Science and Religion

[zavvy]

<b>Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say</b><br /><br /><i>"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein </i><br /><br />LINK<br /><br />Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of the universe. <br /><br />He also believes in God. <br /><br />That may strike some people as peculiar. After all, in some corners popular belief renders science and religion incompatible. <br /><br />Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work. <br /><br />"In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God." <br /><br />Evolution <br /><br />The notion that science and religion are irreconcilable centers in large part on the issue of evolution. Charles Darwin, in his 1859 book The Origin of Species, explained that the myriad species inhabiting Earth were a result of repeated evolutionary branching from common ancestors. <br /><br />One would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist today who does not believe in evolution. As laid out in a cover story in the November issue of National Geographic magazine, the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. <br /><br />Yet in a 2001 Gallup poll 45 percent of U.S. adults said they believe evolution has played no role in shaping humans. According to the creationist view, God produced humans fully

 

[kelle]

<font color="yellow">Yet in a 2001 Gallup poll 45 percent of U.S. adults said they believe evolution has played no role in shaping humans.</font><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /><br /><br />Anyway, you CAN fit religion in with science like for instance say that God was playing around with genes until he finally made a species that started worshipping Him (yep, that species is humans). But still I don't really see the point of trying to fit religion into science when you can just stop believing in religion. But anyway, if people really want to believe, they can do whatever they want, but if it affects their science negatively it's not good. But luckily it usually don't.

 

[thechemist]

Scientists are humans, so as they grow old, they sometimes see religion with a different eye, like all those old people filling churches.<br /><br />It is the fear of death that usually turns people to religion, which is quite hypocritical, if you ask me.<br /><br />I have to disagree on another point: science is also trying to answer "why", this is not a question that necessarily has to be answered through religion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>I feel better than James Brown.</em> </div>

 

[bobw]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>In a 1997 survey in the science journal Nature, 40 percent of U.S. scientists said they believe in God—not just a creator, but a God to whom one can pray in expectation of an answer. That is the same percentage of scientists who were believers when the survey was taken 80 years earlier.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I was wondering if that is the same survey I read about in Scientific American a long time ago. I didn't want to try to find the mag in the pile and their website is bad so I googled and found the one I remember reading. I can't find the 40 % figgure in it, for sure!<br /><br />http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html<br /><br /> BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD...............1914..........1933........1998<br /><br /> Personal belief ................................. 27.7............15...........7.0<br /> Personal disbelief............................. 52.7...........68............72.2<br /> Doubt or agnosticism........................20.9.............17............20.8<br /><br /> BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY..................1914..............1933..........1998<br /><br /> Personal belief...............................35.2..................18.............7.9<br /> Personal disbelief...........................25.4..................53.............76.7<br /> Doubt or agnosticism......................43.7..................29............23.3<br /><br />Note: The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high. <br /><br />It was in a different Nature poll; 23 July 1998 issue of Nature. They sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). I'll bet the other survey included sociologists, psychologists, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Nice link zavvy. I would agree with the professor 100%, indeed I share his position.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[nexium]

While polls are some indication, the majority has fairly often been proved to be likely wrong. Personally I have only a few minor problem areas with matching religion and science. A few minor problems is normal in most working hypothesis, so I mostly agree with the arctile except I concider evolution producing the first spark of life a minor problem to the rest of evolution theory, and I'm willing to think God might have used something like evolution to complete creation with only a bit of fine tuning. Neil

 

[rogers_buck]

>> Yet in a 2001 Gallup poll 45 percent of U.S. adults said they believe evolution has played no role in shaping humans. <br /><br />In their case they were right.<br /><br />

 

[rogers_buck]

Religion is just science frozen by political forces. Given the glacial pace of olden days that is an understandable outcome. It would be nice if science could once again become the cosmology for all. The golden rule can be replaced by prisoner's dilemma, and a microchip can replace a concience. Life after death can be even hinted at by virtue that information is never lost from the universe.<br /><br />Humm, maybe the great observatories ought to get their own satellite channels and radio shows and start asking for those pensioner's dollars.<br />

 

[little_star]

I think the fear of death turns some people towards religion, but I don't think you can say it's a "usually." <br /><br />I've seen quite a few young people filling churches.<br /><br />I don't believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. <br /><br />At the same time, to use the argument that "Einstein thought there was a creator" or that "so and so says so" is not a good argument for a belief system, just like it's also bad science to automatically accept someone's theories on face value based on their reputation. But, since the beliefs of these scientists exist without compromising their scientific integrity, it is possible to say that religion is not bad for scientists to have.<br />

 

[silylene old]

And recent polls show that about 70% of Americans have seen alien UFOs, 33% of Americans believe in alien visitations to our planet (Gallup poll 2001, and increase from 27%), about 6% of American claimed to have been abducted by aliens, and about 5 million Americans have interacted with angels.<br /><br />And according to a 11/22/2002 Gallup poll, a whopping 87% of Americans cannot locate Iraq on a map, 83% cannot find Afghanistan, 76% cannot find Saudi Arabia, 70% cannot find New Jersey State, 49% cannot find New York State, and 11% cannot locate the United States on a globe. Another poll showed that about 65% of Americans believe Washington DC is the capital of Canada.<br /><br />Finally a Feb 2001 gallup poll found that 45% of Americans hold creationite beliefs (that they were "created by god in their present form within the last 10,000 years").<br /><br />The point is that the good percentange (majority?) of Americans are ignorant undereducated knuckleheads. But we all know this already.<br /><br />What better could one expect from a population primarily increasingly educated by television sitcoms, religious preachers, <i>The National Enquirer</i>, Fox TV and inner city streets? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[mooware]

