I've jumped into this conversation late, so I apologize if this has already
been mentioned, but Annie Dillard addresses the dilemma of meshing the concept
of a creator with modern science quite eloquently in her book Pilgrim at Tinker
Creek.
Something to think about: scientists have endeavored to explain just about
every phenomenon in the natural world. Some of these explanations are easy to
understand and are easily testable, but some are not. Some aspects of quantum
physics, space-time distortion, etc... are not easily testable and are only
fully understood by a few brilliant minds. They cannot convey the explanation
of these phenomena to me because I would not understand it: I take it on faith
that their calculations are correct and that those who conduct a peer review on
their work are able to catch every error.
A few more examples:
- I am looking to solve a problem in my micrometeorology class, and I come
across an equation in a textbook which will give me the answer I need. I don't
know who came up with the equation, how they tested it, how many times it has
been validated (especially newer equations), and how rigorously the reviewer
who allowed it into "the literature" thought about it. As I'll be using dozens
of equations throughout the semester, I'm not going to gather any of this
information myself. I take it on faith that the peer review process has
produced a quality product.
- The East Anglia Climate Research Unit recently took a lot of heat for not
being able to produce the original data by which their global climatologies
were produced. Now think of all the data products out there for which people
have not asked for the original data. Could every scientist retrace every step
they took to come to their final conclusions? Can every scientist point to the
data they used to make every graph in every paper they have written? No: nor
does every reviewer ask for the data, nor can they catch every error. The
scientific method and peer review are the best things we have for validating
scientific observations and discoveries, but there is room for errors to slip
through the cracks. Or even worse: no scientist likes to think this, but the
scientific method and peer review are not impervious to purposely falsified
data, especially in studies that involve direct environmental observation.
Sure, experiments are supposed to be
reproducible, but how long do ecology and environmental science experiments go
before a second group of researchers tries to replicate them? Sometimes years,
if ever.
The basic point I'm trying to make here is that unless you yourself understand
on a fundamental level every scientific concept you have used, you are involved
in a faith based process of discovery. If you've ever said "I don't know why
this works but I trust it does," that is faith. Conclusions based on
non-laboratory observation of the natural world also require faith in the
integrity of the research group conducting the study.
Thank you,
Adam Sibley
________________________________
From: William Silvert <cien...@silvert.org>
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Sent: Fri, May 14, 2010 12:24:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest
do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not
believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be more
difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible.
James writes that "Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view
that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of
scripture is not literally true." Certainly not all, and I doubt the "most".
And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact. The underlying
issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the word "beliefs")
on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message ----- From: "James Crants" <jcra...@gmail.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L]
evolution for non-scientists textbook
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres <
> sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Science is based on fact.
>> Religion is based on faith.
>> They don't mix.
>
>
> These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly
> religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America,
> particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all
> religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in
> specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even
> believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that
> species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people
> who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith.
>
> Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen
> who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to
> be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits
> have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu
> and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing
> seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian
> ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole
> period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious
> beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist.
>
> Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if
> scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of
> scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible
> partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for
> religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political
> influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only
> to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue.
>
> Jim Crants
