Just so there's no confusion, I want to make my two main points right up front. First, I don't believe that religion and science must be in competition with one another. Second, those who disagree with my first point call me an "accommodationist," and while I don't particularly like the term, I am perfectly content to fall into that broad category.
Let me explain and provide some context. I'm an evolutionary biologist, and I believe that science is an incredibly powerful way of understanding the natural world. Unfortunately, we live in a society that is largely scientifically illiterate. By that I don't mean that most people don't understand the specifics of any particular science, which is unquestionably true, but rather that most people don't understand the nature of science. They are unable to distinguish between science and pseudoscience or, as I like to say, among science, nonscience, and nonsense. Collectively, we regularly suffer the consequences of scientific illiteracy, from poorly conceived public policies to atrocious educational practices.
Scientific investigation is a process that depends upon hypothesis testing and demands that scientific claims be offered in a manner that permits them to be falsified. Simply put, if you can't phrase your hypothesis in a falsifiable manner, it falls outside the bounds of science. Science is, therefore, one of the few fields of human endeavor that has opted to limit its own scope -- and it's that limitation that makes it so useful.
By defining its boundaries in this fashion, science isn't implying that any question or endeavor that falls outside its reach is unimportant. I doubt, for example, that many scientists would dismiss questions of aesthetics as being unimportant or uninteresting even while arguing that they are not amenable to scientific investigation.
Where does that leave religion? Well, it depends what you mean by religion. When religion (or more likely its fundamentalist adherents) begins to make claims in the complete absence of evidence and in a manner that is not falsifiable, and when those claims are passed off as scientific, the record must be set straight. Creationism, in all of its guises, including intelligent design, regularly makes claims of exactly this sort. Rather than addressing evidence, creationists simply make faith statements and expect that those faith statements be taught in science classes.
While none of us should hesitate to attack such activities, it's well worth pointing out that most mainstream religions don't do this. Consider, for example, the resolution overwhelmingly adopted by the United Methodist Church at its quadrennial conference in 2008: "Be it resolved that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church go on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools."
And consider that The Christian Clergy Letter, a part of The Clergy Letter Project, signed by more than 12,500 Christian clergy members, says unequivocally, "We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge."
Let me repeat my main point here: these statements of support for evolution are from religious leaders. It's unlikely that you could find stronger testimonials from any other segment of our society. For those of us who care about science literacy and who recognize the centrality of evolution, it makes sense to celebrate rather than criticize the efforts religious leaders are making on this front.
There's very good reason to believe that the voices of clergy are particularly important on this issue if progress is going to be made in bringing a broader segment of the American public to an acceptance of evolution. A 2007 Pew Research Center report noted that "when asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding."
The fact is, though, that the teachings of most mainstream religions are consistent with evolution -- but the message has not yet reached congregants. There isn't any better way to improve the situation than to praise religious leaders who continue to speak out forcefully, and scientifically appropriately, on this topic.
Unfortunately, however, in some quarters, criticism has greatly outdistanced praise. (If you have any doubt about this, just read through the comments on almost any Huffington Post blog touching on creationism.) At times it appears that anyone who professes a belief in religion is assumed to be indistinguishable from a fundamentalist and is, therefore, assumed to be anti-science.
It is difficult for some to understand how an evolutionary worldview may be compatible with deeply held religious convictions. But this difficulty is no reason to attack those who manage to comfortably balance the two.
Many, many religious leaders understand that religion is not dependent upon a single interpretation of any text. Instead, the overwhelming majority of the religious leaders with whom I interact regularly believe that religion is about morality and spirituality rather than science. They want to make the world a better, a fairer and a more just place and they believe they can accomplish that within a spiritual community.
I respect those goals and, as I've said, I believe that religious leaders who understand the nature of science and are willing to speak out about it deserve to be praised. I have no problem being labeled an "accommodationist" for taking such a stand. I also have no problem arguing vehemently when anyone, religious or otherwise, crosses the line from science to nonsense.
