Well, not all scientists are atheists, so I would have thought there was more room for the argument that science and religion address different areas than you seem to allow. More specifically, my own feeling is that science is pretty good at explaining how things happen, but not that good at the why. It's also interesting that science doesn't really tell us anything about how the Universe was created. If I told you something happened, say something appeared where there was nothing before, but refused to discuss any sort of agent that might have been involved with this occurrence, insisting that "it just happened", you might be a little suspicious of my motives in doing so. The very fact that science shies away from the obvious question is kind of a pointer towards its limitations, not so?

If I told you something happened, say something appeared where there was nothing before, but refused to discuss any sort of agent that might have been involved with this occurrence, insisting that "it just happened", you might be a little suspicious of my motives in doing so.

> not all scientists are atheists

Like I said, Christianity has evolved. All scientists are heretics by the Church's standards of several hundred years ago. Those standards changed in response to Darwin, precisely to keep scientists and their ilk in the Church.


> The very fact that science shies away from the obvious question is kind of a pointer towards its limitations, not so?

No, not so. These obvious questions have cropped up many times before, and science tends to answer them, in time. The answer, so far, has never been "God". Scientists aren't shying away from the question by refusing to giev a mystical answer; they're just waiting for enough data to give a scientific answer.

I suppose to some extent we are arguing at cross-purposes, because Judaism doesn't generally subscribe to this whole "heresy" idea: you're either observant or non-observant, regardless of what you think, and there is a millenia-strong tradition of questioning in minute detail every aspect of the Torah. Judaism has never had a concept of "faith". So scientists like Maimonides and Gerald Schroeder can both feel perfectly comfortable in a religious framework that has scarcely changed (much less evolved) in thousands of years.

Regarding your second point: I doubt many people would be happy to simply wait for science to provide the answers when the data appears; that might be an awful long wait! You might not be able to prove (to the standards of academic philosophy) the nature of the world but to most people it's pretty obvious. To ascribe it all to random chance is absurd.

> To ascribe it all to random chance is absurd.

Yes, and that is absolutely not what Darwinism does. The "random" tag should be regarded as ignorance or as anti-Darwinian propaganda, or as both. Darwinism says that species develop through random mutation combined with natural selection. While the mutation is random, natural selection is not. It's like rainfall: where it falls on a landscape may be random, but where it gathers into lakes and rivers is not.

Oh, forgot to say....

> I doubt many people would be happy to simply wait for science to provide the answers when the data appears

Yeah, but the alternative is a self-defeatign position generally known as "the God of the gaps". If you use gaps in scientific knowledge as evidence of God's existence, you're dooming yourself to having all your evidence destroyed. There is a tendency to believe, in certain cases, that what science cannot explain now it never will, and therefore to place such areas under God's jurisdiction. Consciousness is a good example: in the early 20th Century, it was generally agreed by scientists that consciousness simply could not be explained by science, not because the data were incomplete or the technology inadequate, but because consciousness was a type of thing that science could not even theoretically explain. Many Christians therefore declared that consciousness was a godly thing. Jump forward to today, and scientists are beginning to offer mechanical explanations for consciousness. Christians find themselves in the position of seeing a phenomenon that they explicitly declared as mystical and godly being picked apart and analysed and, probably soon, explained by scientists.

The best bet is either to wait for the data or to stay out of the fight. Mainstream Christianity has redefined itself so that it can do the latter.

Well, finding a place for God in the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge might not be completely self-defeating because it seems clear there are limits to knowledge and to formal proofs, but it's not a position I would take because it's playing the game by science's rules and thus conceding the argument before it's even started. I believe that science can never be more than a useful tool, and should certainly not be taken as the only valid approach to the question of the meaning and purpose of our existence. "There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamed of in your philosophy." Our tradition is that the Torah is the blueprint of the Universe: it follows that the best way of interacting with the Universe is in the way described in the Torah, and this has proved to be the case for thousands of years. Every moral and ethical value that modern society is so justly proud of stems from the Torah.

As I see it, one can either take the view of Richard Feymann and see nothing but random chaos at work in the heart of the Universe, a profoundly depressing view, or one can take the view that all of the incredible beauty, harmony and sheer fitness of the world is the result of purposeful design, an infinitely more uplifting view. The fact that the world was created cunningly enough to support either view is just more evidence of its amazingness, and that of its Creator.

Creationinsm, and its little brother, Intelligent Design, are religious Lysenkoism. They will be a brake on scientific and economic progress for as long as they exist. Any country that tolerates them in its school curriculum is cutting off, well maybe not a whole foot, but certainly several toes. Might not seem important, but they're very important for keeping balance.

Can't people see God in the patterns of nature, not its gaps? Think Emergence.

The plot thickens:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-ar...ves/ 001020.html

> As I see it, one can either take the view of Richard Feymann and see nothing but random chaos at work in the heart of the Universe, a profoundly depressing view, or one can take the view that all of the incredible beauty, harmony and sheer fitness of the world is the result of purposeful design, an infinitely more uplifting view.

See, I think completely the opposite: that all of this could be the result of chaos organising itself strikes me as utterly wonderful and amazing, while the "because someone made it all" explanation is depressing in its lack of imagination. Funny how we all see things, isn't it?

Excellent stuff here S2.

Two questions: the scientists are refusing to take part in the hearings on the grounds that they're rigged. Are they? This is an honest question - I don't know the answer. In your analogy, if I was being prosecuted for theft, and I knew damn well that the trial was rigged, and that I was going to be convicted despite being innocent, then refusing to take part in it and standing outside the courthouse instead briefing journalists doesn't seem so crazy. But I have no idea how fair this analogy is.

