"Crafty Attacks on Evolution" in the New York Times - e-mails
Some comments about L's reply:
It sounds like L is an IDer -- closer to the Science stance than New Earth Creationists.
L: It focuses science's attention on natural things. But who said in the end all things will only have a naturalistic explanation? Who can know this for certain? Do we really know this to be the case?
It may happen that not all things have a naturalistic explanation, but so far there has not been any evidence to believe otherwise. There is no reliable evidence for the existence of the supernatural or the existence of any supernatural entities. As far as the evidence goes what a person believes are supernatural entities are only entities in the brain of that person -- they die when the brain dies. No evidence, no scientific reason to assume another realm beyond the natural. Until there is definite evidence of a supernatural realm there is no basis for assuming it -- this is, as all things in science, provisional.
Science has many gaps of knowledge. For example, the scarcity of fossils doesn't mean that the overall theory is false. Fossil gaps will take time to fill and in many cases may never happen. It takes very unusual natural conditions to produce fossils, so the scarcity. Fossils are only a small part of the evidence, molecular biology is another more major part.
To explain any gap in knowledge, even after much research, does not require an appeal to the supernatural.
Religionists would love to appeal to the supernatural, then there would be no need for further research because the answer would always be supernatural.
L: Again I think this is wrong. I think it suffers from misunderstanding and exaggeration. Many of the early scientists were Christians. Did it stop them from discovering many naturalistic truths concerning our world.
Early scientists such as Newton and Kepler didn't know any better -- they can't be blamed. Newton and Kepler both spent a lot more time on astrology, alchemy, prophecy, Christian practice and beliefs than on their scientific endeavours. Does this mean both astrology and Christian beliefs describe reality?
What was revolutionary about early scientists is that they approached their research from a purely naturalistic point of view -- when they did this they were successful, when not they produced a bunch of gibberish.
Scientists whose belief system requires the supernatural, compartmentalize
(separate) their actual scientific activities
from their religious life. Ever since the systematic scientific study of the
universe without reference to the supernatural,
our knowledge of the universe has grown exponentially. Just look at the results.
No other view of the universe
comes even close to being so successful, except the atheistic one. Even
a traditionally religious scientist approaches his scientific research as if God
or the supernatural do not exist.
L: Many scientists are Christians today.
A study reported in "Nature" in the late 1990's involved 517
members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about
belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while
72.2% expressed
"personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or
agnosticism."
Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in the original measurement.
Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%.
L: agree that science has been and is powerful. But I'm not sure science is geared to answer all our questions. I think religion - e.g., Christianity - may have a role to play. In my opinion it offers answers to questions science may not be designed to answer.
Such as??? What are some questions Christianity or other religions can answer that science cannot?
Science has a lot to say about good and evil, morality
L: It would be nice if this was explained a little more. I think most Christians would agree with the above. It's always a good idea to check out the physical angle before the spiritual.
Last statement -- Good for you, Larry!
Big topic. A book that explains this topic a lot more is:
"The Science of Good and Evil, Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share and
Follow the Golden Rule" by Michael Shermer.
ISBN 0-8050-7520-8
I highly recommend it. Can borrow it from the public library.
Another recent book on ID, Creationism, and naturalism that I thought summarized a lot of the conflicts between them is:
"The Tower of Babel, The Evidence against the New Creationism" by Robert T. Pennock
ISBN 0-262-16180-X
My prediction:
Contrary to what some American scientists think, natural evolutionary science studies such as astronomy, geology and Biology will take a big hit in the US. These studies will be replaced by theistic, ID type studies in the schools and research facilities there, due to pressures by various religious groups, including Muslims, also New Age and secular Post Modernists.
I see the end of science in the States.
It will be Canada, Europe, China, Japan, India where the real science (purely naturalistic science) will be done.
Unless...????
One good thing about ID: Science thrives on thoughtful, considered criticism. As long as ID points out specific items in science to wonder about, then scientists can be motivated to research in that area. Scientists criticize each other all the time -- a galvanizing thing in science.
Interesting thought:
It seems researchers that assume no supernatural realm are blessed with gigantic
gains in knowledge about reality.
It would be ironic: If there is a supernatural God who rewards researchers that deny His(It's) existence in their researches, but who withholds any rewards for those that use God as an essential part of their research.
Blessed are the naturalists,
To Comments on "Attacks on Evolution"