Article: Religion and Science

Now in what ways does Duhem's Thesis apply to evolutionary science? Well, one good example is with carbon dating. Now the fundamental theory behind carbon dating isn't really that complicated. Radioactive decay takes place in accordance with a law whereby particles (or nuclei) will have a certain constant period of time called a half-life, where however many particles exist at a given time, one half-life from now, only half or those particles will be left. The situation is actually quite analogous to light passing through coffee. There exists a certain distance through coffee where, for however much light existed at one point, only half as much light will be left when it has passed through this distance in coffee -- the rest is absorbed. This is a fairly simple principle, which just about anyone can grasp, although it doesn't seem quite as obvious or necessary as the principle that 2+2=4.However, measuring the age of something by means of radioactive decay (e.g., Carbon 14 dating) is a bit more complicated than this, particularly since there will oftentimes be a good number of isotopes, and I would presume even the chance for various interactions between nuclei giving rise to different nuclei. As such, to fully appreciate the complexities involved, one would nearly have to be a specialist. Nevertheless, as with a great deal of empirical knowledge, we can often check for agreement between different, largely-independent methods of arriving at a given conclusion -- in this case, check for agreement between different methods of dating. And the results demonstrate that Carbon 14 dating, as well as other forms of dating based upon radioactive decay are quite reliable.There are also fossil records, and in truth, they are quite impressive. I have cited links to a number of the websites which have made available impressive displays to anyone with a connection to the internet and who knows how to use a search engine. At the same time, while we have identified quite a fair number of hominid species, it is often difficult to identify the exact relationships which exist among these species. For example, can anyone say that one member of one of these species was a direct ancestor of a member of a different species? No, probably not. And in fact, it seems terribly unlikely that any of the specimens belonging to one species was a direct ancestor of a specimen of another species. Moreover, it seems dubious at least that the population or species to which one specimen belonged contained ancestors belonging to the members of the population or species to which a specimen from a later species belonged -- although I wouldn't want to simply rule this out as something which is entirely beyond the power of science to demonstrate with a reasonable degree of justification. Nevertheless, there are trends and developments. If a given species did not give rise to another even though they appear like they may very well could have, then a closely related species most likely did.Genomic analysis provides us with yet another tool by which to uncover the relatedness of various species. And one of the more interesting developments -- one whose significance may extend well beyond that of merely uncovering the relatedness of animals to that of being a part of the engine which drives evolutionary innovation and much of the speciation which we see -- is being uncovered through just such genomic analysis. What I am thinking of here are primarily the endogenous retroviruses. We have approximately 30,000 of them in our haploid genomes. However, as best we understand, they began as exogenous retroviruses which at various times in the history of life on earth spread out as epidemics, typically infecting and oftentimes nearly wiping out entire populations. Occasionally, they would make their way into the germline, then be passed from generation to generation and lose their ability to spread by exogenous means.To give you a small indication of their possible significance, at one time, it seems that all mammals layed eggs. However, there we epidemics through which retroviruses made their way into the germline, and from there, the were able to create a barrier to the mother's immune system which made possible placental development and live births. Furthermore, this made possible for the mammals who took this route to have more developed, larger brains -- which, according to more recent discoveries, appear to have a chaotic overabundance of neurons created due to the activities of retrotransposons in brain stem cells, where these retrotransposons are themselves relics left behind by retroviruses.But closer to the topic at hand, such endogenous retroviruses make it possible to construct philogenetic relationships between different species, relationships which mirror the trees of familial relationships which we have constructed by other means. For example, using the presence or absence of endogenous retroviruses, we have been able to reconstruct family trees between different species of mammals, and to identify that of all extant land mammals, the whales appear to be most closely related to the hippo. Similarly, we have evidence of living fossils in their the bodies of whales and other cetacea that they once lived on land -- atrophied leg bones buried deep within their flesh. Now can we say that any one of these pieces of evidence proves that the ancestors of whales once walked on land. No, we cannot. In this way, the conclusions of empirical science differs quite significantly from the statements of mathematics. Nevertheless, there are numerous lines of inquiry which all converge on the same conclusion. There is an agreement between them, much like different methods of dating the age of a given specimen. And when different, largely independent lines of inquiry provide justification for the same conclusion, the conclusion receives justification which is greater than the justification provided by any single line of inquiry.continued in Message 182This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-27-2005 11:44 AM

