Friday, 02 September 2011

  • Scientists Say: How Science and Faith Can Coexist

    I was so giddy when I got my first lab job.  Up until then I'd earned money by washing floors, baking bread, chopping carrots, Tilexing a handicapped woman's windowless bathroom week after week while she told me about her divorce and played Patsy Cline records really loud.  I'd folded towels, shined bidets, swept up crack pipes and deveined shrimp.  The first day at the lab, as an intern, I got shown my desk and given a stack of scientific articles to read.  I was going to get paid to think.

    I loved that lab, irrationally loved the people in it, peppered them all with questions about well, life, the universe, and everything.  I was given the task of isolating a certain form of human cell, and feeding them and caring for them until they divided into the millions.  On the side, I synthesized little dishes of homebrew extracellular matrices, to see if there were any that the cells could move across, towards or away from stimuli.  People came to the clinical part of the lab for help with wounds that wouldn't heal.  Back in R&D, we wanted to know how in healthy people wounds heal themselves; cells, like the ones I grew, would fill in the damage.  This happens, it is incredible and it is true.  And for some people it fails.  We wanted to know why.

    The room I worked in most was so full of equipment it had no windows, no free wall space, everything hummed.  My coworkers liked to listen to the radio but with all that buzz back there we got about one station and it was pretty bad.  And one day their news segment reported that a plane went down of the coast, not too far away.  I was dating a guy who loved to fly small planes, so I perked up, in case by some weird chance, he'd been the one crashing his plane in the ocean.  It seemed like something he might do.

    The radio voice said, "Scientists still don't understand why the plane lost altitude," and I remember sitting there blinking.  "Scientists?"  I think I asked it aloud.  "What does 'science' have to do with this?"  and "Aren't we scientists?"

    Well, that wasn't my boyfriend's plane and to this day, this scientist anyway is still in the dark as to why that plane went down.  But I still remember that moment when the word "scientist" or "Science" gets tossed around as if it means something.  On Xanga, it appears to mean something to a lot of people - maybe those are the kinds of people who know why planes crash - anyway, it gets used a lot.  Especially juxtaposed with "God" or "faith" or "religion."  Not long ago someone linked to a list of Scientists who Doubt Darwinism or some such thing.  Fair enough.  I know that Scientists bring this upon themselves too with blanket statements like "Few reputable scientists doubt Darwinian Evolution," too.  The whole thing sort of makes me giggle - like if someone told you the rumor that your family was the most together bunch of people in town, that your kitchen was always spotless, and no one ever argued, and you all played cards every night and sang happy songs.  Sure, we can pretend that Science is some big happy family full of respect and harmony and that everybody trusts everybody and everybody agrees.

    Or we could be a little bit more honest and say that "Science" is a blanket term without a whole lot of meaning - much in the way that "Humanities" is.  It's an academic slot - not some global assent to basic principles.  It confers zero authority.  A PhD in a scientific subject hardly makes you an expert on the research the person in the neighboring lab does, let alone in a whole other field.  I could care less whether a physicist believes in evolution any more than I would listen to a geneticist's opinion on a plane crash.  Scientific disciplines are incredibly narrow - as are all academic disciplines.

    So what does it mean when we set up Science and Darwinism (etc) as opposites?  It seems to be a backlash against a norm, an attempt to inject doubt into the status quo, the "conventional wisdom" that trickles out from smart people who think about this stuff.  Why a backlash?  When we think about HIV, for example, do we consider it anything but a virus?  Would we like better a world in which it is witchcraft and can be cured by raping virgins?  Where the conventional wisdom is useful, it's pretty much accepted.  Sure there are vaccine detractors and probably a fair amount of people who don't understand bacteria very well and lots of conventional wisdom that is constantly being tested out in labs and found to be more complicated than previously assumed - it's a all a work in progress.  But most of us in developed countries feel reasonably comfortable with imagining a world populated with unseen microbes, weather driven by unseen warm and cold fronts and inversions and other such things we don't really understand - and are fairly ok with the concept that though "scientists" are studying these things, they don't have it all locked up and solved.

    So why this backlash against the concepts of Darwinian Evolution?  Does anybody have any ideas?  What about it bothers you so much?  Does it just not seem useful or interesting?  Does it feel sacrilegious?  I get that to a lot of folks it just feels flat out wrong.  But why is that news?  "Scientists" are forever telling us that broccoli cures cancer, no, wait, it causes it, but only if you eat too much, raw is best - but only if boiled an hour to kill e.coli first.  Are we still so bedazzled that we imagine there's some absolute that Science has uncovered?  Or do we understand that all of the various sciences are merely ways of noticing the world around us and trying to be smarter about living in it.  We helped a lot of people with a lot of really horrific wounds their bodies couldn't heal.  Not because we knew magic, but because we understood where their bodies had broken down and how to make things happen in test tubes that their bodies could not do.  In other times, in other places, this would look like witchcraft - or our meddling like the inability to trust or pray well.  