Because the term "accommodationist" was coined by critics as an expletive (see, for example, a recent essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education and University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne's blog), it says more about their intolerance than it does about those of us who respect positions that fall outside the bounds of science.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
In fact, falsifiability is necessary but insufficient criteria for a scientific hypothesis. The hypothesis must also be logically self-consistent and testable. I have always felt that Quantum Mechanics fails the former.
Evolution is a scientific theory by definition, because it does make predictions about experiments. Many of these experiments are conducted by long dead animals and we discover the results to test the theory by discovering the fossil record (among other things). The sudden and unexplainable appearance of a completely unprecedented species in the fossil record would be falsifying evidence.
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who cans no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.” By Albert Einstein
.Albert Einstein, was SPIRITUAL MAN ,so he discovered the mysterious.This happened to every inventor, poet, writer , scientist,who propounded any great deed but not all are like Albert Einstein, who knew , how his inner powers are to be utilized, using the SPIRITUALITY. YOGA , was a tool, developed by GREAT ANCIANT SCIENISTS, called “Rishis/Maharishis for it. Every scientist needs CONCENTRATION for his research work. How would you concentrate with out knowing the exact method of attaining CONCENTRATION? It is in spiritual scriptures of “ASTANG YOGA”.
As a scientist, don’t be trendy, apply your x, y method of science to realize GOD, if failed to realize, then go to a YOGI, make a belief in his “ METHOD OF YOGA “. If you don’t realize GOD, after applying the “ Method Of Yoga “,only then have a disbelief in GOD.Spirituality is not based on BELIEF/FAITH but the scientists have to follow & believe on " METHOD OF SPIRITUALITY" ,otherwise "Method Of Science" would be called " METHOD OF NON-SCIENCE".
Science is easier to define because it deals with objective reality, basically. A scientific hypothesis can be posited for falsification. (Beware those who would piggy back their conjectures on the back of science; e.g., creation science, astrology, etc.)
Religion enjoys no such luxury. While the core terminology of science are well understood, the central words in religion are not. In my reading, the term "accommodationist" is used with one of two primary meanings: (1) someone who accepts science completely, except when a scientific uncertainty or speculation conflicts with a religious view; e.g., speciation through biological evolution instead of creation. (2) someone who accepts scientific findings as stated without exception, including the uncertainties and speculations, but uses any religious reference, theist or not.
The first is a valid criticism. The second is the emotional reaction of an anti-religious fanatic.
What I find interesting is that as one who accepts the science I understand completely, yet being a member of a UU community--where all manner of religious belief and non-belief are welcome--I hear little criticism of that situation.
Religion deals with perpetuating any one of a thousand+ conflicting mythologies, which must be accepted on blind faith. Of course, nobody thinks that any religion - other than their own- is supported with sufficient evidence for acceptance.
Isis, Thor, Ganapati and Quetzalcoatl are considered pure fantasy by Christians and Muslims, despite, the obvious fact, that these gods have no more basis in reality than the one which satisfies their own supernatural cravings.
I think if you pulled one of the members of a congregation that says it 'supports evolution' and really questioned them you would realize that they support evolution alright but 'just not for humans'. Humans, in their viewpoint are not part of evolution and how could they for to be part of evolution you would have to agree that humans evolved from green slime in the primordial see at least a billion years ago and that God is no were to be seen in the process.
No room for God in that scenario.
In a church. Where religion is practiced. In this country someplace.
So I guess you're officially admitting that religion does, in fact, change with and over time? Yes? No?
Oh no, Christianity changes like a Chameleon alright. Still the same fairy tale though, the same basic delusion, superbeing, life after death, sins, commandments, Baby Jesus. But now as Christianity 2.0, with science compatibility plug-in, and a non-burn, non-malleus-maleficarum user interface skin (user configurable, we keep the old skins around for backward compatibility).