In this section and the rest of the paper, I will be using the term "Fundamentalist" to simply refer to anyone who takes a fully literal interpretation of the Bible. I realize that this may collapse certain distinctions which are of some significance, particularly in the analysis of the history of various religious movements, but I believe for the purpose of my analysis these distinctions will not be particularly significant. Now in this part I will briefly be looking at the reaction of Fundamentalists to evolutionary theory itself, but then more broadly within the broader context of their beliefs and their reactions to trends within society. At the same time, while some may have difficulty with it, I would like to develop to some extent a kind of sympathetic understanding of at least some of the motives behind these movements -- for it is all too easy to sometimes lose sight of the individual and of the problems and concerns they have in a movement which you oppose.But my primary purpose is to lay out the facts as I see them, the possibility for conflict, and to attempt to show how I believe we can prevent conflict from becoming especially serious. After all, religious conflict has many times spiraled out of control in the past, and given the largely religious nature of the conflict between those under the tent of Intelligent Design and the theory of evolution in particular, and more widely, the Fundamentalist Religious Right and modern society in general, I do not think that it is particularly unreasonable to think that a religious conflict could spiral out of control even here in the United States. Revolts against modernity have become increasingly common throughout the globe throughout the twentieth century continuing into the present, and have often ended quite tragically. Given this, I believe that this trend towards fundamentalism should be of concern to anyone who values human civilization.But before turning to any sort of analysis of what sort of threats may or may not be facing our civilization, I believe we should concern ourselves with the reaction of Fundamentalists to the discoveries of evolutionary theory. To properly understand the opposition of Fundamentalists to evolutionary theory, one should keep in mind the fact that the evidence for evolution has only gradually been uncovered, and that what evidence there existed at earlier times was a great deal less than what exists today.Therefore, when Fundamentalists first started organizing opposition to evolutionary theory and becoming personally invested in their opposition to it, the amount of evidence was a great deal less than what is currently available. As such, the position which they took in the past was a great deal more reasonable (although perhaps still quite unreasonable) than their position is today. There were far fewer specimens, for example, and no knowledge of retroviruses or even of viruses themselves. For example, when archeologists claimed to find species leading from old world monkeys to man, it was fairly easy to argue that all specimens were either apes of one form or another, or humans who were either of different races or perhaps malformed. Moreover, no single piece of evidence will ever prove a general proposition of empirical science, so it is always at least in theory to deny the general propositions of empirical science.Given this, they were able to argue (at least after a fashion) against the discoveries of what is now evolutionary science. Moreover, due to their literalist interpretation of the Bible in its entirely, including the stories of creation, the garden, and the flood, many of them have the view that to concede the truth of evolutionary theory would in some way require them to give up their belief in God, in their morality, and in the other beliefs through which they define themselves, they have had a great deal motivation to do so and to become invested in their opposition to it. Likewise, they have seen the nation's culture move -- often gradually, and at other times quite dramatically (e.g., the hippie culture of the sixties and the opposition to the Vietnam War) -- away from their traditional values.In addition, there have been the theorists who have argued that religion can and should be a thing of the past, that it is not consistent with the discoveries of empirical science and should be discarded, and even the leaders of the New Age Movement who have sought to replace traditional values and traditional religious views with something incorporating some of the stranger discoveries of science (once suitably interpreted) along with goddess worship, white witchcraft, and whatever else one individual or another might wish to include in a "freshly-made" brew of religious beliefs. I personally think it is quite understandable if -- given all of this -- someone with traditional beliefs thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the way that the world was changing.Likewise, in the Freedom of Choice movement, the Gay Rights movement, the Right to Die movement, and even the Animal Rights movement, they have seen what they take to be strong evidence which confirms their views that the traditional foundation of morality in our society has been thoroughly eroded. (In mentioning these other movements, I am neither arguing for or against them, at least not within the context of this paper, but simply pointing out how they are interpretted by the good majority of those with Fundamentalist and oftentimes non-Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible.) And moreover, it would be understandable if they were to see these often distantly-related things as nevertheless being connected, particularly to a scientific theory which they see as a fundamental denial of the existence of God and his role in the creation of Man -- and of the basis for morality. For Christians who are able to understand the stories of creation, the garden, and the flood allegorically (i.e., as essentially symbolic, written in the language best understood not by the human mind but almost directly by the human soul, communicating fundamental truths regarding the relationships which exist between God, Man, and God's Creation), there is not even the appearance of a threat to their religious beliefs in evolutionary theory, and they can more easily see that it is not to blame for such things.But even among non-Fundamentalist Christians, there will often exist the sense or feeling that there is fundamentally wrong with this world. This feeling is often combined (particularly among Fundamentalists, but to a significant extent among non-Fundamentalists) with the view that we are living in the End of Times, when either this country will choose the path of Righteousness and assume its proper role in the final battle between Good and Evil, between God and the forces of darkness, or will be destroyed.Now I do not believe that the majority of Fundamentalists are thoroughly convinced that these are in fact the End of Times -- some undoubtedly are, but the majority I believe simply wonder whether this may be the case, and to some extent or another believe that it may very well be but are unsure. It would be a mistake to believe that all the Fundamentalists are convinced that these are the End of Times, but likewise it would be a mistake to believe that the view that thesee are the End of Times has no effect upon their actions or the political aspirations of many within their movement.I have spent a significant amount of time focusing on the views and motivations of those within the Fundamentalist movement. One reason for doing this is to simply better understand how it may have seemed reasonable to become a member of the movement. Another was to better understand their concerns and why they are concerned. And yet another is to better understand the nature of what is often their extreme zealotry. But yet another is to understand that the attack upon evolutionary theory can not be understood in isolation, nor can it properly be considered the end of their political aspirations. For many and perhaps even the majority of those under the Intelligent Design umbrella, bringing Intelligent Design into the classrooms is simply the beginning in battle for the soul of this nation, one which in their view must result in the end of the Separation of Church and State, and set this nation on the path of Righteousness.continued in Message 186This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-27-2005 09:39 AM

