"Fundamentalist" fear of science

[Marnoot]

I was posting in reply to the thread on the Grand Canyon controversy, and decided my reply was a little off topic, so I'll put it here.

I've never understood the desire among some Christian groups to suppress or somehow feel offended or threatened by science. My beliefs are not threatened by science, even science that seems to contradict my beliefs. If science appears to contradict one's beliefs, either:

1) The science is wrong,
2) The person has misinterpreted scripture/gospel,
3) The scientists have misinterpreted the science,
4) The person's beliefs are wrong,
or 5) If fully understood from the right perspective (like God's), there is no real contradiction.

When faced with an apparent contradiction, many people seem to immediately assume 1 and that Science is claiming 4 and viciously attack it without any understanding of the science at all. Something that appears to contradicts your beliefs does not necessarily conclude that your beliefs are wrong; while science being wrong is always a possibility, always assuming that *must* be the case and ignorantly attacking it is just not smart. I have no problem with people coming up with alternate scientific theories, a la Intelligent Design if the science is good. I don't think alot of the science in ID is good. That said, I'm 100% a creationist. Science != Faith, & vice versa.

I believe in micro-evolution (easily observed), but not so much in macro-evolution. That said, I believe both should be taught in schools as it's the best science at the moment. It's up to the parents to correct, re-direct, modify, or reinforce as their belief-system dictates. When I marry and have kids, depending on where I live I'm expecting to have to "de-program" my kids after school each day of liberal political propaganda, etc. If parents disagree with something taught in science class, they should do the same; they can talk with their kids about it. It can't be up to the school to tailor education to every child's religious or areligious needs.

Approaching science with an agenda leads to bad science. An example of this that amuses me is that of some Mormon archaeologists that devote their work specifically to seeking archaeological proof of the Book of Mormon. I'm Mormon, and I think that's silly. When you have an agenda like that, you're too likely to consciously or subconsciously twist evidence to suit your view when otherwise it might not. Same goes for many biblical archaeologists. If evidence after objective scrutiny should happen to support your religious beliefs, then great! But agendas have no place within the scrutiny. That also goes for scientists with secular agendas. Whether they be setting out to "prove" global warming, rather than investigate it, or setting out to "prove" anything with anything other than an objective, investigative view, open to all possible outcomes.

So, why do some people feel so threatened by science? I understand not agreeing or fully agreeing with certain scientific theories, as I don't with macro-evolution and global warming, but why the rabid response from some people? While I don't agree with its science completely, I think ID proponents have the right idea: look for alternate theories and explanations. I just think they've allowed their agenda to affect their science.  But feeling threatened by the science and rabidly attacking it, I don't get.

Edited to make thread title more accurate.

[MechAg94]

If I am not mistaken, the original evolution argument was not against evolution itself, but the teaching that man evolved from apes.  There is proof of the former, but not of the latter.  That being said, I wouldn't mind teachers teaching it as an idea/hypothesis and honestly throwing out the pros & cons.

Either way, there will always be those who overreact and attack the wrong target; and those who seek to use govt to mandate their wishes.  Those people are on the right and the left.

An alternative question:  why do so many people look at science as the answer to all life's questions and fail to challenge scientific results and the interpretations that spring from them? 

[AmbulanceDriver]

Marnoot, I think that it's interesting that in the fields of microbiology, molecular biology, and cellular biology, secular scientists in many cases seem to be grasping at straws trying to keep evolutionary theory afloat.  At least in the setting of my particular university, it seemed like EVERY lecture the professors would make sure to point out at least three or four times how the current matter being discussed "CLEARLY shows support for evolution".  

Now, I'm gonna geek out a little bit here, just because this is one of the coolest little bits of molecular/cellular biology I've ever seen.

