In this post and the next I provide reasons and evidence in support of my assertion that the 20 statements that I had listed in one of my recent posts have no basis in fact, have been refuted or are false from the scientific standpoint.
First, let me address the main point of the original discussion under this thread. I think my assertion that there is a conflict between science and religion still stands. This is the case because of the following reasons: a) This assertion applies to religion in general, not just to an extremely liberal version of Catholicism which does not recognize Biblical miracles or supernatural events as literal truths, and which does not insist on the scientific validity in today's world of the pre-scientific scriptural explanations of natural phenomena. b) It applies to fundamentalist Hinduism, fundamentalist Islam, several sects of Christianity (such as the Southern Baptists in the U. S. and fundamentalist Catholics), Scientology, the Christian Science religion, several cults of Hinduism, several cults of Christianity and numerous other religious cults of all types. c) There exist in this world people who actively oppose by legal, political and governmental means valid scientific facts and ideas because of their staunch religious beliefs e. g. two days ago the state of Georgia in this country eliminated the teaching of evolution in its current form from the high school science curriculum because of pressure from such people. d) There exist in this world people who try to infuse into the scientific curriculum in public schools, parochial schools and universities spurious pseudoscientific ideas such as "scientific" creationism, intelligent design, Vedic astrology, Hare Krishna creationism (Hare Hare), Islamic creationism, etc. Second, let me give a brief answer to the following question that was raised in one of the responses to my recent posts. > >Are you so sure of your scientific statements? > My scientific statements are based on real scientific data. They are not based on the speculations and fantasies of theoretical physicists, theologians and New Age enthusiasts. As far as certainty of scientific statements is concerned, please see my response to George Pinto's comment. And finally, coming to the list of misstatements, here are my justifications for the incorrectness of the first 10 of them. FALSE STATEMENT 1. It is clear that reduction to physical explanations is inadequate for the biological data. A whole new hugely successful field called molecular biology is founded on the premise that biological data can be reduced to simple physical explanations. None of its findings have been proven wrong, and it has ushered in the recombinant DNA technology revolution. You can read all about it in a great book entitled "The Eighth Day of Creation" by Horace Freeland Judson. FALSE STATEMENT 2. Physical laws cannot explain the tendencies within the macroscopic world toward progressive organization. There are several new physical concepts such as the theory of fractals, cellular automata, neural networks, genetic algorithms, etc which demonstrate how randomness and simple laws can produce beautiful and complex organized structures within the macroscopic world. For additional information on this please see my response to false statement 8. FALSE STATEMENT 3. Evolution does not exclude creation by God. It excludes creation of the type that was taught by various sacred scriptures and religious texts. That is why Biblical creationism, ISKCON creationism (Hare Krishna Hare Hare), Islamic creationism and the so-called "scientific" creationism, motivated by religious sentiments, are perpetually in conflict with the theory of evolution. Here are three books on creationism that provide evidence in support of this fact: 1. Biblical Creationism by Henry Morris, 2. Darwin on Trial by Philip E. Johnson 3. Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative To Darwin's Theory by Michael A. Cremo. I have not read the last book, but I have read its prequel called "Forbidden Archeology", published by the Bhaktivedanta Institute (Hare Krishna Hare Rama Hare Krishna Hare Hare). Here is an article that talks about why evolution is not compatible with the real teachings of the Bible from the creationist movement's standpoint: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-126.htm FALSE STATEMENT 4. There is no dualism. But brain cannot explain the functions of mind. (This is a veritable gem.) The above statement does not make logical sense. Dualism means the existence of two entities, one being the brain, and the other the mind or the soul or the self. If there is no dualism then monism or the existence of a single entity must be right. If brain cannot explain the mind, then the single entity has to be the disembodied mind or the soul or the self. Thus if one inactivates any part of the brain, nothing should happen to the mind. Yet, the field that I am working in, Neuroscience, which deals entirely with this subject has overwhelming evidence that this is not true. Every mental event is accompanied by the specific activation of parts of the brain, and damage or inactivation of these parts eliminates that mental event. Here are a few books that describe this very nicely for the layman: 1. Astonishing Hypothesis by Francis Crick 2. Neurophilosophy by Patricia Churchland 3. Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett 4. Descartes' Error by Antonio Damasio. 