Religion and Science Midterm

Religion and Science: Thoughts and Responses to Midterm Questions October 25, 2007

1. Name: Sonia Maria Sotelo

2. Username: SoniaMX2004

3. http://sweetthoughtsfromthesoul.blogspot.com/

4. I’ve missed 1 class; late to none

5. Yahoo posts can be found on website above (#3)

6. Oh no, I definitely haven’t been able to watch all the videos. Some are very interesting, but total there is too much for me. I haven’t watched all of the Beyond Belief conferences and have skimmed through some of the interviews w/ scientists.

7. I’ve read most, but had to skim through the super long (and dry) readings like “What is Life?” I didn’t get to finish Collins, but went through enough of it to get a general feel for his argument. I’ll definitely finish it when tests and midterms settle down because I’m interested about his views and interpretations.

8. Dawkins would argue that morality (something which Collins says point to God and makes humans unique) can be explained scientifically. He would claim that evolution is evidence enough to dismiss God. He’d think it was silly of God to wait around so long before humans came along if His original intent was to create humans. (However, evolution shows that there was anything but a wait time for humans came. How does Dawkins know that God wasn’t perfectly content “painting” in every little detail of the universe, and this planet, and life; who’s to say God “waits?” If He’s outside of time, it wouldn’t really seem that long at all.) Dawkins thinks that there’s no reason the universe needs God. It could be like this universe won the lottery and came into being. There’s no miracle or divine purpose; it’s just that we’re the winners despite the enormous odds against us. Dawkins would disagree w/ Collins’ view that science and religion can coexist and even help each other. He would think that if Collins really accepts evolution in biology, then he must also accept atheism in theology. He’d criticize Collins’ basis of faith as totally unscientific (which, yes, of course it is) and think that his own opinions and philosophies are completely scientific (which, no of course they’re not; humans are subjective. It’s only as a whole and in community that we can be objective).

9. Collins points out that the “god” most atheistic scientists think of is a god that is limited to the laws of nature and therefore science. The existence of this god can either be supported scientifically or tossed out. Dawkins easily tosses the idea out. However, Collins believes that God is waaaay more complex than anything we could even try to study scientifically. There was an interesting debate b/w the two in Time Magazine about a year ago regarding this very topic (God vs. Science). It’s found at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-1,00.html “From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in” (Collins, Time interview). I think Collins could go further and suggest that a God that’s bigger than nature (because He created it) and bigger than science (because He created the humans that do science) can provide “evidence” for His existence in a variety of ways, many of which (sadly) people like Dawkins will probably never grasp because they are too wrapped up in the “faith” in their own limited minds (isn’t that scary?? I would think that scientists of all people are most aware of how little we are in comparison to the universe. How can they be so confident in themselves and their beliefs in regards to non-scientific, spiritual things?). In his book, Collins went into more detail about why specific parts of the Moral Law cannot be explained by evolution. He mentioned agape love, love which we get directly from God and can give to others; love which is unselfish and Christ centered versus self-centered.

10. Littlewood’s theory of large numbers says that since there are millions of events going on in our everyday lives, then it’s almost entirely expected that for every thousand events or so two (or maybe more) of those events could “intersect.” If we are able to pay attention to this intersection, then we could think of it as a meaningful coincidence. As Freeman Dyson put in when talking about miracles, “Littlewood’s law of miracles states that in the course of any normal person’s life, miracles happen at a rate of roughly one per month. The proof of the law is simple. During the time that we are awake and actively engaged in living our lives (roughly for 8 hours each day) we see and hear things happening at a rate of about one per second. So the total number of events that happen to us is about thirsty thousand per day, or about a million per month. With few exceptions, these events are not miracles because they are insignificant. The chance of a miracle is about one per million events. Therefore we should expect about one miracle to happen, on the average, every month. Broch tells stories of some amazing coincidences that happened to him and his friends, all of them easily explained as consequences of Littlewood's Law.” I still don’t understand how they came up with the “one per million” ratio. These aren’t scientific numbers in that I don’t think they sampled a large population and calculated how many events they experienced per day or month and how many were out of the ordinary, then took the mean of the population. But anyway, if a miracle can happen “once every month” then 1) how come I don’t get to experience more miracles?? 2) does that mean horrible, freak of nature, terrifyingly scary events should happen to me once per month too?? Things that are just “chance?” Because yeah I notice when it seems as if God has answered a prayer, but the “miracles” seem to correlate w/ prayer. I think I would be more aware of a frightening intersection/coincidence, though, and yet I’ve yet to experience one.