Most everyone knows what a mitochondria is (for the star wars geeks in the rooms, I said mitochondria, NOT midiclorions), but those are the "energy sources" for every single cell in the human body.  Other forms of life use mitochondria as well, but in this case I want to strictly talk about human mitochondria.  Sandwiched in the middle of the membrane of the mitochondria is a protein know as the "F1:F0 ATPase".  This is essentially a molecular "generator" that uses a proton gradient to turn a molecular shaft and spins an assembly to assemble a molecule of ADP (adenosine diphosphate) and a phosphate molecule into a molecule of ATP (adenosine triphosphate) the molecular fuel for the cell.  Now, if this little molecule could operate independently in the mitochondria, this wouldn't be so remarkable.  But it can't.  It needs a series of proton pumps, which in turn use up a small amount of ATP, to generate the proton gradient necessary to generate ATP. Oh, and in order to generate the protons necessary, the Krebs cycle takes glucose and generates NADH+, NADPH+, which are proton carriers.  But the Krebs cycle actually also uses a small amount of ATP.  This, btw, is my oversimplification of the process. I'd need to get my cell bio and molecular bio textbooks in order to really get into the details.  The point, however, is that these process are so inextricably interrelated that they CANNOT function independently of each other.  Oh, and these processes occur simultaneously.  Now, anyone want to calculate the odds that somehow, back in the "primordial ooze" ALL of the chemical reactions necessary for all of these processes to occur in the exact right sequence, in a manner that is somehow beneficial to the organism, and that was able to be passed on to future generations (because ALL life uses some variant of this mechanism to generate energy)?  But remember, this "CLEARLY supports the evolutionary theory."

[MechAg94]

Approaching science with an agenda leads to bad science. An example of this that amuses me is that of some Mormon archaeologists that devote their work specifically to seeking archaeological proof of the Book of Mormon. I'm Mormon, and I think that's silly. When you have an agenda like that, you're too likely to consciously or subconsciously twist evidence to suit your view when otherwise it might not. Same goes for many biblical archaeologists. If evidence after objective scrutiny should happen to support your religious beliefs, then great! But agendas have no place within the scrutiny. That also goes for scientists with secular agendas. Whether they be setting out to "prove" global warming, rather than investigate it, or setting out to "prove" anything with anything other than an objective, investigative view, open to all possible outcomes.

Now ask yourself how many archaeologists "believe" that evolution is the truth, believe that the basic time line of pre-history used today is correct; and ask yourself how many of those people allow their beliefs to affect their findings.  If archaeologists at a dig fail to recognize evidence or mis-classify evidence because it doesn't fit their preconceived views, that is no different. 

Very good way to make the point though.

[BrokenPaw]

An alternative question:  why do so many people look at science as the answer to all life's questions and fail to challenge scientific results and the interpretations that spring from them?

Because many people are lazy. 

This is the reason that people blindly cling to any position; because they're too lazy to think about why they believe what they believe.

People who blindly believe in something that is true, but have no idea why they believe in it, are as intellectually bereft as people who blindly believe in something that is not true.

I have more respect for someone who disagrees with me but can articulate why, than for someone who agrees with me, but can't explain their position.

That said, the answer to both Marnoot's initial question and to MechAg94's alternative question is: People who are lazy tend to remain ignorant.  Ignorance when left alone remains simple ignorance.  But ignorance when challenged leads to one of two things:  enlightenment (which occurs when laziness is overcome), or anger (when laziness prevails).  Those who overcome their laziness do the research or the introspection or whatever it takes, and either affirm their position, or change it, and (either way) are no longer ignorant, and therefore no longer angry at being challenged.  Those whose laziness prevails take the simplest course:  to lash out against whatever challenges their ignorant premise (whether it be science or religion or any unsubstantiated belief).

-BP

[MechAg94]

Good point.  That is why I like some of the ID arguments.

However, IMHO, ID is not really an alternative theory from evolution but an attempt to show the short comings of macro-evolution and demonstrate that creation (in one way or another) is not such a crackpot theory.

[The Rabbi]

Ambulance,
I always had difficulty with the "odds" argument.  Odds are only good before the fact.  What were the odds of Jack Whittaker winning the biggest lottery of all time ($314M, actually got $114M after taxes etc)?  They were billions to one.  Yet he won. What were the odds of people developing exactly this way?  Lots, but it happened anyway.
Not saying I dont believe in Creation (I do) but the argument is poor.

[BrokenPaw]

Rabbi's correct.  Once something has happened, the odds of it having happened are 100%.

And there are lots and lots of things out there that are really really unlikely.  But if you add together the possibilities of all of those things, it actually becomes pretty likely that something strange is going to happen, sooner or later; something that would be impossible to predict, but which seems uncannily odd after the fact.

-BP

[AmbulanceDriver]

Rabbi, sorry.  The "odds" part of my  post was meant more as an illustration than anything else.   It goes to the million monkeys, millon typewriters, million years thing.   However, the statistical probability of these events happening in a beneficial manner is still *extremely* small, much smaller than the odds of his winning the lottery.  So small, in fact, to fall into the realm of statistical impossibility.    My real point is that the science in reality doesn't actually lend a whole lot of support to evolutionary theory.

I'll try to find the actual instance, but I remember one instance of radiocarbon dating that "proved" a relatively young object to be several orders of magnitude older than it actually was.

And BrokenPaw, the reality of statistics is that they are additive, but in an opposite manner as what your post suggests.  If you take one really statistically improbable event, and it relies on another statistically improbable event, the probability of both those events happening becomes even smaller, and if a certain sequence is required, the probability is even smaller still.

[Marnoot]

Now ask yourself how many archaeologists "believe" that evolution is the truth, believe that the basic time line of pre-history used today is correct; and ask yourself how many of those people allow their beliefs to affect their findings.  If archaeologists at a dig fail to recognize evidence or mis-classify evidence because it doesn't fit their preconceived views, that is no different.

Exactly. Agendas and preconceived notions work both ways, without a doubt. There is a happy medium, because you have to base research/etc on preconceived ideas somewhat, even if just the hypothesis, in order to get anywhere; but you also have to be open to the idea of your findings not agreeing with your preconceived ideas. Too many scientists on both sides of the religious fence postulate a hypothesis and then seek to prove it by any means necessary, rather than openly seeking to determine whether it is or is not fact.

AmbulanceDriver, I remember very briefly learning about that process in my biology class a few years ago, and you raise a very good point. Complicated biological processes like that are what lead me to feel that Intelligent Design proponents have the right idea for looking for alternate theories/ideas, but again you can't use science to prove faith; you do find things that can help support your faith, but some people get so attached to that support that if new evidence disproves it, they fly off the handle. Brokenpaw's Laziness Theorem  helps explain that a bit.

Rabbi, the "odds" argument, and the problems with it, are part of why I brought up that science can never prove faith. It can support here and there, but one should never base their religious faith on scientific findings. Faith is faith, science is science. In the grand scheme of things, from God's perspective, I have no doubt that there is not a single contradiction between science, religion, and how things really are. But from our imperfect perspective, we're not going to see that view and so feeling threatened by science, or saying that science "proves" some aspect of religion false, or "proves" some aspect true, is all a work in futility. I guess when I see something like the Kreb's cycle, and any scientific fact/theory that seems to support my beliefs I find it "interesting," but do not attempt to hinge my faith on it and thus do not feel threatened should the "fact" or theory be proven to be wrong/different.

[The Rabbi]

Ambulance,
While you are right that the odds of things developing just this way is tiny, what are the odds of some other viable system developing?  What is the limit on the number of viable systems in biology?  Taken from that perspective, the odds of *one* of them occuring are a near certainty.
I personally think there is no contradiction between the account of Creation in Genesis and whatever theory is most likely true.  It is simply a matter of proper understanding of the account, or the theory.  As the Talmud tells us, the Torah speaks the language of man.

[BrokenPaw]

And BrokenPaw, the reality of statistics is that they are additive, but in an opposite manner as what your post suggests.  If you take one really statistically improbable event, and it relies on another statistically improbable event, the probability of both those events happening becomes even smaller, and if a certain sequence is required, the probability is even smaller still.

