From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Subject: Re: Science and God
Keywords: Science, God
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:21:47 GMT

julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>s is my first post to this group so I shall probably screw up
>enormously in repeating what has already been said (not to mention
>typing mistakes). But I could not resist the chance to throw my
>penn'orth in.
>There seem to be a lot of arguments about creation vs evolution (!!!)
>with the "christians" taking one side and "others" taking the opposite
>(guess which is which).

No, not "christians."  "A small number of christains" is more accurate.

>So to start: science is a means of building models of understanding.
>It seems to work pretty well when applied to almost everything we
>can do experiments on. But... it does have limits. The most obvious
>being the definitions of certain terms used in science. 
>What is an electron really? Within science this is a meaningless
>question unless you can come up with an experiment to ask the
>question for you. It is easy to design experiments to ask things
>like "what does an electron do in a magnetic field".
>So, within science there will always be some terms which cannot be
>defined in terms of other quantities but have to be "assumed".
>Religion also has its "Givens": terms which cannot be defined
>without self-reference: God, for instance. I do not see much point
>in arguing about terms which can have as many meanings as there are
>people to argue, only about common things that we can "all" relate to.
>You'll never know what I mean exactly when I sasy "God" (for that
>matter neither do I) but we can argue about what we think God
>has done, is doing etc.
>Evolution is a pretty good summary of the observations we make about
>the distribution and forms of life on earth, but it s a model,
>jsut as General Relativity is a model. (Why do we not see
>arguments about those passages in Psalms where it speaks about
>God calling the stars by name and leading them across the sky,
>versus warping of space-time causing matter to move in geodesics
>???)

Scientific theories aren't just models; they are consistent and succesful
problem-solving techniques that are used to answer questions.  Evolution is
a unified theory that can be used to explain the history of life.  With
General Relativity, as well as evolution, you can consistently apply it to
some problem and get an explaination for it.

>Within this model many assumptions are made and many observations
>explained, so it satisfies the criterion for a scientific theory.
>Of course it does not mention God, neither does Schrodinger's equation
>but presumably God made electrons too?

If your belief makes you presume that, then I suppose so.

>At the other end of the argument is the interpretation of Genesis etc,
>but now one has to understand the model involved in the Bible.
>Unless the terms used are put in context they cannot be discussed.
>This is where it gets tricky. Most scientists agree on the broad
>theories in science (Quick aside: How many theories are there in
>science? Guess, answer on a $20 bill to me please), but people
>disagree on a lot of things about religion (not to mention the number 
>of religions). 

By calling both Evolution and Genesis "models," you seem to be putting them
on equal footing.  They aren't.  Evolution, along with all other scientific
theories, provides a problem-solving method that can answer a variaty of
questions and provide explainations.  Genesis has no such method.  Genesis'
explanation for life is 'by some mysterious God dude, who used unknown
means.'  Hardly what I'd call an explaination at all.  It is incapable of
explaining how life is the way it is now.  Evolution can.

>Ok, given the above description of evolution I do not see how it[
>can be used for/against faith as they are disjoint models of the 
>world. Unless you want a physical universe where God "physically"
>(not metaphorically or allegorically or mystically) moves stars
>around in space and causes water to flow downhill by direct act
>(Divine Fiat perhaps?) why do some people want God to physically create
>life forms at a specific time and place? God may be in control
>of the universe (in some generally non-physical sense) in its entirety,
>and we can still explain the behaviour of the universe using 
>scientific models, 
>but we should not use Him to explain bits of the physical world 
>and ignore others simply because it suits our theological bias.
>So I guess I am saying that if I do not invoke God to move stars
>and bind electrons together in atoms then why should I use Him
>to describe the evolution of the physical universe from the Big Bang
>and to create life? But if I do believe that God is in control
>(somehow) then it is matter of understanding His interaction with
>the world not giving supernatural causes for physical effects
>(Miracles apart, of course...)
>julian


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |