves many gaps in our understanding. I am comfortable with these gaps. Many atheists are not and make up stories to fill in gaps that may make them uncomfortable. They are often more resistant to new materialistic evidence than religious scientists because they are more wedded to their paternal superiority than to materialism. This is not a trivial problem for women and people of color trying to advance their careers in science. The paternalists are welcome to selectively adhere to materialist evidence. It is up to us to and point out their counter factual fantasies despite their paternal eminence. Science literacy helps. Today our elementary schools teach science that eminent scientists a few decades ago were ignorant of. We may have a wonderful opportunity to use expensive and often difficult to obtain scientific information to help guide our human society but we don't have to. Especially if we wait for it to be somehow complete or be able to predict the future, teleologically or otherwise.
Please don't just think, the brain evolved to plan and control our movements mostly without thought, whatever that is. Together we may be able to accomplish allot.

[Les Lane]

[ABO]