11. People turn to pseudoscience due to their desire for excitement, something more to this place we live in, a sense of control and additional knowledge that they wouldn’t have if they didn’t have their belief. In the long run, reproducible evidence cannot really be attained and these systems are not scientific. For example, I learned in my Nature of Science (SCED 404) class that astrology is an ancient system invented by the Babylonians, but their 12 part system is flawed because they left out the 13^th constellation called Ophiuchus. Plus, as the Earth orbits the sun, the zodiac constellations that the sun passes in front of are different sizes and shapes and therefore the sun spends different lengths of time lined up with each (the Babylonians assigned equal amounts to time to each, though). Also, in my astronomy class I learned about Earth’s wobble effect and how our axis if a little off and so the North Pole doesn’t point in the same direction as before. So when we look at our horoscopes, they are way off. Despite this, people believe that their zodiac sign affects their everyday lives and they cling to anything positive and exciting they hear and get amazed when they experience a “self fulfilling prophecy.” However, why is it that some days your horoscope seems soooo “accurate” and others you have to just brush off because they are totally wrong? I guess we can attribute Littlewood for those rare instances, but for the most part, all attempts to demonstrate the association b/w birthdates and a particular set of “zodiac sign” traits have failed when using scientific procedures. Another pseudoscience is the belief in the existence of Big Foot. If we take the Big Foot sightings and apply Ockham’s Razor to it, then we would try to find a simple explanation to explain the given phenomena. It could be a combination of overactive imagination and blind expectation that drives people to see Big Foot after all the stories they’ve heard and fake video footage they’ve seen. However, last semester I watched a video in my Nature of Science class that was on pseudoscience and after dismissing the Lochness monster (which we could test and have tested by draining and exploring the water) and other such pseudosciences, they said they couldn’t really define Big Foot as pseudoscience because there were soooo many “eyewitness” encounters involving people who really believed what they saw. I can’t remember their explanation as to why it was different… darn. But yeah, I thought that was interesting and it surprised me that they couldn’t “officially” classify it as pseudoscience.

12. To some, Darwinian evolution finally provides an explanation of how life, including human life, came to be how it looks today without having to throw a god into the mix. Evolution by natural selection totally changed biology and has greatly improved upon what we know about the natural world. It explains a lot and is becoming more and more accepted in the U.S. and around the world. Therefore, people who choose to answer life’s “big questions” in physical terms can do so comfortably. (It’s important to note that evolution is a separate subject than the origin of life, which has some pretty good hypotheses that still need a lot more scientific support. It gets on my nerves when people confuse this and lump them together. Evolution is very well supported scientifically. We are still working out the kinks in the origin of life, but getting closer.) There are various explanations as to why Darwin was agnostic. It could be because his daughter passed away (grief either draws you to or tears you away from God). It could be that he was never introduced to the true God while going to a Unitarian church. It could be that seeing the rawness and cruelty of nature turned him off to the notion of a happy-go-lucky God.

