Does science point away from a God or lean towards?

[Undesired Walrus]

Given the complexities of the universe, I often hear those who have a firm basis in a belief in God say "Science is ever proving that the construction and formulation of the universe is only the result of a God".

Often I hear people say that maths proves it, or the distruption in the so and so causes this, but I ask:

Any of it true?

[Jackalgirl]

Given the complexities of the universe, I often hear those who have a firm basis in a belief in God say "Science is ever proving that the construction and formulation of the universe is only the result of a God".

Often I hear people say that maths proves it, or the distruption in the so and so causes this, but I ask:

Any of it true?

It's a nice thought, but as far as I'm aware, none of it is provable. It's all a philosophic theory, based on the assumption that things can't "just happen". I imagine that if you found a specific argument about, say, the maths, and posted it here, one or several of our very bright resident mathematicians would be all over it in an instance. And any evolution-related arguments can be explored via talkorigins.org (http:/www.talkorigins.org).

[Beerina]

And philosophically, I have a huge problem with holding us accountable for our actions according to some reward/punishment scheme set up deliberately without proof.

If you are looking to filter for people who are "good", i.e. do things without need for reward or punishment, "threats without proof" is an odd way to go about it.

[Upchurch]

Often I hear people say that maths proves it, or the distruption in the so and so causes this, but I ask:

Any of it true?
You should really ask those making the claim. I would be very interested in seeing the "maths".

[Tricky]

The percentage of atheists is much higher among scientists than in the population in general. I think you have your answer.

[T'ai Chi]

But is that a sign of the times? The percentage of religious people among scientists way back when was high. So what?

[Upchurch]

The percentage of atheists is much higher among scientists than in the population in general.
Is it? In the US, even, or is that globally?

In my class of physics majors in college, I never knew what their religious beliefs were, but one of them became a Catholic priest (I think) after graduation. Granted, that's a non-representative sample and only one out of eight people, but I'd be curious just how non-representative that is.

[drkitten]

But is that a sign of the times? The percentage of religious people among scientists way back when was high. So what?

Higher than it was among the general public? I rather doubt that -- and would be interested to see the evidence you can bring to the contrary.

At any rate, the implication is fairly clear. It's the same logic that I use when I ask the professors at the local law school for a recommendation about whom to use if I need a lawyer; the experts in the field (especially as a group) are more likely to have an accurate opinion than the non-experts like my Uncle Roger the tax protestor.

Presumably physicists, in particular, are as familiar as anyone with the details of "the construction and forumulation of the universe." If, as a group, they find those details to be a less-than-compelling argument for the existence of God, why should someone unfamiliar with the details be given more credence?

[Tricky]

Is it? In the US, even, or is that globally?

In my class of physics majors in college, I never knew what their religious beliefs were, but one of them became a Catholic priest (I think) after graduation. Granted, that's a non-representative sample and only one out of eight people, but I'd be curious just how non-representative that is.
Well, I'm trying to find some statistics, but I recall seeing some polls in the past. Still, you only need see how creationists rail against "atheist scientists" as opposed to "atheist encyclopedia salesmen" or "atheist chartered accountants."


ETA:

Here's one article (http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm). It is by an atheist organization, but it is referring to an article in Nature.

[drkitten]

Is it? In the US, even, or is that globally?

The only data I have been able to find (quickly) involve the US -- but the numbers there support the claim that scientists are less religious. For example, one survey (http://http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html) suggests that 60% of US scientists reject God, and that number gets even higher (80-90%, depending upon how you read the numbers) among "leading scientists."

The corresponding numbers (http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund.pdf) for the general population are in the single digits, according to the Templeton Foundation.



In my class of physics majors in college, I never knew what their religious beliefs were, but one of them became a Catholic priest (I think) after graduation. Granted, that's a non-representative sample and only one out of eight people, but I'd be curious just how non-representative that is.

12% active belief in God isn't unreasonable, given the numbers above. Of course 12% actively believing in God enough to seek ordination is a little unusual.... but I don't think that your "non-representative sample" is bizarre enough to question the overall findings....

[drkitten]

Well, I'm trying to find some statistics, but I recall seeing some polls in the past. Still, you only need see how creationists rail against "atheist scientists" as opposed to "atheist encyclopedia salesmen" or "atheist chartered accountants."

