h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Good point. Perhaps there should be an online dictionary here! It would solve a lot of disputes. Okay, so perhaps I should have said science requires belief. I think that main difference between this and religious faith is that scientists believe we should try to understand everything, whereas religions have often dicatated that there are certain things we should not investigate. Perhaps because they're afraid of proof.
As for unscientific sciences, I think that in the case of Psychology we see an example of science in its infancy, at the borderline between science and philosophy. It's a sort of 'soft science'. We can see what is basically happening, and have a general idea and a few theories about what's going on, but as far as trying to quantify it, we haven't got a clue!
About the Hume thing... I suppose that if we wanted to, we could doubt everything. After all, how do we know our perceptions are accurate? But as they are the only way we have of seeing the world, as we can never see the world in another way, then I suppose that acurrate should be defined as what our perceptions tell us. Maybe. But then, what about schizophrenia? We say that sufferers of this have false perceptions. So how do we define whose are right and whose are wrong??
I'm feeling dizzy now.

It is entirely possible that both evolution and creation go on simultaneously. Each change in an evolving species could be guided by the creators hand. Scientists describe the "mechanics" of species change, but they dont try to explain what causes the changes in the first place. I work in an immunology laboratory where we are trying to find ways to prevent people from suffering with diabetes. The people in my laboratory belive that the amazing complexity in the genetics and the cells and life itself are due to and guided by god. Many physicists find that eventually (after years of studying the complexity of the universe) they cannot belive that such a wonder could just have happened randomly. They say that it must have been created. Many scientists believe in science as a tool to try understand and use that which is governed by and created by god. Can you blame them for trying?

I agree with you, Potholer, regarding what you said about what to doubt and what to have faith in. There are some topics where skepticism would get in the way; learning to spell, for example.

--- Avatar

Of course, it's *possible* that divine creation is going on side by side with evolution. It is, however, a much more complicated explanation than evolution doing the job by itself, and as such would require a great deal of supporting evidence. I have yet to see any.
If one *were* to believe in concurrent evolution and creation, one would only be left with more unanswerable questions (Does god work in parallel with evolution, does god assist or fight evolution, where is the boundary between god and chemistry).

Incomprehension is a recurring argument for creationists. Especially in a field as complex as biology, it is entirely understandable, even unavoidable, that no one person will comprehend all the complexities of nature. Such lack of total knowledge cannot be logically taken as evidence for supernatural beings. (I don't know *everything* about computers, but that hardly means I think God created them.)

Furthermore, without abandoning all pretence of reason, it is utterly impossible to take human incomprehension as any evidence whatsoever for any one particular deity or religion over all the others that humans believe in. To argue otherwise would surely be religious chuavinism?

Personally, I find much in nature that fills me with a sense of wonder, particularly the timescales invovled in evolutionary and geological processes (When you've spent half a day climbing a vertical kilometre through rock made from the remains of innumerable fossilised sea creatures, you can develop a different perspective on deep time)

However, from an engineering perspective, it is clear that there are some aspects of nature (even of the human body) which leave something to be desired. Without wanting to be unpleasant, if someone says to me 'Ah - but all the weird bits are evolution's fault - God just does the good parts', I'd be likely to take that as an cop-out, as it's certainly not an explanation.

When you say scientists don't explain *what* causes evolutionary change, I have to disagree - chemical and radiation-induced mutation, imperfect DNA replication, and the often-overlooked sexual reproduction are the causes of genetic difference between parent and offspring. (In your own field of immunology, a phenomenal number of antibody and immune-cell-receptor configurations can be generated by the shuffling of a surprisingly small number of initial gene fragments.)

Scientists don't explain *why* (in an *intentional* sense) species change, because to atheists or agnostic scientists, those questions are, by definition, meaningless or unanswerable, and religious scientists believe they know the answer already.

I do wonder where the retreat from literal biblical creationism might end. If (when) it is shown that biology runs entirely happily on normal chemistry, will believers then shift to a deist viewpoint, where god created the laws of physics and chemistry, and then left the universe to evolve untouched.?

Claiming that God is responsible for all the things we either can't explain, or find difficult to comprehend, must unavoidably set up religion as antiscientific, at least to the extent that any advances in knowledge will be into the areas of ignorance which were previously cited as primary evidence for God.

Immunoglobulins and T-cell receptors are a pretty good mini-example of natural selection. The best things for the job survive.
This does not just apply to organisms or even cells. Right back to the first self replicating molecules. These were probably not DNA or RNA, but some sort of silica, like clay. The ones that did this better survived, reproduced, replaced the others. The applications of this sort of Darwinism are limitless, e.g. you are holding two cups, when you drop them both. One of them breaks, the other does not. You carry on using the one that does not break, and you throw the other in the bin. There does not have to be any great 'driving force' behind it all. It just is the way of things. There is no 'intentional force', that makes evolution happen, because there is no intention. And if things weren't this way, we would not be here, and would not be ableto ask these questions. So, as Potholer said, the question of a driving force is (to most scientists) meaningless.

Avatar, here in the UK we have to teach children a healthy skepticism when learning to spell, lest their minds be corrupted by the all-pervading "Sesame Street"...

Potholer, re. "...will believers then shift to a deist viewpoint, where god created the laws of physics and chemistry, and then left the universe to evolve untouched"

This is already a commonly held viewpoint. There are many who take evolution as analogous to a running computer program, and the "rules of physics" as being directly analogous to parameters within that program. It's often commented upon how fragile the conditions which can support life are, with a fraction of a percent change in one density here, one gravitational constant there, being enough to prevent life from ever having happened.