13. Dawkins views religion as a mind virus that we can’t get rid of and says that a “meme” is a unit of cultural transmission; an idea that is passed on. This meme seems to fight for an area of our brain. According to Dawkins, religion competes w/ logic, sense, science, etc (the “truth”) and bores holes into our brain. I imagine it as religion wiggling its way into our mind and holding fast, never fully letting go even if we want it to. You can’t really get it out of your brain, and when new ideas of science and truth enter the mind, religion will develop a whole bunch of antibodies that will attack it, saying “You’re wrong, you’re wrong. Get out!” I don’t really like how he says religion isn’t really a choice. If you’re born a certain religion, you die in that religion. It gets on my nerves when people say they were Christian since birth. I mean, I guess yeah they were brought up in that religion, but my definition of “Christian” is different. I think it’s really hard to love, revere, desire to obey and submit to God when you are just born, but hey, maybe they’re able to do it.

14. If by a mind parasite, Dawkins means that it is completely harmful and nothing good comes out for it, it just latches on for selfish reasons and slowly destroys you, then yes I think a believer would totally be appalled by that statement. I think there are plenty of great things religion brings that a pure science only, nothing else out there point of view could never bring. Scientists like Gingerich and Dyson would say that religion gives life meaning and humans a purpose. Technology is a byproduct of science; it is not science’s main intention. Who knows? Maybe science is a byproduct of religion, though not its main intention. Religion has unexpected products. It can create a passion and dedication that a nonreligious person could never fully experience. It makes people do heroic things (think of martyrs and full time missionaries). It’s like being in love: I know from experience that you do crazy things that to others would seem absurd and even foolish, but to show the other person love, you’d do anything. Some of science’s byproducts aren’t all that great either. Just take the atomic bomb we discussed in class. Science is capable of a lot of terrible things, too, not just medicine and cell phones.

15. According to science, the Big Bang theory is how the universe came into being. From a singularity, there was an explosion that made the universe expand out. It is widely accepted and is the dominant scientific theory of the origin of the universe. There are various types of evidence that support this, such as galaxies moving away and the discovery of cosmic background radiation. Our galaxy and solar system are just one of many in the universe. Left over star debris formed planets around the dense, hot, star the sun. Some scientists suggest that the creation of this world and the life on this planet can be explained by the probability “theory”, that with an infinite number of universes and galaxies, the odds are that at least one universe would have at least one planet that holds life. However, by scientific definition, this is not a theory (well supported explanation), rather it is a possible explanation (=hypothesis). Stephen Wolfram, the creator of Mathematica, uses programs that shows that complexity can be computationally reduced and can be replaced by an algorithmic program of simply 0’s and 1’s. So things that look “designed” have come from a simple, disordered initial state. Those who believe in a God that created the universe have varying views of how He did it, yet all agree that He was the first cause. God’s hand is behind all natural processes to some extent. Believers vary from fundamental, young earth creationists to such scientists as Francis Collins. I think that now-a-days, most believers would accept the Big Bang theory, so in my opinion the Big Bang theory (apart from the probability hypothesis) has the most persuasive scientific argument. Believers have their own apologetics and reasons to believe in God, but not everyone is so easy to persuade when it comes to spiritual things.

16. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist, argued that religion and science can coexist, because they occupy separate, “airtight” boxes. They stick to their own domain and argue at different levels. Dawkins said, “I think that Gould's separate compartments was a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp. But it's a very empty idea. There are plenty of places where religion does not keep off the scientific turf. Any belief in miracles is flat contradictory not just to the facts of science but to the spirit of science” (Time Interview). There’s no wall that separates the two. In the God Delusion, Dawkins talked about Gould’s term NOMA (non-overlapping magisterial) and shares his dislike for the view. According to Gould, religion deals w/ the realm of morals while science deals with the realm of fact. They are two separate things, but Dawkins would say that’s crap because he views evolution as the way we received our morality. I think it’s safe to that Gould wouldn’t win the argument because even Collins thinks that religion and science do come in contact.