Doesn't follow. "Atheist scientists" are a threat precisely because they are a relatively powerful and authoritative group that's directly opposed to the creationist policy agenda. More accurately, "scientists" as a whole tend to be opposed to creationism (and in a relative position of power, so their opposition is effective), and "atheist" is a convenient tag that can be used to demonize the group, regardless of its accuracy (for example, Ken Miller is very firmly not an atheist, despite being an evolutionist. I suspect that particular subtlety does not come out very often when he gets villified.) No one particularly cares whether "chartered accountants" are in favor of creationism or not; they have no special authority or bully pulpit.

Creationists similarly rail against "activist judges" -- Judge Jones called that one in his Dover decision -- despite the fact that legal opposition to creationism is manifestly not "activism." Similarly, "atheist judges" come under a lot of fire, despite the fact that most of the current Federal bench are Republican appointees and almost none of them are card-carrying atheists. But it's much easier to criticize someone if you don't have any particular regard for the facts. And what creationist does? The simple fact is that the judges speak from a particular position of authority and privilege that the creationists don't have, and in many cases don't have a hope of getting. Easier to try to minimize the authority of scientists and judges than to acquire it yourself.

[Loss Leader]

Given the complexities of the universe, I often hear those who have a firm basis in a belief in God say "Science is ever proving that the construction and formulation of the universe is only the result of a God".

Often I hear people say that maths proves it, or the distruption in the so and so causes this, but I ask:

Any of it true?


How can one prove the existence of something that does not even have a consistent operational definition?

[Tricky]

Doesn't follow. "Atheist scientists" are a threat precisely because they are a relatively powerful and authoritative group that's directly opposed to the creationist policy agenda. More accurately, "scientists" as a whole tend to be opposed to creationism (and in a relative position of power, so their opposition is effective), and "atheist" is a convenient tag that can be used to demonize the group, regardless of its accuracy (for example, Ken Miller is very firmly not an atheist, despite being an evolutionist.
It was meant as an interesting (and tongue-in-cheek) observation rather than a logical argument. (Think "Crimson Permanent Assurance".)

Another interesting observation is that creationsists seem to be playing both sides against the middle on this. From one side (as in the OP) they say that science supports God. From the other side, they rail because scientists are against God. Of course "they" are not a monolithic group, but they seem to have a common goal.

[Beleth]

Depends on what you mean by God.

If one's definition of God is so nebulous as to include all of nature, then yeah, science points to God.

If one's definition of God is specific like "The being called 'El' in the Old Testament, or the being called 'Yahweh' in the Old Testament, or the being called 'God' in the New Testament, but not the being called 'Allah' in the Koran", then science points away from God.

If one's definition of God is something like "an intelligent non-material non-temporal entity who created the material temporal universe", then science tends to paint such an entity into an ever-smaller corner. Whether science will ever paint such an entity out of existence entirely is unknown at this point.

[ceo_esq]

The percentage of atheists is much higher among scientists than in the population in general. I think you have your answer.

Assuming that to be true, how does it answer the question of whether science as such points towards or away from the existence of God? It seems as though there are many other possible factors that could play a role in explaining the correspondence (including, but not limited to, increased self-selection for careers in science by people who incline toward atheism).

[triadboy]

Assuming that to be true, how does it answer the question of whether science as such points towards or away from the existence of God? It seems as though there are many other possible factors that could play a role in explaining the correspondence (including, but not limited to, increased self-selection for careers in science by people who incline toward atheism).

One explanations is - well-read, intelligent, worldly, unafraid, curious, "scientific" people tend to be more atheist.

[Darth Rotor]

Does science point away from a God or lean towards
Science points toward another question, no matter how many questions have been asked, or answered. :)

DR

[Undesired Walrus]

You should really ask those making the claim. I would be very interested in seeing the "maths".

Complexity of DNA, Newton etc.. blah blah..

[This Guy]

Assuming that to be true, how does it answer the question of whether science as such points towards or away from the existence of God? It seems as though there are many other possible factors that could play a role in explaining the correspondence (including, but not limited to, increased self-selection for careers in science by people who incline toward atheism).