5. Phantoms in the Brain by V. S. Ramachandran and Sandra Blakeslee. FALSE STATEMENT 5. Medical experiments have already shown that prayer is beneficial to the patients. Two initial studies showed a few modest effects of prayer. These studies by Byrd and Harris have been found to be flawed, the first of which was cited by Fr. Ivo in support of his erroneous statement. Several recent studies have actually refuted the results of these two earlier studies. In 2001, one study tried to replicate the 1988 Byrd study with more than twice the number of patients (799) and a much better study design. It found no net beneficial effects of prayer. In fact, the patients who were prayed for did slightly worse than those that were not. Here is the bibliographic reference of this study: Aviles JM et al. (2001) Intercessory prayer and cardiovascular disease progression in a coronary care unit population: a randomized controlled trial. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Volume 76, Number 12, Pages 1192-1198. FALSE STATEMENT 6. To think for oneself is not to use a scientific approach (stated as a rhetorical question). The falsity of the above statement is self-evident. Nothing that is said in its defense makes any sense at all. The opposite of thinking for oneself is either simply being gullible or believing everything one is told, or one has read in some book, on faith. Educationists always emphasize the fact that thinking for oneself is the central feature of critical thinking, an important tool of scientific research. Every scientist that I know and have read about thinks for himself/herself in the course of his/her scientific work. Immanuel Kant equated thinking for oneself to enlightenment. Arthur Schopenhauer, another great philosopher who was actually critical of scientists said the following about it in a famous essay called "On Thinking for Oneself": "It is incredible what a different effect is produced upon the mind by thinking for oneself, as compared with reading. It carries on and intensifies that original difference in the nature of two minds which leads the one to think and the other to read." "Men of learning are those who have done their reading in the pages of a book. Thinkers and men of genius are those who have gone straight to the book of Nature; it is they who have enlightened the world and carried humanity further on its way." FALSE STATEMENT 7. What was not possible for "medical science" in St. Luke's time is also not possible for medical science today (stated as a rhetorical question). The falsity of the above statement also is self-evident. Luke's knowledge of medicine was rudimentary at best. The medical understanding of Galen (2nd century A.D. i. e. most likely postdates Luke) who is considered to be one of the fathers of ancient medicine is useless today, and most of it is seriously flawed. FALSE STATEMENT 8. The second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution. This erroneous statement permeates all creationist literature in print and in the electronic media, despite the fact that it has been roundly refuted by any number of real biologists, physicists and philosophers. Here is one such refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html Indeed, Ilya Prigogine, a founder of a new field called Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics, showed how the degree of order could increase locally within the universe without violating the second law of thermodynamics because entropy or disorder on the global scale would still continue to increase. For these insights he received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977. FALSE STATEMENT 9. Buddhists are not atheists. (Please read "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" by Pope John Paul II to find out why this assertion is false). The Pope's assertion that Buddhism is atheistic was objected to by many Buddhists because they sensed that he was using that word in a pejorative sense. It is well known that Buddhism does not recognize any kind of god, personal or otherwise. It is in this sense atheistic. In direct contrast to what Fr. Ivo says in defense of the above misstatement, here's what Venerable Nyanaponika Thera, a respected Sri Lankan Buddhist priest and scholar says about this in an essay on his religion. "From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali Canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings." And elswhere: "As an attempt at explaining the universe, its origin, and man's situation in his world, the God-idea was found entirely unconvincing by the Buddhist thinkers of old. Through the centuries, Buddhist philosophers have formulated detailed arguments refuting the doctrine of a creator god. It should be of interest to compare these with the ways in which Western philosophers have refuted the theological proofs of the existence of God." He also says: "Only in one way can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely in so for as it denies the existence of an eternal, omnipotent God or godhead who is the creator and ordainer of the world." This is the way in which I describe it as atheistic. His essay can be read at http://www.lankaweb.com/dhamma/view4.html FALSE STATEMENT 10. There are no atheist scientists, only agnostic ones. There is no dispute regarding this misstatement because Fr. Ivo says that he did not mean to say this. I am sorry for misunderstanding him on this point. Cheers, Santosh ########################################################################## # Send submissions for Goanet to [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # PLEASE remember to stay on-topic (related to Goa), and avoid top-posts # # More details on Goanet at http://joingoanet.shorturl.com/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
