Evolution, Science & Religion (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, June 16, 2012, 14:32 (4542 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

A number of interesting points have been raised, so this post will be rather bitty.-TONY (re evolution): A designed mechanism within direction and interference, yes.-This is an important agreement, as it removes many areas of misunderstanding, not to say distortion created by the anti-evolutionist lobby.-TONY: In short, fish didn't evolve from fungi, and mankind didn't evolve from fish. That is a testable hypothesis, and one of those overlap areas that I mentioned between Science and Religion. -I don't know of anyone who argues a direct line from fungi to fish to humans. The essence of the argument is that all living things are descended ultimately from a form (or forms) which contained the all-important mechanisms for reproduction, adaptation and innovation. The observable manner in which cells are able to assemble in different combinations with different functions gives us a degree of insight into how evolution may have proceeded. But I don't agree that this is an overlap area between science and religion. Exploring those mechanisms is the province of science. The moment a scientist begins to speculate on their origins, on purpose or lack of purpose, design or chance, he leaves the realm of science and enters that of philosophy (of which I would regard religion as a branch). See the next quote:-TONY: [...] Science would be studying the what and how while religion studies the who, why, and what for.-That is why Matt and others regard them as "Non-Overlapping Magisteria". I agree with you that "the explanation MUST fit the observation", which you have correctly applied to both science and religion, but science can (try to) explain the material workings of the universe WITHOUT delving into whys and wherefores. Those are not its province. Therefore, in my view, science by its very nature is restricted by the material bounds of observation, whereas much of religion is not and, again by its very nature, cannot be. Gods are not observable and testable. And so I would say that philosophy (including religion) should not run counter to science, but science has to be independent of philosophy.-TONY (to David): You criticize the bible for being a human construct, but don't even acknowledge that science is exactly the same?-I don't think it is exactly the same. While I share all your reservations about the "truths" that may emerge from science, its observations and experiments within the material world do provide many facts that are objectively testable and authenticated. Technology time and again proves the accuracy of its findings. You and I share a belief that the Earth goes round the sun, is more than 6000 years old, and that there are such things as radio signals and electricity. The bible is full of wonderful stories, wise insights into human conduct, and even some useful moral codes, but I really don't know why anyone should bother to consult it over matters of science. The only possible reason for doing so, it seems to me, is when religious people want to believe that the bible is the word of God and therefore either try to reconcile its (often vague) pronouncements with the findings of science, or in some cases simply refuse to accept the latter. (That of course is their prerogative. I'm only pointing out that what you call the "imperfect data sets and imperfect interpretations of them" are of a very different nature.)-TONY: My belief system is comprised of experience, research and intuition, and is subject to change on a whim if one of the three is not in harmony with the others. I have no place for tradition or dogma." And in your Walrus post you referred to "concepts that seem contradictory", and you say Matt and I "are quite fond of pointing these out."-I would much prefer to think that Matt's motives and mine are to obtain clarification rather than to enjoy picking holes! I would say our exchange concerning evolution has done just that. I get the impression that all of us regular contributors share the basis of your belief system ... even if we come up with different conclusions ... but also that all of us do undergo subtle changes in our thinking. They may not be fundamental, but I know I have been forced to refine my approach to some areas of our subject and to sharpen my own thinking. People like yourself, David, Matt and BBella have introduced me to fields I would never even have entered. That was actually what I'd hoped for when I set up this website, and it would be nice to think that others have had the same experience. None of us can ever know the "truth", but I do find it heart-warming to share the quest with folk like you.