It would seem to me that if science "points toward God" those "inclined toward atheism" that enter the science fields would be led toward a belief in God, and would have a tendency to leave atheism, and move toward some form of Deity belief/worship.

I think the references posted above tend to dispute that that has happened.

I would think that those entering the fields of science would be made up, more or less from the same belief backgrounds as those in the general population, on a percentage basis. The apparent fact that that percentage drops once they have become scientist (however that is defined ;)) would at least imply that science tends to point away from a belief in a Deity.

[Puppycow]

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins gives the "Ultimate 747" as an argument against God*. Postulating a God, does not answer any mystery because it raises the question of what created God. If things can't "just happen" then God can't "just happen" either, can he? The big bang is indeed mysterious, but it is no less unreasonable to imagine that the universe "just happened" than to imagine that God "just happened". Since God brings us no closer to understanding the ultimate truth, Occam's razor says cut him out.

Imagine a theory that the world rests on the back of a giant turtle. As a scientific explanation, this doesn't help much because it raises the question of what does the giant turtle rest on. God is like that.

*God defined as what most religious people think of as God, rather than some vague pantheistic definition such as the universe itself is God.

[T'ai Chi]

If things can't "just happen" then God can't "just happen" either, can he? The big bang is indeed mysterious, but it is no less unreasonable to imagine that the universe "just happened" than to imagine that God "just happened".


But natural things are just things, effects that have a cause. Various people define god(s) to be that without a cause, so yes, it is unreasonable to imagine that god(s) just happened when defined that way.

[The Great Hairy One]

Science doesn't point to anything. Science helps humanity understand how nature actually works. It is purely neutral when it comes to the "why" part of events and occurrences - that's more of a philosophical question.

Maths, genetics, Newton's Laws, Einstein's laws, etc., etc., don't prove anything about a first-cause designer or some sort of god-creature. Yes, all of these components show that the universe is a complex and incredible thing, but they also point to a naturalistic explanation for the processes which occur within the universe.

Usually when someone says "wow, it's so big/complex/amazing, it must prove god/allah/thor/yahweh!" they are simply arguing from incredulity. Other common arguments around this belief are that the constants of the universe must have been specifically selected by "someone" to enable life, that without some form of first cause the Big Bang would not have happened, etc., etc. None of these points of view are supported by science - but science also does not contradict these points of view. It's neutral on this topic.

Cheers,
TGHO

[T'ai Chi]

I'm still waiting on the answer to where the universe came from. :)

[T'ai Chi]

One explanations is - well-read, intelligent, worldly, unafraid, curious, "scientific" people tend to be more atheist.

That's an interesting statement. Care to provide evidence?

[The Great Hairy One]

I'm still waiting on the answer to where the universe came from. :)


So are the rest of us.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Beth]

Given the complexities of the universe, I often hear those who have a firm basis in a belief in God say "Science is ever proving that the construction and formulation of the universe is only the result of a God".

Often I hear people say that maths proves it, or the distruption in the so and so causes this, but I ask:

Any of it true?

Personally, I think the maths prove hard agnostism; the question cannot be answered by us. But I'm an agnostic, so naturally that's how I see it. :D

My opinion is that science assumes no god and proceeds to explain our world and how we perceive it under that assumption. Thus I don't think science can prove that no god exists because it is an axiom upon which it builds.

I don't think this is a terribly uncommon view of science. It would explain why scientists are often perceived to be atheist.

[gorillapaws]

Anyone know if there have been computer models done to deterimine the rate of evolution? as in we know that species x evolved into y over z time thus the rate of evolution should be calculatable. Given that, can we model another earlier species and use the same rate of evolution to determine how much variation we would expect and match that with current species to see how well it does? Sorry if that's a bit unclear. It does seem that we should be able to determine natural rates of mutation based on fossil records (or even drug-resistent bacteria). Is there some darwinian constant that would govern this? or does the rate of mutation vary too much based on other factors such as environment?

[Puppycow]

But natural things are just things, effects that have a cause. Various people define god(s) to be that without a cause, so yes, it is unreasonable to imagine that god(s) just happened when defined that way.

Two things: If even one thing exists without a cause, then it must be possible in principle for things to "just happen." Second, if we accept that as a definition for God, it does not imply necessarily any of the things that most faith-heads claim about God, such as that he listens to our prayers. We have to settle on one definition before we can meaningfully begin to answer the question. And clearly, such a definition of God does not imply that any of the major religious faiths is true.