I wonder what kind of personality a god would have to have, when considering the reason for creating humans was so that he could be worshipped?<br /><br />

 

[mooware]

Once again I find myself in complete agreement with you.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Either the citizens take back the schools and force good education on their children"</font><br /><br />At this stage of the game getting people to decide what is good education, might be problematic at best. Especially since a good portion of the country believes in creationism and young earth.<br />

 

[gsuschrist]

"Either the citizens take back the schools and force good education on their children...<br /><br /> but you just bemoaned the high levels if illiteracy and ignorance. So ignorant illiterate citizens should take back the schools and force 'good' education? I don't have as much faith as you what their definition of 'good' education is. The citizens of my area elect their public officials and do control the schools.

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">"Those who deny the creationsim and a young earth are denying the effective and practical validity of the scientific method"</font><br /><br />I think you mean those who support creationism. Unless I missed the point here someplace. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[nexium]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has avoided taking a stand against evolution in recent decades. My church is pro science. The latter is important to the continuation of modern civilization. Evolution plays an rather small role in the areas of science which are important to the contiuation of modern civilization. You can hate evolution and still do good work in science, unless you let anti-evolution carry over to other science ideas. Neil

 

[silylene old]

<i>Evolution plays an rather small role in the areas of science which are important to the contiuation of modern civilization.</i><br /><br />??<br />So which of the following aspects of modern civilization are unimportant?<br /><br />genetics<br />biochemistry<br />bacteriology<br />embryology<br />botany<br />agricultural and crop science<br />veterinary science<br />evironmental husbandry<br />advanced programming algorithms<br />linguistics<br />astronomy<br />cosmology<br />astrobiology<br />paleontology<br />archeology<br />human history <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[nexium]

Hi sililene: I have to admit to the importance of bacteriology and biochemistry. Most of the others are only slightly related to human evolution and/or would scaresly be harmed by rejecting human evolution and/or are not very vital to continuing modern civilization. If the scientist rejected all micro-organism and crop evulution and/or insisted on a young Earth (a separate topic) but often linked for reasons I don't understand, that would be bad. Neil

 

[silylene old]

Nexium: all of the subjects I listed are intimately related to either the concept of evolution or the concept of an old earth. Evolution is the core that connects and explains subjects as diverse as bacteriology (micororganism diversity and change), linguistics (language development and linguistic connectivities) and crop science (seed diveristy and genetics). <br /><br />Astronomy and cosmology rely upon the concept that the same physical constants and equations we observe today were operant yesterday and operant 1 thousand years ago and operant 1 billion years ago. Thus red-shift, galactic sizes, times it takes photons to travel vast distances, parallax, etc are concepts whose vailidity is based upon a constancy of physics; and imply that the earth is older than 6000 yrs.<br /><br />But this discussion has a deeper root. I would argue that a civilized people is free to discuss and learn and appreciate the concepts of evolution and a 4 billion year old earth. Each time one chips away at what we have learned, or what we can learn, or our curiosity, or what we teach our children, or what we don't want to teach our children, we lose a big piece of what makes us a thinking, sentient, intelligent animal. I would argue that a people which ignores or prohibits or dismisses a concept such as evolution is uncivilized in the modern sense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[nexium]

I agree the slippery slope may rob us of civilization. Just as scarry as some religions insisting on young Earth, and anti-evolution, is the lies our government, polititions, lawyers, and advertisers tell us. Neil

 

[zavvy]

Here's an interesting interview with Nobel Prize recipient Charles Townes PhD ..<br /><br /><b>'Explore As Much As We Can'</b><br /><br />LINK<br /><br />BERKELEY – Religion and science, faith and empirical experiment: these terms would seem to have as little in common as a Baptist preacher and a Berkeley physicist. And yet, according to Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor in the Graduate School, they are united by similar goals: science seeks to discern the laws and order of our universe; religion, to understand the universe's purpose and meaning, and how humankind fits into both. <br /><br />Where these areas intersect is territory that Townes has been exploring for many of his 89 years, and in March his insights were honored with the 2005 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities. Worth about $1.5 million, the Templeton Prize recognizes those who, throughout their lives, have sought to advance ideas and/or institutions that will deepen the world's understanding of God and of spiritual realities. <br /><br />Townes first wrote about the parallels between religion and science in IBM's Think magazine in 1966, two years after he shared the Nobel Prize in Physics for his groundbreaking work in quantum electronics: in 1953, thanks in part to what Townes calls a "revelation" experienced on a park bench, he invented the maser (his acronym for Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission), which amplifies microwaves to produce an intense beam. By building on this work, he achieved similar amplification using visible light, resulting in the laser (whose name he also coined).<br /><br />Even as his research interests have segued from microwave physics to astrophysics, Townes has continued to explore topics such as "Science, values, and beyond," in Synthesis of Science and Religion (1987), "On Scienc