I hope you don't mind, but at this point, I really need to take a break. I think that in large part, I have managed to answer the question you posed. But at the same time, I am taking the opportunity to explain myself more fully than I have been able to in the paper and the posts which followed. Honestly, I have been writing pretty much non-stop, trying to balance things and to put them in their proper context, and when needed, expand more fully on topics which at first I had been considering only touch on, because in part, I believe the topics needed fuller treatement, particularly in the context of the kind of response which I would like to give you.Anyway, I will be linking all of the parts once I am done. At some later point, I believe this can be appropriately expanded into a more professional paper.At the same time, if people would like to respond to what has been written so far, or would like to simply converse about other topics, I certainly wouldn't see any kind of problem in that. But my apologies -- I am a little warn out now.

Take all the time you want but I can't see how you have addressed my question at all. So far it's all been on the south side of the street.Please don't feel any pressure to respond before you're ready.When you are ready, please let me know and we can return to the question of how one should respond to someone who believes 2 + 2 = 5.AbE: I have enjoyed reading your treatise and look forward to your summation.This message has been edited by jar, 06-25-2005 11:20 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Without going into detail analyzing what you have written so far, I just want to comment that many of the concerns that you are attributing to Fundamentalist or any-kind-of-Christian views, are in fact more generally conservative rather than specifically religious, and are held by many others of different religions and of no religion at all. The objection to the deterioration of morality in society is not just a Bible-believer's concern for instance. I join with conservatives of many beliefs and anti-beliefs on these points. There is every degree and shade of sharing of these positions. My Bible-based beliefs go only so far with them however. Most of them do not oppose evolutionism.Interesting what you seem to be trying to do here. I wonder where it's going to go.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-26-2005 01:05 AM