    But for me, science has always been one of the best prayers I know.  The continual awakening to what is, the awe of the unknown, the unfolding questions, wonder in the complexity of life.  Those are things which the sciences hold in common: careful, painstaking noticing of the world as it is.  We get our hands dirty, because to learn we immerse ourselves, we reach in, we do things to test our imaginings and we fail, spectacularly, over and over again.  We guess and guess wrongly, we think and think again, we attend, we focus, we concentrate, and because it's fun, we speculate wildly about it all.  And most of us are driven, not merely to know more, but to serve people better.  To find tools for health, for wellbeing, for kind and just treatment of one another, for more food for hungry kids, for more wounds healed, for less virgins raped, always.

    There is nothing here that demands we unlove God.

    Does liking science mean you have to unlove God? Can science and faith coexist?

Comments (15)

  • nyclegodesi24@xanga
  • mtngirlsouth@xanga

    Darwinian evolution is not the whole of science, so, no. Where you run into problems is when you try to combine common descent with a clear reading of the Bible. Lots of people try to combine the two, but since you have to really do some major gymnastics with statements like "the evening and the morning were the ______ day," or, "In six days" or "There was no death before Adam" many people have decided that they are not compatible. So they decide they can't trust the entire Bible and stop being Christians, or they decide they can't trust science and science becomes the enemy. I think science is great as long as people stop forcing evidence to match their world view. So when it comes to origins there is only interpretation of evidence which is always heavilyinfluenced by world view. 

  • too_pretty_to_die@xanga

    i think religion and science seek to address two completely different issues.  i believe they can coexist, but i find that many Christians only succeed at this by belittling science.  instead, they're only willing to accept whatever science proves their faith, and reject the rest.  it's impossible for them to see things objectively.  

  • lomal@xanga

    Hopefully I am never too arrogant to think I know all the answers, but I believe a loving Heavenly Father knows all the answers. And over time, my belief has become faith. Day by day that faith becomes stronger, because God continues to provide the “substance of things hoped for.”

    As a child, I was taught that air exists, and I trusted the people who told me. Now that I am an adult, I know that air exists because of the evidence, even though I will never see it. As a child, those I trusted taught me that I have a Father in Heaven who loves me, and I believed them. That belief became a powerful and living faith as I saw that obedience to God’s commandments and love for Him changed me for the good in ways greater than I could have ever changed on my own. Some parts of my faith have become so sure, that I can now say about them, “I know!” For the rest, I will trust in the Lord.

    I say this as a preface to the idea that Darwin’s theory has much evidence to support it. At the same time, there are some things that don’t fit into it so neatly. Therefore, I leave it to the side as something that is not essential to my salvation or the living of my life, but something that I know will be explained to me by my Father when it is important. Science is a marvel and a wonder, and I can see the hand of the Lord all through its various aspects. Science can be faith-promoting and even inspirational.

    Science and faith can coexist, because truth is truth, and truth builds on itself and leads us to God. That which does not lead us to God is not truth, or at the least, is not yet understood enough to be seen in the proper perspective. Above all, the Lord has promised those who follow Him and ask Him, that the Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth.

  • gayXianmom@xanga

    @nyclegodesi24@xanga -  I suspect some of what I was pondering about here looks a little weird with the new title and questions at the bottom.  I was sort of remarking that the very phrase "scientists say" doesn't make a lot of sense - but with the "coexist" title they added here, it sounds like I'm saying "scientists say faith and religion can all get along!"  (Data to follow, perhaps :) )

    I think my point, insofar as I had one, was that much of our culture now shares working assumptions based on data gleaned from various researchers of all stripes.  It is impractical for me to seek constant verification of the details: the composition of the sun, the speed of light, the make up of diseases, etc - including evolution.  I presume if I was smart enough to do so, I could find errors and controversies within any field, this seems wholly unsurprising to me.  Nonetheless, even with plenty of mistakes and gaps in our knowledge, I do think that this mechanistic, scientific if you will, mode of seeing the world has allowed us to work towards greater compassion.
    So what I wonder is why there is so much fervor against evolution.  Why some actively work to cut down research, why some of the potential candidates for president seem keen to end funding to scientific research.  @lomal@xanga takes what seems to be a reasonable view, which is that where these things aren't readily reconciled, he or she isn't terribly troubled. 


    @mtngirlsouth@xanga do I understand you as saying that, given the clear discrepancies between the origin stories, attempts to make them both seem factually true creates such a cognitive disconnect that it polarizes people?  And so then you have people who feel alienated from either one story or the other (each with its own fantastical elements, right?  obviously no origin story can speak to anything in anyone's daily life, any imagining of this must force us into awe and suspension of disbelief) and given their preference for one story or the other, they gravitate towards an interpretation of the evidence that best fits what they already feel to be true?  If I'm hearing you right, this is the smartest analysis of the debate that I've heard.  
    I guess the problem then that lingers is the one posed by Theodosius Dobzhansky, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."  The details may be sketchy and some conclusions flawed, indeed, but the work we have done in the past 100 years especially, so much of what we collectively base developed-world medicine on, is research done within the framework of the evolution story.  It is not really something most biologists are seeking to prove, but rather it's like gravity or that we need air to breathe, what we learn in the lab about the world makes sense and helps people because the rough framework of evolution is true.  If we decide it is not true, then our explanations of the data stop being very useful.  We stop being able to use model organisms to ask questions about genes because without evolution, the connection between fish and human is mere coincidence and not medically relevant.  I currently work with crop plants and soil toxicity problems in developing countries - my work employs the assumptions about evolution daily, with the goal of helping breed more nutritious and higher yielding crops better adapted to the growing conditions many poor farmers are faced with.  Rejecting evolution (not to mention rejecting global warming) makes my work nonsensical and any luck we've had so far, a fluke.  Is there a model of Creation-based biological research that can lead us to better address the real suffering in the world today?  Or are we to abandon trying to materially help the poor and sick among us because their pain will be removed in the life to come?
  • mtngirlsouth@xanga

    @gayXianmom@xanga - I was right there with you until I got to the last two sentences. First of all, I never said that we need to just abandon science, and let people suffer. I don't understand why it is that because these things work in real time it MUST mean that everything has a common ancestor. And that we MUST believe this fairy tale in order for science to work. 


    It is such a HUGE jump to say that man and fish are related. I can see the similarities between different models of cars, and even interchange the parts, but that would hardly mean they are related. The same thing with computers. If you do an experiment and two species turn out to have capabilities that you can use to help people, why is it that you have to believe this means those two species have a common ancestor instead of a common designer in order to go further with the knowledge? You had to experiment to find out if it would work in the first place, right? 
    This whole idea that if God really created everything separately there would be no similarities is so ridiculous.  

    The thing with science is that it can only work with what we know at this point. The thing with God is, He already knows everything. In my mind, avoiding the clear explanation in the Bible only holds you up. It is like going to Canada by way of Brazil. Science can change theories based on new information. But the Word of God does not ever change. So, I have no doubt that science will finally reach a point where they discover that the Bible actually was right all along. Until then though, I must rely on my faith.
  • artist3@xanga

    Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for this post. I never understood why

    SOME

    religious people  try disprove science they don't agree with so vehemently. I mean disagreeing with it is one thing, but to actively try to disprove, change or, teach the "alternative" is just wrong. You highlighted the point that I feel lots of people look over, is that these established scientific theories have real world application and most "alternative theories " have none, or do not have withing their capacity to explain the world around us in such a precise way.

  • artist3@xanga

    @mtngirlsouth@xanga -  there is nothing "Fairy Tale" about theory of evolution, millions upon millions of pieces of data has been collected,  and millions of independent testing have been done and come out with a positive correlation with the theories, hypotheses and speculation scientist  have made . And positing god adds a whole slew of new questions that need to be answered, and any scientific inquiry is usually met with opposition in the form of " god is not explainable by science or god transcends science." Scientist choose the model of common ancestry, because the theory has withstood testing from various different sciences( Biology, Chemistry, Archaeology, etc..)


    And not pointing any fingers at you or anyone in particular, why would you try to overturn  well established sciences, when you don't have a better explanation or the one you do provide has none of the benefits the current theory provides us.   
  • mtngirlsouth@xanga

    @artist3@xanga - Every single evidence relies on interpretation. Interpretation relies on bias. Pick one, I will show you. Why is it that evolution is the only explanation that gets the points for "benefits"? Why is it that you must believe that everything has a common ancestor in order for the benefits to be beneficial? 

  • gayXianmom@xanga

    @mtngirlsouth@xanga -  I'm sorry, I don't mean to imply that you - or anyone - thinks we should let folks suffer.  I probably worded it wrongly, but what I meant was that, assuming the desire is not to not seek to ease these problems, what is the alternative?  It seems to me that saying evolution is wrong is to say "our tools are fundamentally flawed" and so I'm asking - what are these other tools, how might we approach these problems using a Creation-based worldview?