In this case, it comes down to semantics - people who believe this view of creation like to think that such a precise set of parameters are so statistically unlikely that they must have been set in place by an external agency, and choose to call that agency, whatever form it takes, "God". They generally just don't bother to anthropomorphise it...

One curious thought your mail triggered (not that it means anything, it just caught my attention) :

On the one hand, there is the view that miniscule changes in certain constants of physics would have made life impossible, or even made the *universe* impossible in anything like its present form. I don't know enough details to comment with confidence, but there are obvious arguments against - What kinds of universe could ever be observed by lifeforms *except* for those stable enough for life to survive in? How do we know there aren't infinitely many *non*-life supporting universes somewhere?

On the other hand, from the evidently violent history of our own planet, with immense outpourings of flood basalts, catastrophic impacts, maybe a complete planetary freeze-up at one point, it's clear how extraordinarily tenacious life can be once it has begun. Practically anywhere where liquid water can exist, bacterial life can live and grow, and it can survive even harsher conditions when dormant.

Anyway, Deism, I can happily live with, or at least alongside.
God the hands-off chemist/engineer (possibly now deceased) does have a nice resonance, and I guess a deist is no more likely than an agnostic or atheist to start telling other people what God thinks they should or shouldn't do. Also, a deist, unlike some brands of theist, should feel entirely unthreatened by advances in human knowledge, since they should have no more vested interest in any one result than a nonbeleiver would have.
Presumably, there aren't many murderous religious conflicts initiated by arguments over the One True Interpretation of Deism either

Dogmatic theism is an altogether different animal.

"Beware of the Dogma"

After all, there is evidence that life may have evolved on Mars at some point. Only very primitive bacteria, mind, but nevertheless, life. Thing is, they all died (or so we think), because the environment wasn't acceptable. Probably too cold/lack of reactive chemicals.
No matter how imporbable it was that life originated in the harsh environment of primeval Earth, it only had to happen once. We are porbably all descended from a single primitive life-form. And I mean ALL life on Earth (that we know about), orginated from a single cell.
Now THAT'S cool!

Re: subject heading.

I hope not - my daughter is basing the rest of her working life on it!!! I would definitely be dead if scientific research into medicine hadn't been carried out (along with many others).

What a ridiculous unintelligent subject heading.

I don't know who started it. It's probably designed to get a response!
If science was crap, I'd be out of a job.

I like to visualise somebody coming up with that heading after a hard day in the lab. measuring wet weight vs. dry weight percentages of bacteria in fecal matter...

Followed by specific activity calculations, chromopreps and all the other tedious rubbish that can make lab work (especially on days like this) seem a little less glamorous...

Dear Potholer,

Interesting direction you went with that one.

I was attempting to explain how science and religion are not mutually exclusive concepts by nature.

Pertaining to "proof", religion can be viewed as a sealed box that cannot be opened, shaken, taken the temperature of, X-rayed, etc...

The person who says they are sure that there is nothing in the box is going on faith as much as the person who says that there is something in the box.

Science and *some kinds* of religion are mutually exclusive by nature, since some kinds of religion have (for understandable (human?)reasons) positively encouraged ignorance and the lack of critical thought amongst followers, and freely persecuted dissenters.
In balance, I must stress that some kinds of religion have long maintained a deep respect for practical secular learning, and a tolerance of other opinions, to the benefit of both themselves, and of society as a whole.

Concerning your sealed box example :

If I were looking at such a box, and witnessed a dozen different people telling me that they *knew* precisely what the contents were, but no two of them had the same idea what was in it, I'd at least be confident that eleven of them were probably wrong.

If all their ideas of what the contents were bore no relation to anything yet discovered in the universe, I'd be fairly likely to think that all twelve were wrong.

If one or more of the people started telling me how I or anyone else should live, how society should be organised, or what children should be taught at school, purely on the basis of what they think might be in the box, I'd be likely to treat what they say as deliberate or unconscious delusions.

If the box was incapable of ever being opened, and exerted no influence on its surroundings, then from a practical point of view, any potential contents would be as irrelevant to the real world as if it *were* empty. I certainly wouldn't waste time sitting around worrying about it.

If someone were to tell me that inside the box is an all-knowing, all-powerful being desiring little more than occasional worship, I'd probably ask them why it doesn't open the damn box itself, and give everyone a fair chance to understand it as well as they do.

Ah - a kindred spirit!

Technically my last reply was directed at Peet (This space to hire a deposit may be necessary...), re CRAP and science. I've spent a fair bit of time up to my knees in crap in the name of science.

You would ask/think as you just stated.

I think that most logical people would. However, belief is not logical and in order to explain something logical to someone with strong beliefs, you have to use diplomacy.

Diplomacy usually consists of finding common ground on which to discuss. (For instance... "Perhaps you are right.")

Another component of diplomacy is the breaking down of barriers to communication. (For instance: Statement-. Science is crap because it tells me that I am wrong. . Reply-... There are scientists who believe as you do.. Scientists "believe" in science as well... so maybe science is not crap.)

Ridicule is not an effective technique for persuasion when a person is already on the defensive. I did not intend to offend your sensibilities... as this posting was aimed at explaining to someone with beliefs as strong as the whizzard of Oz why science is not the enemy.

I read some of your other postings and find your messages entertaining and energetic. Perhaps some day, I might be so eloquent.

So would I.