[The Great Hairy One]

Anyone know if there have been computer models done to deterimine the rate of evolution? as in we know that species x evolved into y over z time thus the rate of evolution should be calculatable. Given that, can we model another earlier species and use the same rate of evolution to determine how much variation we would expect and match that with current species to see how well it does? Sorry if that's a bit unclear. It does seem that we should be able to determine natural rates of mutation based on fossil records (or even drug-resistent bacteria). Is there some darwinian constant that would govern this? or does the rate of mutation vary too much based on other factors such as environment?


The "rate of evolution" is not something which is determinable for multicellular organisms. It can be determined for single celled organisms, such as bacteria and yeasts, however this value does not carry over up the developmental chain. One problem with dealing with multicellular organisms is that different genes are active in different cells, and so determining whether or not a mutation has occurred can be quite difficult.

The rate of mutation is relatively constant, and is based mostly on environmental factors. However, it's offset by cellular regenerative and repairative processes, which can "cancel" the mutation, leading to a miscount of the rate.

Finally, we really don't have an accurate measure of "species x evolved into y over z time". The value for "z time" tends to be in the range of millions of years, which gives really inaccurate values. On top of that, defining the exact point where species x became species y is extremely problematic, and can very rarely be pin-pointed exactly.

Cheers,
TGHO

[T'ai Chi]

If even one thing exists without a cause, then it must be possible in principle for things to "just happen."


But what you want to just happen, the natural universe, has certain properties. We know that natural things have causes. Are you saying you now want some natural things to magic themselves into existence?

Moreover, you claim that science can show things about the natural universe. So where is your detailed explanation of the universe magicing itself into existence?

Or is it your belief? :)

[ceo_esq]

One explanations is - well-read, intelligent, worldly, unafraid, curious, "scientific" people tend to be more atheist.

Yes, that's one explanation (though it doesn't do much, since its own explanation isn't obvious, plus it doesn't answer the original question). But is it a correct explanation?

[gorillapaws]

The "rate of evolution" is not something which is determinable for multicellular organisms. It can be determined for single celled organisms, such as bacteria and yeasts, however this value does not carry over up the developmental chain. One problem with dealing with multicellular organisms is that different genes are active in different cells, and so determining whether or not a mutation has occurred can be quite difficult.

The rate of mutation is relatively constant, and is based mostly on environmental factors. However, it's offset by cellular regenerative and repairative processes, which can "cancel" the mutation, leading to a miscount of the rate.

Finally, we really don't have an accurate measure of "species x evolved into y over z time". The value for "z time" tends to be in the range of millions of years, which gives really inaccurate values. On top of that, defining the exact point where species x became species y is extremely problematic, and can very rarely be pin-pointed exactly.

Cheers,
TGHO

I can better see some of the problems with this now. Thank you for your input. I still don't see why they can't carbon date/use other methods of dating to roughly determine the relative ages for fossils believed to be the evolved specie of the other. Certainly there wouldn't be extremely accurate numbers, but I would think that with a large enough sample populations we would be able to determine a lot about the rates at which multicellular species evolve (and even if things had large margins of error like in the millions of years, that's still a relatively small value given the timeframes we would be discussing no?).

I would also think there would be a statistical way to account for the cases where mutations were "corrected" by biological functions. I know that computer models have become very advanced at accurately reproducing many natural phenomena that would likely have similar difficulties. I'm somewhat surprised there aren't better answers to some of these questions-- especially given the testable nature of these issues and the societal interest in notions of intelligent design.

[blobru]

From "Science Vs. Religion: The 500-year War (Finding God in the Heat of the Battle) (http://sciencevsreligion.net/synopses%20of%20chapters.htm)" David J. Turrell, M.D.

Haven't read it, but the book looks like a summary of science vs. religion arguments. The author obviously asked himself the same question as the OP and came away with a very heavy lean towards God. I doubt any of it will be new to JREFers -- he thinks Behe is the bee's knees for example -- but one chapter's synopsis seemed pertinent to this thread:

Chapter Seven, Belief in God Through Rational Philosophy, using Adler’s book, How to think About God, (1980) as a guide, has several sections that analyze logically the material presented in the preceding chapters, concluding a la Adler that it can be shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that God exists. It is recognized that absolute proof is not available to us. The chapter opens with a review of Adler, his terminology and the methods he uses. The argument for God is then divided into sections.