    Are you proposing that we can continue to use the tools we have because whatever similarities exist between systems are sufficient?  (This holds even now, as you note - discovering how a gene works in a zebrafish is a hint to how it works in a human but is rarely the whole story.)  I suppose I can see this point of view, but I think I may be misunderstanding a bit.  It begins to feel then like we imagine a world in which God has designed everything to look and act as if various systems are related and appear to have arisen via evolution but haven't really.  

  • mtngirlsouth@xanga

    @gayXianmom@xanga - It does not appear that way to me. It just appears to be a common designer to me. World view plays the biggest part in how things appear to anyone. 


    We have no idea what existence was like before the fall of man and the curse. All we do know is there was no death, no disease, no mutations. The entire creation suffered from that curse. Everything changed in that moment. So, I would say, along with the common designer, we all share a common curse. Everything I have ever seen in science or otherwise confirms this. 
    I am proposing that if something works, it works. I have no idea why it is that we all must believe this is somehow proof that we all have a common ancestor before we are allowed to use it. 
  • nyclegodesi24@xanga

    @gayXianmom@xanga - 

    Yeah, the title and the questions confused me as to what you were getting at. 

    "this mechanistic, scientific if you will, mode of seeing the world has allowed us to work towards greater compassion."

    I hadn't picked up on this point in your post, but since you bring it up here, I agree with this, if the idea is that scientifically tested conclusions about people allow us to show compassion, when those conclusions are formed with the additional moral insight we humans are endowed with. For example, knowing, through the use of scientific studies, that alcoholics are in less control of their behavior than non-alcoholics lead me to view them with greater compassion than otherwise. The same is true of sex-offenders, pedophiles, and so on. That said, you may agree with me that moral insights and compassion aren't developed by the scientific mode of seeing the world. They're ingrained in us as humans whether or not we subscribe to specific natural explanations of behavior.

    When I usually encounter "Darwinism", I take it to mean the dogma that evolution occurred without reference to purposes or goals, mindlessly. Such a view is neither supported by the facts nor could be disconfirmed by any fact. It's just as much a faith as is the view that evolution is guided by a Purposer. There's a great article by Alvin Plantinga that discuss these:  distinctions http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91Plantinga1.html

  • gayXianmom@xanga

    @nyclegodesi24@xanga -  Thank you for that, I liked his voice in that article, generally, and I liked his noting that really few of us are really well versed enough in all the various aspects to be able to decide.  I certainly can admit that his explanation of the various philosophical schools was pretty much, "huh?" for me.  Could be that maybe in some way we're all pragmatists, which seems like the approach @mtngirlsouth@xanga advocates for - "if it works, why not use it?"  Or perhaps, "if it makes sense to me, then I'm more inclined to believe it."  


    Surely so much of how we understand the world is experiential.  How we communicate our experiences to one another also matter, otherwise we have a world populated by people who won't believe it if they haven't seen it. But we have the problem then that sometimes the loudest voices drown out the softer ones.  Dawkins is an example of that.  Is there a more oft-quoted "evolutionist" - and yet he's utterly irrelevant within actual biology.  But how would you know?  Maybe we're all in data overload, story overload in this day and age.
    As far as a Purposer goes, my experience is of a world completely infused with God, a world in which everything is stunning and relevant - and yet also, gorgeously, the seams don't show.  To me, looking for God's fingerprints on things (or a goal or purpose to evolution) is like looking for a seam or a trademark symbol or a rip in the fabric.  To offer proof that God must have made something - like the eye argument given in that link - to me is a failure of faith as much as a failure of science.  It's like telling your mom the cake is so good it must have been store bought.  Why, in God's utter perfection, would we need "evidence" of God's hand?  Is it not all the more wonderful to consider that in fact we live in a system that can have produced this myriad of forms without external guide?  This does not negate what is obvious to those of us with faith: that God did - and does - create everything - but rather it delights in a perfection of creation so complete as to not require anything but itself.  The system works beautifully on its own.  Which does not mean that it *is* on its own - or must be on its own - but that there aren't any strings attached - there's no requirement that we acknowledge God, we are instead allowed, utterly freely, to disbelieve.  Which is exactly the sort of freedom that makes belief meaningful.  
  • brokenleaf@xanga

    The parts of faith that don't contradict science can coexist with science.  Faith is a way of believing, science is a way of knowing.  If the things you believe do not contradict the things you know there is no problem.  The things that we believe are supposed to give way to the things that we know when they are in opposition.

  • BehindTheSeens@xanga

    All I know is Science can never clash with God because God CREATED science.  He wanted us to explore His gift of the universe and His physical Laws, He wanted us to be in awe and wonder.  Why wouldn't He?



  • Sign in to Comment

  • Give eProps (?)

About the Author

Who recommended?