You're right, of course.  I was referring to the fact that given a huge number of discrete but unlikely events, chances are at least a few of them will occur.

And as Rabbi says, the fact that this one event seems astronomically unlikely does not actually mean that it didn't happen that way.  The very fact that we are here discussing it means that the cycle came into being somehow and whether the odds were against it in a purely-chance-based system, or whether it was an inevitability because of an intelligent Creator, either way, it's happened, so arguing over its likelihood is not useful.

I happen to believe in the idea of an intelligent designer (although it is not Biblical Creation I ascribe to).  None the less, arguing that "occurrence A is extremely unlikely, therefore premise B must be true" is just as erroneous as saying that "The chances of any one person winning the lottery is millions-to-one against, therefore if anyone wins it, it must be God's Will". 

-BP

[MechAg94]

However, it does demonstrate that evolutionists can't prove Origin of the Species no matter how much they believe it to be true.  They can only speculate and try to find circumstantial evidence.  Getting many of them to admit that is a lost cause.    The BrokenPaw Laziness Theorem applies to everyone.

[Bogie]

Who is to say that evolution itself isn't guided by a higher power?
 
There. Everyone's happy. Now STFU and let's go get a beer. I hear they're hybridizing yeasties like nobody's business!
 

[Perd Hapley]

Who is to say that evolution itself isn't guided by a higher power?
 
There. Everyone's happy.

There's a lot of reasons why that won't make everyone happy.  For one, evolution does not and cannot agree with the Biblical account in the details of how and when things took place.  Worse, evolution contradicts the Bible's overall scheme of history, wherein creation was "very good," and no animal or human died or suffered from any disease or deformity until Adam and Eve first sinned.  If the evidence points to evolution, then let's believe that, but let us not think we can keep the Bible and Christianity along with it.  All that would be left are some suggestions about morality from a book written by well-meaning idealists.  And anyone could write one of those. 

If you like, you can believe in a God that created through evolution.  But look at the God that you are left with.  He creates through violence, bloodshed, sickness, deformity, mutation, etc.  You could believe in such a God, and serve him, but it would not likely bring you much happiness.  And if the Bible is to be believed, he said all of that was "very good!" 

[Perd Hapley]

Odds are only good before the fact.  What were the odds of Jack Whittaker winning the biggest lottery of all time ($314M, actually got $114M after taxes etc)?  They were billions to one.  Yet he won. What were the odds of people developing exactly this way?  Lots, but it happened anyway.

So the probability of our universe or of life happening is 100%  It happened.  But that doesn't speak to the odds of it happening in a particular way.  We've probably all heard stories in the news about someone being admitted to the hospital with some large object wedged in an orifice.  When they claim "I just fell down on it," we don't believe them.  In our heads, we make a rough estimate of the statistical probability of such a thing happening, and we reject their explanation.  ID does this, but more formally, and with more depth.  Life forms and various evolution issues are examined to see what sort of odds must be overcome, and theories of chance development are rejected as less probable and less believable than Design. 

[The Rabbi]

Odds are only good before the fact.  What were the odds of Jack Whittaker winning the biggest lottery of all time ($314M, actually got $114M after taxes etc)?  They were billions to one.  Yet he won. What were the odds of people developing exactly this way?  Lots, but it happened anyway.

So the probability of our universe or of life happening is 100%  It happened.  But that doesn't speak to the odds of it happening in a particular way. 

Right.  But if it wasnt this way, it could have been another way, or another, or any of infinite variations.  So the chance of one of those variations occurring is enormous.
As far as evolution, we need to define what we mean.  Most Jews have no problem at all (I dont anyway) with the idea that one species deveoped characeristics over time. So short necked giraffes became long necked ones.  We do have an issue with one species developing into another, monkeys to man for example.
As far as "very good", the commentators say that "very good" refers to death.  It is used only on one day of creation.