1) Argument from first cause. This is a special universe permitting life. The alternative of multiple universes is discarded as contrary to Occam’s razor: they can never by proven. The Big Bang/Big Crunch theory is discarded because it has been proven that this is a ‘flat’ universe which will expand forever. Scientists may be able to eventually combine relativity and quantum theories and possibly be able to look at what happened before 10-43 of the first second, but there had to be a ‘start’ at zero, the ‘boundary’ shown by Guth et al in 2002. Therefore, a Creator is required.

2) Argument from design. The use of the word design involves a ‘designed’ universe and also that amazingly complex living organisms appear to be ‘designed’. Proposals by authors looking for alternatives to God raise the issue of "The Anthropic Principle" and alternative quantum realities, both of which are refuted. Fine-tuning of the universe and apparent design in living organisms allowed us to appear, but we know of nothing that required us to appear. What drove increasing complexity? Another objection to God is the assertion that not all designs by evolution are perfect, implying that God would only employ perfection. This point is also refuted: even if God is defined as perfect, it does not imply that each design must be perfect, but only rise to the necessary level of efficiency. And finally, the complexity of life created by evolution, when analyzed mathematically, appears to require the infusion of extra information, which is called by its proponents ‘intelligent design’. All of these facts imply the hand of God.

3) Argument from Darwin. Disproving Darwin does not prove God. The thrust of the argument is that Darwinism is incomplete. First, it does not seem possible that life started by chance. Secondly, the Darwin theory is a passive process, and there is an overwhelming sense of a mechanism driving increasing complexity, which would require the active input of more information than chance mutations and natural selection can provide. Again, the design of life allows complexity but does not appear to require it. Exaptations appear to represent pre-planning. The ‘irreducible complexity’ described by Behe also requires and implies an input of extra information. Further, Darwin anticipated very tiny progressive alterations leading from one species to another, and thought appropriate fossils would be found. The gaps between species have never been filled. I feel that evolution required ‘intelligent design’.

4) Argument from consciousness. The special attributes of consciousness are described. Again the question is asked: the universe was designed to allow life and it appeared, but was not required to appear. Consciousness was not required to appear either, but it did. No other primate species had this happen, only the branch becoming human. I offer Swinburne’s reasoning that the presence of consciousness is evidence for God’s existence. Our religiosity comes from our consciousness and I argue that it did not evolve gradually as E. O. Wilson proposes (On Human Nature, 1978). Robert Wright in Non-Zero (2000) and Karen Armstrong (A History of God, 1993) tend to agree with me. Of course, no one can be sure exactly how it developed. Out of Body Experiences (OBE’s) and Near Death Experiences (NDE’s) are discussed in relation to our religiosity and the proposition offered that NDE is part of the plan of the religiosity given to us. I note that the universe is very dangerous, but we have been given consciousness to plan ways to protect ourselves.

The conclusion of the chapter is that each section adds to the evidence "that God exists either beyond a reasonable doubt or by preponderance of reasons in favor of that conclusion over reasons against it."(Adler)

A couple of these points have been dealt with above by TGHO I think. I note a glaring contradiction in argument 4: "consciousness was not required to appear, but it did; [therefore] we have been given [it by god for protection]" (nooo, if it protects us then evolution selected for it!) Anyway, thought some might like to browse the list and link... :)

[Puppycow]

But what you want to just happen, the natural universe, has certain properties. We know that natural things have causes. Are you saying you now want some natural things to magic themselves into existence?

Moreover, you claim that science can show things about the natural universe. So where is your detailed explanation of the universe magicing itself into existence?

Or is it your belief? :)

I don't know, and I don't claim to know, why the universe appeared. Science may never find a final answer. That doesn't mean that religion can find the answer either.

But, if the universe had a cause, then it raises the question of what caused that cause. Science may never know what, if anything, caused the universe to "appear." Perhaps it is unknowable in principle, but in course of time, greater minds to come may yet find an answer.

