From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:18:50 GMT



>From Back to Godhead magazine, November/December 1992
>ON GOD AND SCIENCE
>by Sadaputa Dasa

>So is the science of Darwinism fully compatible with conventional
>religious beliefs? That depends on one's conventions. If by God you mean
>a real spiritual being who controls natural phenomena, even to a slight
>degree, then Darwinism utterly rejects your idea -- not because science
>empirically disproves it, but because the idea goes against the
>fundamental scientific program of explaining all phenomena through the
>laws of physics.

Here Dasa seems to be equating Darwinism with science, rejecting both
because they must explain all phenomena through the laws of physics.

However this assumes that science is intended to be all-encompassing,
which it is not.  Science's value is in that it offers verifiable
explanations, not that it offers philosophical truths.  And such
verifiable explanations have been shown to have explicit value,
despite the philosophical possiblility that supernatural forces
exist which might distort scientific realities.

Science is not restricted to the laws of physics, merely rigorously
verifiable phenomena.  Note that the personal experience of pink
elephants that may occur after many hours of chanting and meditation
does not qualify as rigorous evidence of the existance of said pink
elephants.

>Religious beliefs are compatible with Darwinism only if
>they hold that God is simply a human idea having something to do with
>moral imperatives.

Religious beliefs are compatible with Darwinism in several ways, not
the least of which is the concept that God may have initially generated
the universe knowing full well that Darwinism (among other sciences)
would then produce what we experience today.  The alternative apparently
would have it that if God does not continually interfere with the
universe on an ongoing basis to keep it operating, the universe is
"atheistic", which is clearly inaccurate if God is necessary for the
initial event.

>But if this is what you believe, then instead of
>having religious beliefs, you have "scientific" beliefs about religion.

Or religious beliefs about science.

>Judging from the theistic ideas of O'Keefe, Gingerich, and Dyson, many
>far-from-stupid scientists do believe in God and Darwinism. But in their
>efforts to combine truly incompatible ideas, they succumb to enormously
>muddled thinking.

Only muddled to those who are already muddled in their thinking it seems.

>And so they commit scientific heresy in spite of themselves.

It is not scientific heresy to be religious.  It is only scientific
heresy to pose unverifiable claims as scientific.  Just because a
scientist makes religious comments does not mean they are scientific.

>If one is at all interested in knowledge of God, one should
>recognize that such knowledge is not compatible with mainstream science,
>and in particular not with Darwinism.

So what?  That does not change the validity of science and in particular
of Darwinism one whit.

If one is at all interested in knowledge of God, one should
recognize that such knowledge is not compatible with physical sporting
events, and in particular not with playing baseball.  Perhaps we should
argue against the validity of such "atheistic" endeavors?

Keith