17. Neurology deals with the nervous system of people, and their perception of the world and their state of conscious being which is produced by their senses. It is a person’s present state. Ontology, on the other hand, is the ultimate overall being; actual reality. So when we confuse the two it is confusing that reality with our own limited understanding and view of the world. We assume we know it all. I’d say this is something we have to be careful about when it comes to trust in science to answer and explain every question we have. I don’t believe that science claims to be the ultimate way of knowing, but when people act as if it is, they are confusing their neurology with ontology.

18. First, we’d have to recognize that “randomness” in science doesn’t mean “no purpose” or whatever other conclusion we tend to jump to. It means that the pattern has yet to be figured out by science. Furthermore, “chance” as we see it may be an explanation for why there is free will in the world. Overall, God is in control, but He gives us enough of our space in order to make our own choices and not be His little boring robots. By giving the world its space could make it look as if things just happen randomly and without purpose, though in the long run (and it is a very loooooong one) God will be glorified.

19. “All manifestations, visions, and forms that are seen within are mental (illusory) creations” ~Faqir Chand, guru. Not everyone is able to have religious experiences and visions due to various reasons: bad karma, sin, or simply their minds are just incapable of an experience. It is suggested that those who don’t dream as much are less likely to have religious experiences than those who dream a lot, though personally I have trouble accepting this because just the opposite is true with my fiancé and myself. Religion from a sociological perspective is very important and useful during hard and distressing times. Those experiencing these difficulties are led back to their families and relying on them for support and encouragement.

20. Neitzsche’s notion pretty much says, “Hey, if you had to relive your life over and over again, wouldn’t you want to make it count?” So you’d want to start living a more meaningful life and rack up as many good times as possible because this is as good as it gets. If this were true, then this is all there is. We have no responsibility for our actions and no eternal consequence for our sins; no Hell. We have no hope of being with God (no Heaven) and if there were a God, He’d probably be super bored with the eternal replay, watching us make the same selfish, dumb mistakes over and over.

21. Edward O. Wilson is skeptic of standard faith, yet he wrote a book that urges believers and non-believers to unite over conservation of the environment. He thinks that we can find common goals and work together for the good of the world. However, his passion seems to go beyond environmental conservation. He seems to genuinely desire the coming together and working together of science and religion. He desires a unity of knowledge (humanity and science) in order to attain a more complete picture of life. For the sake of our education system and a more thorough understanding, he feels that these two disciplines need to communicate with each other.

22. Freemon Dyson, a mathematician and Owen Gingerich, an astronomer, are two scientists that claim to be believers in God. As a mathematician, Dyson can use his imagination and come up with theories that turn out to be true. He can have an explanation for the universe and find that it works out that way. To him, it makes sense that the nonphysical can explain the physical. As an astronomer, Gingerich doesn’t see merely chance when he’s looking at the universe. Many of the scientists in the Beyond the Belief conferences say that the reason they don’t believe in God is because after all their study of nature, they see no evidence for Him. This is different from Gingerich’s experience. Things that seem unintelligent, by chance, w/ out design to us may not be the case in the long run, we’re just limited to what we see right now and the small glimpses of the past. Scientifically speaking, “random” and “by chance” are just ways of saying that science has yet to reveal the pattern in which those things work. For Beyond Belief scientists to claim that as the reason they are atheist doesn’t really make sense to me because they are putting all their trust in science, which has its limitations.

23. My favorite topic in the field of Biology thus far is the study on the origin of life. I’ve never thought of God as a “god of the gaps,” rather, I admire science because it fills in the gaps of how God did what He did. My faith in God doesn’t rest on the way I think He did something, it’s just the simple fact that He did it. My faith’s focus is more on Jesus than creation and is confirmed and solidified through everyday experience as God proves Himself faithful in my relationships and my relationship w/ Him. While at the California Science Teachers Association conference this weekend, I attended a workshop on the Origins of Life and was fascinated as the astrochemist presented evidence for cosmogenesis, the hypothesis that life came to earth from space via comets and meteorites. All I could think was, “Oh cool, is that how God did it?” Just because we had missing pieces about nature, doesn’t mean that God can now be dismissed because we’re finding more and more information. Plus, I agree w/ Collins when he said, “A word of caution is needed when inserting specific divine action by God in this or any other area where scientific understanding is currently lacking… There are good reasons to believe in God, including the existence of mathematical principles and order in creation. They are positive reasons, based on knowledge, rather than default assumptions based on (a temporary) lack of knowledge” (The Language of God, pg. 93). Plus, I think we need God for way more than just this temporary life. If there is more than this life, then heck yeah we need to believe in God.