[The Great Hairy One]

I can better see some of the problems with this now. Thank you for your input. I still don't see why they can't carbon date/use other methods of dating to roughly determine the relative ages for fossils believed to be the evolved specie of the other. Certainly there wouldn't be extremely accurate numbers, but I would think that with a large enough sample populations we would be able to determine a lot about the rates at which multicellular species evolve (and even if things had large margins of error like in the millions of years, that's still a relatively small value given the timeframes we would be discussing no?).

I would also think there would be a statistical way to account for the cases where mutations were "corrected" by biological functions. I know that computer models have become very advanced at accurately reproducing many natural phenomena that would likely have similar difficulties. I'm somewhat surprised there aren't better answers to some of these questions-- especially given the testable nature of these issues and the societal interest in notions of intelligent design.


There are ways to generate the information you are after, however you're going to need to do some reading. This is a relatively complex issue, and requires some knowledge of biology and genetics.

Have a look at the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele_frequency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

These are more important in the process of speciation than mutation rate. We can use the processes of population genetics to understand the rate of evolution, however, as I mentioned before, it's not a constant. The exact methodology is still not fully understood, and is debated within scientific circles currently.

I would suggest reading some Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould as well, especially The Blind Watchmaker, which discusses this issue at length. You can also browse Wikipedia, especially the links at the bottom of the Genetic Drift page. There's a lot of read there, however!

I'm happy to answer your questions, if I can, but some of the answers might get a little technical. :)

Cheers,
TGHO

[Anacoluthon64]

Maths, genetics, Newton's Laws, Einstein's laws, etc., etc., don't prove anything about a first-cause designer or some sort of god-creature. Yes, all of these components show that the universe is a complex and incredible thing, but they also point to a naturalistic explanation for the processes which occur within the universe.Good points all, but these things point to something else, something deeper, which is what I suspect those of a religious bent are actually getting at: that the universe as we find it seems to be astonishingly ordered and regular, i.e. governed by strict rules. Of equal importance is our own ability, apparently unique among all sentient organisms, to become conscious of, and to apprehend, this order. But without such order we probably would never have arisen in the first place, at least not in our extant form. The unwarranted inference, of course, is that said order was decreed by a super-consciousness (rather than arising as it did from some essential necessity), specifically for the purpose our own emergence as human beings.

And I, too, would be keen to see some "maths" arguments that say anything about god's existence one way or the other because, as far as I can tell, god is anything but an axiomatic formal system. I suspect these "arguments" are the usual semantic tricks about "phenomenally small probabilities," a.k.a. arguments from incredulity.

To answer the question posed in the OP, then, science is almost entirely mute on the question of god's existence except to say that nothing we have examined yet requires it.

'Luthon64

[The Great Hairy One]

Good points all, but these things point to something else, something deeper, which is what I suspect those of a religious bent are actually getting at: that the universe as we find it seems to be astonishingly ordered and regular, i.e. governed by strict rules. Of equal importance is our own ability, apparently unique among all sentient organisms, to become conscious of, and to apprehend, this order. But without such order we probably would never have arisen in the first place, at least not in our extant form. The unwarranted inference, of course, is that said order was decreed by a super-consciousness (rather than arising as it did from some essential necessity), specifically for the purpose our own emergence as human beings.


That is, quite simply, The Anthropic Principle. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) It is quite possible that life simply would not exist in a universe which had slightly different laws of physics, or slightly varied universal constants (like the melting point of oxygen for example).

At this point in our (human) development we really can not come to any definitive conclusions within these arguments. Until we either discover other forms of intelligent life, or show that alternative universes with varied physical laws exist, we only have a sample size of one. As any scientist will tell you, a sample size of one is far too small to base definite conclusions upon.

We can argue from a philosophical viewpoint. But I would say that we can not produce a scientific argument here, until we have more data.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Mojo]

But, if the universe had a cause, then it raises the question of what caused that cause.


It's those pesky turtles again.

[Anacoluthon64]

That is, quite simply, The Anthropic Principle.Yes, I have read of it before. My point, however, was that someone strongly convinced of god's existence would identify god as the source of this "amazing coincidence" and hold it up as further evidence supporting their beliefs (and maybe even that science acknowledges god), which is a specious argument.