Secondly (this perhaps goes deeper) you're not the first atheist I've come across who rails against "all those sophisticated modern Christians". Somehow you prefer the straightforwardness of 1100AD Christianity (which would nowadays be called "fundamentalism") rather than the slippery modern beliefs. This isn't a point of view I've ever understood. Ok the 1100AD beliefs are more internally consistent: they give clear yes/no answers to most questions you could ask, questions which the "sophisticated" Christian might seek to dodge. But they're also far more obviously utter bollocks, and for the life of me I don't see the advantage of believing obvious bollocks to having "sophisticated modern beliefs" which, whilst convoluted and inconsistent (i.e bollocks but more subtly so), at least should be vaguely in tune with observable external reality. Also the fundamentalist is far more likely to kill people who disagree with him. The greatest crime the sophisticated Christian is likely to commit however is that of intellectual disingenuity, which is no more than a bit irritating.

All fair points, Larry, but you misunderstand me if you think I have a problem with sophisticated modern Christianity. I'm not railing against it; I'm just pointing out that it has developed specifically because Christianity was losing the fight with science. As I wrote in my post, Christianity's ability to evolve is one of its great strengths.

As far as I can gather from various reports, the hearings are "rigged" insofar that they're giving undue weight and influence to the anti-evolutionary point of view. I fail to see how giving even more weight to that point of view helps to combat it. Besides, evolution got to where it is today against far worse odds. True scientists should believe that the intellectual rigour behind their ideas is enough to combat anti-science. These guys in Kansas obviously don't.

Also, of course, the hearings are recorded. By refusing to attend, the scientists keep their point of view out of the public record. I think that's a very bad idea, as the public record helps to shape not just current policy but future policy. Even if the current politicians are ignorant eejits, a different bunch could be elected in a few years, and they may choose to review the hearings. With no scientists giving the pro-evolution argument at the hearings, any reasonable reading of the record will show that the hearings reached a fair and sensible conclusion from the evidence given.

This quote from your original post seemed to me to show some preference for 1100AD Christianity over sophisticated mofern Christianity but maybe I'm misunderstanding you:

Some Christians have refused to surrender what they see, probably correctly, as a key part of their territory. They have remained true to the traditions of Christianity, have opted not to lie to themselves or anyone else about the threat posed by Darwinism, and are fighting it. They're wrong, but good for them anyway.

Why "probably correctly"? And why in the name of sanity "good for them"?

On the other point I think I agree with you: the scientists should stand up for evolution. On the other hand if a different bunch of politicians are elected in a few years, if they want to review this matter, and if they're not eejits, then presumably these entirely one-sided hearings won't play that heavy a role in the decision the come to.

> Why "probably correctly"?

Well, it is correct. For almost all of its history, Christianity has provided the only answer in the Christian world to the question "How did humans come to exist?" Now, the Church's traditional answer is only believed by the ignorant, and the Church itself has abandoned not only that answer, but the very idea that it is the Church who should answer the question in the first place. If that isn't conceding territory, I don't know what is.

> And why in the name of sanity "good for them"?

We've had this argument before.

It's terrritory but is it "key"? Sophisticated Christians certainly don't think so. Since traditional Christianity has been proved totally wrong in this area, they've decided that it isn't key and are very sensibly moving elsewhere. Fundamentalist nutters however remain to fight for it, and I'm slightly bewildered as to why you wish to cheer them on, since you're a sensible chap, and they're mad peddlers of ignorance and lies. But as you say, we've discussed such matters before...

> I'm slightly bewildered as to why you wish to cheer them on

If scientific theories don't have to fight for their survival, they aren't worth a damn. If everyone accepts anything under the heading of "science" unquestioningly, we end up with the public believing bollocks like the "passive smoking kills thirty people every day" claims. Without scepticism — even unscientific or antiscientific scepticism — science is nothing.


> is it "key"?

It certainly was. Something else I've said before:

Darwinism implied that God didn't create animals, plants, or human beings. I'm sure you've heard God referred to as "the Creator" -- according to Darwinism, He isn't. That's pretty fundamental.

"True scientists should believe that the intellectual rigour behind their ideas is enough to combat anti-science."

Well, they better not believe that. People can be persuaded of things that are quite patently untrue, so long as the persuader has access to the machinery of persuasion - which can be physical, as in access to the media, or 'intellectual', as in the ability to draw on persuasive anecdotes and accebatable rhetoric. Any study of the history of science demonstrates that the acceptance of an idea, while not divorced from the intellectual rigour behind the arguments, is dependent on far more than that.

If these hearings are rigged it makes sense for the pro-evolutionists to boycott the hearings. You say that this boycott the record will make the eventual anti-science verdict appear to be reasonable. But the historical record will be supplemented by the wealth of work on evolution that currently exists, plus the daily press conferences. If it is rigged, and thus the verdict is known in advance, it is far better that the hearings are reduced to a mockery, rather than handing the anti-evolutionists the legitimacy of a 'win' in court.

I think you misunderstand my point about the public record. What I'm saying is that, without the scientific point of view presented at the hearings, the politicians presiding at the hearings can reach the wrong conclusion without appearing biased, hence without harming their careers. If they've decided to rig the hearings, giving the scientific view there would force them to record evidence of their rigging the hearings, which could damage their careers later on, which could discourage future politicians from doing the same.