[Perd Hapley]

Most Jews have no problem at all (I dont anyway) with the idea that one species deveoped characeristics over time. So short necked giraffes became long necked ones.  We do have an issue with one species developing into another, monkeys to man for example.
As far as "very good", the commentators say that "very good" refers to death.  It is used only on one day of creation.

Creation science agrees with you that natural selection could cause limited changes within a species.  That is sometimes expressed as micro-evolution, rather than macro-evolution.  Although I've heard those terms have fallen out of favor.  I don't know why. 

Can you explain this thing about very good and death?

[Ron]

Where I have real issues with modern thought(science) is in the area of physical cosmology.

Where did the singularity come from?

The scientific community really expects me to take their word for it that order arises from chaos given enough time?

Inanimate matter given enough time becomes animate?

That personality and self consciousness is strictly a biological/chemical illusion?

Ideas have consequences.

The theories of "what is man" that modern science puts forth, taken to their logical conclusion will bring forth a world that is depraved meaningless and without hope.

[Werewolf]

All that would be left are some suggestions about morality from a book written by well-meaning idealists.  And anyone could write one of those. 

If you like, you can believe in a God that created through evolution.  But look at the God that you are left with.  He creates through violence, bloodshed, sickness, deformity, mutation, etc.  And if the Bible is to be believed, he said all of that was "very good!"

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner.

Mankind has an almost patholigocal need to believe that what ever GOD created us must be good. Why must GOD be good? Afterall assuming a GOD did create the whole ball of wax wouldn't it be more interesting to watch and/or control a universe where stuff went wrong than one where it always went right? Where's the challenge in that.  Personally I believe that GOD is above good and evil - GOD created those concepts as a form of amusement and a way to kill time during all those billions of years the universe has/will last. Either that or good and evil are just side effect that exist because GOD created man imperfect - but then that wouldn't make GOD good either - would it?

[Ron]

Not to go on a tangent but...

To judge what God does as either good or evil presupposes a standard that exists outside of Him or His creation.

By definition Good is what God says is good and Evil is what God says is evil.

[Werewolf]

By definition Good is what God says is good and Evil is what God says is evil.

IMO - Good is what man says is good and Evil is what man says is evil. It seems unlikely that a being that with the power to create a universe in all it's grandeur and glory would really give a hoot about good and evil. God has more important things to worry about than an insignificant species on an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system in an insignificant galaxy among trillions of galaxies. Mankind is less than a microbe on a single grain of sand among all the grains of sand on the planet compared to the rest of the universe.

Geez - if nothing else Mankind is an arrogant species to believe we really matter in the grand scheme of things.

[Lee]

"Good is what man says is good and Evil is what man says is evil. It seems unlikely that a being that with the power to create a universe in all it's grandeur and glory would really give a hoot about good and evil. God has more important things to worry about than an insignificant species on an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system in an insignificant galaxy among trillions of galaxies. Mankind is less than a microbe on a single grain of sand among all the grains of sand on the planet compared to the rest of the universe."

That's assuming that there IS something comparable to Earth and it's inhabitants elswhere in the universe.  If not, I'd say that God does have a stake in the behavior of mankind.  But then, the Mayans might have been a favorite of 'his'...who knows?

[Werewolf]

That's assuming that there IS something comparable to Earth and it's inhabitants elswhere in the universe. 

To assume that there isn't something, somewhere in the vastness of the universe comparable to mankind seems not a little farfetched. Why would a rational god create the whole universe and then populate just one planet out of trillions and trillions of them?

[gunsmith]

In the beginning, there was absolutely nothing.
Nothing, being very unstable and highly explosive, exploded, creating the universe.
That whole thing about matter can neither be created or destroyed is simply unscientific because nothing means nothing, but there was this big bang and now there is something.

I think folks that hate on intelligent design need to get an imagination and read "Divine Invasion" & "V.A.L.I.S"
by Phillip K Dick.

Isn't it obvious to everyone that God created some really smart beings who came to earth a billion years ago and seeded the Earth with some DNA?

Still, I go to Church and pray to Jesus anyway....please don't hate me for that.
I love science, science fiction.....I don't fear much really.