Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?

Fri, 14 May 2010 15:57:37 -0700

There seems to be some misunderstanding of terminology. The word 'Theory" in colloquial usage is akin to an hypothesis. For this reason many people engaged in science education have preferred to use the terminology "scientific theory" 

To be more clear it should be understood that scientific theories:
1. Are supported by a large amount of factual information (data). The huge amount of biological data that has been collected over the past 150 years continues to support and strengthen the theory of evolution. For example, when we started genetic sequencing of the multitude of organisms on this planet we could have found a much different story, but for the most part, the DNA data broadly supports the phylogenies that were developed based on morphological data. 


2.  Represent summaries or models of our understanding of how nature 
works.  In the case of evolution, the theory is summarized and 
elaborated in a massive mathematical foundation that has developed over 
the last 100 years. 

3.  Are subject to refinement as new data are collected, but substantial 
theories such as the theory of gravity, evolution, or the heliocentric 
model of our solar system are not going to be refuted (just refined). 
The theory of evolution was refined once we understood genetic 
inheritance (the Modern Synthesis) and genomics (by elevating the 
importance of random drift and fully integrating Kimura's Neutral Theory 
of Evolution).



4.  Provide constructs within which we develop and test hypotheses.  
Evolution is not tested directly but guides the development of questions 
and the design of experiments. 

5.  Have predictive power (e.g., a fossil such as Tiktaalik was 
predicted to exist long before it was discovered).



At present we have a much better understanding of how evolution works 
than we do of how gravity works, yet nobody questions 'the law of 
gravity.'  Perhaps it would be more clear to people if we referred to 
the 'law of evolution' rather than using the ambiguous word 'theory.'


Mitch


William Silvert wrote:

I am not clear what a "literal truth" is, and I cannot dispute the common argument that evolution 
is "just a theory" -- theories are all we have, there is no such thing as a "proven scientific 
fact". But given the number of people (according to some polls, a majority of Americans) whose religious 
views lead them to reject the theory of evolution, I hardly think that science trumps scripture. More 
fundamental is the concept that man holds a special place in a universe created for him, which many religions 
are not willing to surrender.

But I think that the issue in this lively discussion is the conflict between 
faith and evidence, and I think that there are many cases where faith trumps 
evidence, not only in religion. Think of the cases where someone makes a video 
tape in which he promises to kill people, then goes out and slaughters his 
schoolmates or other innocents in full view of cameras and witnesses, and then 
his mother and neighbours appear on TV to declare their belief that he is a 
nice boy and did not commit such an awful crime.

I do think that there are fundamental questions about the role of religion in 
society that go well beyond being swayed by fundamentalists, but that leads us 
into anthropological issues that go far outside the scope of this list.

Bill Silvert


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: James Crants 
  To: William Silvert 
  Cc: [email protected] 
  Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 21:27

  Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?



  William, please name a religion that cannot accommodate the view that science trumps scripture when it comes to literal truth.  To do so, I think you would have to define "a religion" narrowly, selecting a particular school of thought from within a religion and labeling that branch "a religion."  


  Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism can all cope quite readily with scientific truth.  
Traditional Judaism is not dogmatic, so it also has no trouble working with science.  
Even Christianity and Islam, which we are most likely to associate with fundamentalism, 
have rich traditions of mysticism and other schools of religious thought that don't 
demand belief in things that are demonstrably false.  I guess that doesn't cover 
"most religions," but it covers the religions that most people belong to.  Each 
of these religions may have some branches that simply won't tolerate a fact that 
contradicts scripture, but each also has branches that are perfectly compatible with 
science.

  I think the dim view many scientists have of religion comes mostly from believing the propaganda 
of fundamentalists, that they are the only true followers of their religions.  We equate 
"being religious" with "believing the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution doesn't 
happen."  But you don't have to accept dogma to be religious.

  Regarding your more recent post, about not equating faith in other 
scientists' competence with belief in religious dogma, I completely agree.  
There is a big difference between accepting that another expert knows what 
they're talking about (contingently) and accepting something logic tells you is 
false just because it's in some old book.

  Jim


   
  On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM, William Silvert <[email protected]> wrote:


    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" <[email protected]>
    To: <[email protected]>
    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 <
      [email protected]> 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 






  -- 
  James Crants, PhD

  Scientist, University of Minnesota
  Agronomy and Plant Genetics
  Cell:  (734) 474-7478


  























					Reply via email to