'Luthon64

[triadboy]

That's an interesting statement. Care to provide evidence?

Yes, I have it in the trunk of my car. Wait here, I'll get it.......

I obviously can't provide any evidence for this. But from observations during my life, it appears to me the most illiterate countries and people are the most religious.

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, I have it in the trunk of my car. Wait here, I'll get it.......

I obviously can't provide any evidence for this. But from observations during my life, it appears to me the most illiterate countries and people are the most religious.
Alexis de Tocqueville might disagree with you, but perhaps he was looking at a special case. I had similar observations elsewhere, however.

Back to Alexis. One of the things settlers moving West most often brought with them, as had the original (mainly) Protestant colonists in America's East, was a Bible and a certain tradition of laws. The Bible was a considerable aid to literacy, as well as to reaffirming Christianity as a core societal norm.

Very religious, also literate. Again, perhaps de Tocqueville was investigating a special case. See also T. R. Fehrenbach on the settlement of Texas by the American, Scots, and German waves, versus the Spanish/Mexican patterns.

DR

[Hourglassmemory]

Putting it very simply.
Everyday a scientific discovery is made . It's either fossils or space phenomena and whatnot.
More and more data points away from the need of a God.
Science sees the world as it is shown to us.
Until now it has been able to explain things without the need of a God.
things that we see today were able to come into being without one thanks to evidence and scientific research.
Putting God into the picture is putting needless weight into the thought process if you ask me.

[ceo_esq]

Yes, I have it in the trunk of my car. Wait here, I'll get it.......

I obviously can't provide any evidence for this. But from observations during my life, it appears to me the most illiterate countries and people are the most religious.

I'm pretty sure that that's true, although without controls it's hard to say what, if anything, that says about the association between religion (or perhaps a particular religion) and ignorance. There are a number of studies suggesting that after controlling for other factors, increased education correlates positively to religiosity.

[gorillapaws]

There are ways to generate the information you are after, however you're going to need to do some reading. This is a relatively complex issue, and requires some knowledge of biology and genetics.

Have a look at the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele_frequency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

These are more important in the process of speciation than mutation rate. We can use the processes of population genetics to understand the rate of evolution, however, as I mentioned before, it's not a constant. The exact methodology is still not fully understood, and is debated within scientific circles currently.

I would suggest reading some Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould as well, especially The Blind Watchmaker, which discusses this issue at length. You can also browse Wikipedia, especially the links at the bottom of the Genetic Drift page. There's a lot of read there, however!

I'm happy to answer your questions, if I can, but some of the answers might get a little technical. :)

Cheers,
TGHO

Thank you very much for directing me to the relevant research. It's quite fascinating. From what I've read thus far it seems that population size is probably the largest contributer (in an inverse relationship) to the amount of change in a given species over time--is that correct? Given that a large population can remain relatively unchanged for long periods of time and that smaller populations can change very rapidly (and apparently not always in ways that improve survival/reproduction), I can see why calculating rates of evolution would be so problematic without knowing the populations throughout the duration of the periods of change being measured.

[The Great Hairy One]

Thank you very much for directing me to the relevant research. It's quite fascinating. From what I've read thus far it seems that population size is probably the largest contributer (in an inverse relationship) to the amount of change in a given species over time--is that correct? Given that a large population can remain relatively unchanged for long periods of time and that smaller populations can change very rapidly (and apparently not always in ways that improve survival/reproduction), I can see why calculating rates of evolution would be so problematic without knowing the populations throughout the duration of the periods of change being measured.


Yes, population size has a inverse relationship with allele frequency and the rate of genetic drift. Have a look at Founder Events (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_event), that's an extreme example of a very small number of isolated individuals forming a new population. It can lead, quite rapidly, to speciation.

Happy to help mate. :)

Cheers,
TGHO

[Herzblut]

Does science point away from a God or lean towards?
False Dilemma.

Herzblut

[Tricky]

Putting it very simply.
Everyday a scientific discovery is made . It's either fossils or space phenomena and whatnot.
More and more data points away from the need of a God.
Science sees the world as it is shown to us.
Until now it has been able to explain things without the need of a God.
things that we see today were able to come into being without one thanks to evidence and scientific research.
Putting God into the picture is putting needless weight into the thought process if you ask me.
Yup. Although this may not be the case for everything, it is certainly a major theme of scientific discovery. Think of all the "miracles" that science has disproved or that have been shown to be commonplace.