If the Separation of Church and State were to be dismantled, it would no doubt be preceded by a great deal of conflict. Indeed, the simple fact that some are considering the dismantling of such a foundational principle of this republic speaks loudly of great divisions within our culture. That Fundamentalists are attempting to achieve this by democratic means should not be regarded as granting legitimacy to the attempt itself. Four those who doubt this, let them recall that one of the more tragic revolts against modernity (begun in the constitutional democracy of Weimar Germany) was born by similar democratic means. The worst dangers, however, do not lie in their stated or intended goals of today, but in part in the ease with which they would tend to view all conflicts in terms of good versus evil, us vs. them, and the kinds of politicians which this would encourage.No longer encumbered by the Separation of Church and State, and existing in an atmosphere where civility has been all but extinguished, some of the more ambitious politicians would seek the opportunity to wrap themselves not simply in the constitutionally-limited garb of civil authority, but in the divinely-unlimited garb of religious authority. Such a garb could not be assumed immediately, but would be attained by greater demonstrations of religiosity than his fellow politicians. An individual using such means would easily brush away inconvenient facts and figures in a society which had already heavily discounted well-reasoned thought, and would instead appeal to the religious passions of his followers, and when convenient, rather than presenting well thought-out arguments against his opponents arguments, would simply attempt to paint those opponents as people would are opposed to the will of God, something which often may seem fairly inscrutable to rest of mortals — by means of the far-easier task of inciting passion than reason. Since no one would be able to demonstrate that the Will of God does not correspond to the will of an ambitious politician, he would be quite free to equate the two. Such would be the rise of the figure which the Founding Father's most feared in a country founded largely upon democratic principles: the demagogue.Avoiding just such an eventuality should be of importance to any citizen of our republic. When we see Fundamentalists who are themselves concerned for the future and who wish to avoid this sort of conflict, then we should seriously listen to what they have to say. I believe that the proposal of home schooling -- which would be required by state law to meet certain standards -- is just such an indication of concern. Like any good parent, they wish to see their children brought up properly, in accordance with their religious beliefs. And they are willing to give up the political ambition of changing the public schools in a way that would impose their religious beliefs upon the rest of us. As such, this approach represents a renunciation of the political will to transform our country into a nation organized along Fundamentalist principles, not necessarily as matter of principle, but at least with respect to what is seen by many in their movement as the next battle in the war for the soul of our nation.As those who have been following this discussion are well aware, I am strongly inclined to forming coalitions. For a very long time, religion and science have been viewed as opposites. But as I have argued, there is no reason to view them as such once one understands the allegorical nature of the creation stories, the story of the garden, and the story of the flood. Indeed, there is every reason to view them as complementary. And for this reason, I believe that just such a coalition could exist between clergy who understand these stories allegorically and the scientific community. Such a coalition may be largely symbolic, or in the interest of humanity, in time it could very well be expanded to serve greater ends. But, in either case, it would do much to dispel the view that religion and science are opposites, thereby serving to show that religion can remain relevant in the age of modern science, and thus that the faithful have nothing to fear from science. But likewise, I believe that if some Fundamentalists are willing to take a more sensible path in our modern society, this is to be encouraged, particularly when the path they wish to take involves nothing more than the exercise of their rights as citizens of our nation. To do otherwise would be to compromise the foundations of our nation in a way that could very well be as profound as the dismantling of the Separation of Church and State itself.(Beginning of Article: Message 180)This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-27-2005 03:05 PM

Wow, Jar, that does seem tempting, particularly since there are so many topics which could really stand some expanding, and other topics which should probably be introduced. Unfortunately, I think people might lose their patience if made to wait for such a thing, so I should probably just stick to the short version for now.In anycase, if you still think I need to come up with an explanation of how I would deal with the individual who expected $50, let me know, and should be able to write something a bit shorter than I just have.

Tim, do what ever you feel needed. I just found that every one of your 4 posts were written as a response to my messages but I don't see what any of the four parts have to do with the question I asked.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Dear Jar,Alright, but I will have to do this a bit later today as I am currently at work. I will try to keep good deal shorter than the mini-treatise, and try to more directly deal with the points you raised, but not just write some kind one or two liner. Thank you for your patience -- I do tend to get a bit windy and indirect at times. Old habits, I guess.Until then.Take care,
Tim