The media lives on false, either/or dilemmas. They milk them as an alternative to doing actual journalistic work. Close the faith vs. science "debate," and you'll have the media competing with Dawkins and Harris for legitimate employment. In the present economy, that would be a heartless thing to do, I think. Just kidding.
"Where does that leave religion? Well, it depends what you mean by religion. When religion (or more likely its fundamentalist adherents) begins to make claims in the complete absence of evidence and in a manner that is not falsifiable, and when those claims are passed off as scientific, the record must be set straight. Creationism, in all of its guises, including intelligent design, regularly makes claims of exactly this sort. Rather than addressing evidence, creationists simply make faith statements and expect that those faith statements be taught in science classes.
While none of us should hesitate to attack such activities, it's well worth pointing out that most mainstream religions don't do this. " Except for the god thing.
Yes there is difference. Creationism is an attempt to use a faith-based pov to posit a truth in the physical world of matter, senses and measurements. Belief in a god, is, for most theists not considered a scientifically verifiable or falsifiable proposition.
Why are these two things not measurable? According to the author as well: one is not true and the other is real but not measurable. The author says creationism is not ascertainable or falsifiable. But neither is god. And you agree to that. So, how can he or a theist say that one is valid (god) and the other is not if neither is measurable? Your argument seems to be that to a believer, he exists but on faith because it's not provable or provable. An atheist, or logician, would say that if measurement denotes existence, then the impossibility to measure god by any means there is no god. Therefore, god (as we define it now anyway) does not exist.
He also has not manifested in any other material (measurable) way other than in visions or as voices in people's head. These manifestations have been proven not to be from god, but symptoms from brain tumors or schizophrenia, or some other mental/bio-chemical ailment.
People just want there to me something more. There's not. We should all make the most of it and not shill out dreams and fantasies to pay for a new boat.
At the end of the day, the existence of a superbeing that created the universe and continues to control it, if this is indeed the content of religious beliefs, is a question of fact. Such a being either exists or it doesn't, and I see no reason why this matter could not be subject to scientific investigation.
There is of course the common cop-out that reduces beliefs to precisely those propositions that have no connection to the physical, assuming for the sake of argument that this is even meaningful (and disregarding that religious folks are notoriously bad at sticking to that magistrate whenever they can afford not to). Even in this rather contrived case religion conflicts with science not in the propositions they make, but in the way it teaches people to reach "truth", in fact it even conflicts in the notion of "truth" itself.
In other words, even if you could disentangle the theories of science and religion (and you cannot really), their metatheories are still in direct conflict with each other, and to me this is where religion does most harm in the modern West.
Amazing how that works. So, tell me, if you were convinced that three moons circled the Earth, would those extra two moons appear? Wow.
Should I call you "God"?
Why would I be convinced that 3 moons exist when I know that there is only one? And would such a belief, which would be based on zero science, make two extra moons appear? You are looking up the wrong end of logic my friend.
People being people, that is rarely the case, which is why evolution is less about science and has 'evolved' into an agenda which attempts to disprove the bible.
It's also interesting that there are so many who claim to be intelligent, rational people who have arrived at all their conclusions with a completely unemotional and scientific method.
Until you start talking in seventh-grade biology terms and take the position that what is in the womb after conception is a human being. Suddenly, science goes out the window.
Sorry, the fundamentalists were the ones who claimed that evolution went against the Bible. They were the ones that went on the offensive when they tried to
1. Ban the teaching of it in science class, and
2. Claim that evolution was godless.
Last I checked, that didn't say anything about God gently, *imperceptibly*, guiding some evolutionary process, but it said a lot of other stuff that in the light of modern science seems a little dubious to say the least.
Scientists are competitive. Many have egos you’d have difficulty imagining. Proving one another wrong is a large part of their vocation. The idea that large numbers of scientists would collude to obscure the truth is beyond absurd. Any scientist who can show evidence invalidating Darwinian evolution would win a Noble Prize.
If a mainstream scientist could demonstrate Darwinian evolution to be wrong they would do so and there would be no way to suppress the truth.