Cosmology - The universe was not created in seven days.
Space exploration - There is no heaven (as described by the Bible) above us.
Evolution - Life on Earth did not appear suddenly.
Geology - There was no worldwide flood. Ever.
Anthropology - All of humanity did not radiate from a point near mount Ararat.
Optics - Rainbows are a refraction phenomenon, not a promise from God.
Ecology - Swarms of locusts and frogs happen naturally.
Mineralogy - Crystalline salt is a product of the evaporation of seawater, not the result of disobedient humans.
Fluid mechanics - bodies of water do not part in the middle.
Gerontology - People do not live to be 900 years old.
Medicine - Plagues are most often caused by microscopic agents, not by God.
Vertebrate Anatomy - There is no fish or whale that could devour a man and disgorge him unharmed.
Celestial mechanics - At no point could the sun "stand still" in the sky.
Oenology - Wine cannot arise spontaneously from water. It must be fermented.
Linguistics - Languages emerge and diverge over many years, not because of a tower being built.
Nutrition - Two fishes and loaves cannot provide sustinance to a multitude.
Animal Domestication - Shepherds do not tend their flocks by night in mid-winter.I'm sure we could think of many more examples.

[Jorghnassen]

Didn't a book/study just came out, like, within the last month, showing that scientists tend to come from non-religious families in the first place? That is, it would appear that areligiousness "leads" to science, more than the other way around (as some would interpret the data that scientist tend to be much more atheists/agnostics than the general population).

/that also means more religious individuals tend not to become scientists, which makes sense I guess, at least nowadays
//I'm old enough to remember the old days of large Catholic families, where the first born male would be expected to become a priest, and the second born to become a doctor.
///in fact, the relationship between scientific and religious tendencies in individuals has evolved over time, and place...

[Foster Zygote]

I'm still waiting on the answer to where the universe came from. :)

If you get an answer will you respond to it or ignore it?

Your question seems to assume an infinite period of nothingness into which suddenly popped the Big Bang. I doubt many cosmologists grant any validity to this model.

One possible answer is that the universe didn't "come from" anywhere, that there was no "before the big bang". Time is a dimension that begins at the point of the Big Bang. In this model of the universe there is no "before". The universe, like your hypothesized gods, simply exists.

[ceo_esq]

I'm still waiting on the answer to where the universe came from.

Your question seems to assume an infinite period of nothingness into which suddenly popped the Big Bang. I doubt many cosmologists grant any validity to this model.

One possible answer is that the universe didn't "come from" anywhere, that there was no "before the big bang". Time is a dimension that begins at the point of the Big Bang. In this model of the universe there is no "before". The universe, like your hypothesized gods, simply exists.


I'm not sure that T'ai Chi's question about where (in a colloquial rather than a strictly spatial sense, I presume) the universe came from assumes that there was time generally (or a specific time) before the Big Bang.

For one thing, I gather that what he's really getting at is whether the fact of the physical universe beginning to exist had a cause, and I think we may fairly say that our current understanding of cosmology leads us to conclude that the universe had a beginning. At the risk of being reductive, something has a beginning if it exists at time T and there's no time prior to T where that something exists. That's true of the physical universe even if there was no time at all before T, isn't it? So the universe had a beginning, unless the cosmologists are vastly deceived. That leads T'ai Chi to wonder, I think, whether something can begin to exist (that is, come into being) without a cause. And since I don't know of any absolute reason why causes must bear a temporal relationship to their effects (or put another way, why causal relationships are necessarily temporal), it seems valid enough to apply this to the beginning of the universe.

[Upchurch]

Complexity of DNA, Newton etc.. blah blah..

All very accountable without relying on supernatural forces.

I was secretly hoping for some actual math. Sarcasm aside, I really would like to see someone's approach to quantify a seemingly qualitative aspect like design. It's possible with color, for example.

The problem is that such quantitative analysis would have to be able to distinguish between structure, which can occur through a combination of natural forces and randomness, and conscious design. It's apparent that we humans have trouble with that distinction sometimes, I'm not sure how we would quantize it.

hm.