If someone believes that 2+2=5, you could of course "respect" their belief and pay them with two $20s for every $50 owed, and with each transaction, you would come out $10 ahead. Of course, this wouldn't be particularly ethical. Additionally, if at some later point, they owed you $50, they might try paying with two $20s. Clearly, it would be far better to go ahead and show them that 2+2=4. You could do this with pebbles, or acorns, or one dollar bills. Such is the nature of arithematic. At least when you are dealing in small numbers, it is possible to demonstrate simple arithematic principles, and if an individual is able to grasp the principle in one context, then that individual should be able to grasp that principle in any other context. So for this reason, I would recommend going the route of demonstration. Chances are, this individual will be able to grasp it without any problem.If an individual owes you $50 and attempts to pay you with two $20s, you can try the same sort of demonstration. If this doesn't work, you might consider calling the police. They may simply assume that the individual is being dishonest, or they may call in a psychologist to see whether there is something organically wrong, or perhaps whether the individual is in need of some serious remedial education. In cases of arithematic, particularly with small numbers, there really aren't that many options.However, if we are talking about simple empirical facts, such as whether or not one can step off a balcony and fly, then we may be more likely to assume that there is in fact some organic problem, or possibly that the individual is on some sort of bad trip. In this case, I would most certainly consider calling the police -- particularly if the individual intends to demonstrate their belief for you.But when we get further removed from immediate experience, particularly with respect to the conclusions of empirical science, there are a variety of possibilities. One may simply be lack of education. Another may be lack of background -- perhaps the individual is simply lacking some of the empirical evidence which you have available, but which you are simply take for granted to such an extent that you rarely even think about it. Yet another may be that the individual may not be as methodical as you. And yet another may be that the individual is in the grips of some sort of an ideology, one which places them in some sort of an impossible dilemma if they admit to a given scientific truth. And certainly there are other possibilities and other possible classifications for them. In any case, the conclusions of empirical science may receive a great deal of justification, but scientists rarely think of them as conclusive or as written in stone -- and typically when they do, they are not being very good scientists. Nevertheless, there are some conclusions such that if one considers all of the evidence, or the many different lines of argument, at least as far as science is concerned, given the current context of human knowledge, these conclusions are beyond a reasonable doubt.Now if someone denies that the earth is round, or that the holocaust happened, or some other scientific conclusion which we normally take for granted, there may be a variety of things which you might conclude, particularly given the nature of their beliefs. You may or may not conclude that there is some element of immorality in that individual's belief, or you may conclude, for example, that there is something wrong about the religious instruction which they are receiving.Now if you are involved in a debate with such a person before a live audience, you have a number of options. You may amass a body of evidence with which to demonstrate that the individual is not being reasonable. You may bring out a variety of well-crafted arguments which allow you to do the same. You may subject that individual to ridicule. You may verbally pin that individual to the wall and move in for the kill. Or you may even borrow some techniques from dialogue.If you are involved in a dialogue, you may try to gently reason with the individual. You may try to reason with the individual by arguing from within their own context that there is something important to them that makes it worth their time and discomfort to consider the issue. If it becomes clear that there are some things that they aren't willing to consider as of yet, you may simply agree to disagree on that issue and move on to something which might be more fruitful. Or you may simply choose to remain silent when it is clear that you disagree. However, attempts to pin that individual to the wall will most likely not win you a convert. If anything, it is more likely to make them dig their heals in and refuse to consider any arguments you may have to offer regarding any issues. And if that person is your friend, it may very well bring your friendship to an end. Sometimes friends will agree to disagree and still find it possible to respect one another. And frankly, I think this can oftentimes be quite proper.When it comes to issues which are not as simple as basic arithematic, the only real answer I can give you is: it depends. What are you trying to accomplish? What precisely is your goal?Anyway, I hope that I have now managed to give you a proper answer to your question. But I believe this is something you will have to decide for yourself.

The title of this thread is religion and science.When it comes to science we are dealing with conclusions based on evidence. One good example is 2 + 2 = 5. You outlined several steps that can be taken to convince someone, all of which are reasonable.However, if after discussion, after examples, after demonstrations, after presentations of the evidence the person continues to insist that 2 + 2 = 5, what steps should be taken?

Why, Jar, isn't it obvious? You put them through Consciousness-Raising classes. You hospitalize them against their will as emotionally disturbed. Perhaps in extreme cases you must lobotomize them. They might make good subjects for experimentation, and when you are finished with that, their skin could make interesting lampshades.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-28-2005 12:09 AM

Please show where I suggested

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, let's see, am I misrepresenting you? You characterize a certain class of people as so irrational that you just don't know what to do with them. They are people who will not give in to your certainty that your views are as solid as 2+2=4. You've tried everything but they won't budge, the nasty heretics. (Perhaps thumb screws or the Rack would be appropriate, but I digress).You beg the question and pre-empt all discussion by defining their beliefs as 2+2=5 no matter how strenuously they would disagree with you. Their disagreement simply confirms their mental derangement. And worse than that, they insist on committing the heinous crime of teaching their children their false beliefs. This is a Crime against Society.CERTAINLY you are right, you will not brook discussion of that point. You DEMAND that they answer you. You DEMAND that they submit to your definition of the problem.But they are a stubborn determined folk and they will not submit. They'd rather die than submit. Therefore you are left with the problem of what to do with these people who refuse to acknowledge the truth.Considering your dilemma, considering that you simply have no solution to this problem, considering that these horrible criminal heretical mindless stubborn irritating people will simply NOT give in and yet they MUST give in...Considering in other words that you appear not to be willing to live and let live, but MUST have an answer that bends them to your will, my suggestion seems to me to be the most efficient.If the point has not been made, I'm sorry, I'm just a poor dumb creo who stumbled into this bastion of Higher Intellect and got a bit distracted looking for the exit. Don't mind me.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-28-2005 12:44 AM

There is a very easy answer to this, but I'll wait to see if anyone else comes up with it.Brian.