24. My favorite reading? Well, I guess it would have to be The God Delusion because it had me writing down notes and thoughts furiously in my notebook. It got my mind racing and made me seek out some answers, a few of which I’m still working on. It was hard to pick out the scientific reasons from the personal opinions, but overall it was fun.

25. Yes, it is against the very nature of science to be able to investigate the existence of such things as angels because there are no tests scientists could create that could produce reproducible evidence for their existence.

26. My favorite thing I learned thus far is probably all the random stories our professor shared with us during class. I was looking online to find more information about some of the cults mentioned in class and came across an article found at: http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=824&Itemid=10&limit=1&limitstart=1. In it, our professor was interviewed and shared more about all of the crazy adventures he has gone on. Hehe, what a character!

Science & Religion posts 3

Total opinion: some thoughts from my own mind regarding The God
Delusion by Dawkins
• I don't fall into the category of being raised on religion. I do
agree that being "born Christian" and being "saved" are completely
different things. One is religion/culture, the other is faith and
genuine interest in God. My concern isn't Christianity. My concern
is salvation through Jesus Christ. Strength in a certain area, like
worldly wisdom, doesn't make you any better at discerning spiritual
things than, say, someone whose strength is love or mediating or
communicating the hurts of impoverished people. In fact, it reminds
me of the Pharisees who were so big headed about their knowledge that
they missed out on the simplicity of the gospel. Though I value
education, it's silly to think that only people who have university
degrees and can do research have some sort of special "enlightenment"
regarding God or the lack of God.
• Dawkins may be credible as a scientist, but so far all I hear is
opinion in his book. Just like some Christians get some parts of
science wrong, he gets parts of Christianity wrong. If he would
actually read the Old Testament in the light of the Holy Spirit, then
he would discover that God is incredibly just (that's why He punishes
sin; that's why He poured wrath on His own Son!) and is super
forgiving (how many times did He have to remind Israel to obey? How
many times did they disobey and complain when He was being just and
punishing them? How many times did He show mercy and forgive? Giving
them second chance after second chance).
• It isn't "prejudice" to be against homosexuality (the sin, the
action, the state of the heart). Out of the hatred in your heart, you
murder-that's not cool. Because of the lust in your heart you commit
adultery-that's not cool. You refuse to forgive others though you
fully know you've been forgiven by God-that is not cool. Though we
sin, we shouldn't let sin define us and we shouldn't see others like
that either. I love my friends who are homosexual, just like I love
my friends that get drunk every weekend, etc. I feel silly
describing them like that because when I look at them I don't see
their sins. Sure I try to encourage them in their relationship w/ God
because I know personally how destructive sin is when you willingly
partake in it.
• He makes good points and I have to admit that religion is misused
and that gives true believers a bad name.
• For him to claim nothing good comes from religion is insulting to me
personally because 1) I've had a pretty positive experience thus far…
that is such an understatement: the sweetest, most breath-taking and
life changing moments I've experienced have been those where God has
been directly involved. 2) Even atheists have to see how it shapes
culture. I'm Mexican and though I don't agree completely with
Mexican Catholicism, I do recognize and appreciate it's unique impact
on the people. It has made us who we are. Perhaps Dawkins can't
relate to deeply spiritual and/or cultural issues because he has never
experienced them.
• We (believers) have faith that the Bible isn't made up stories by
humans who've had no real interaction w/ God; but eyewitness testimony
is evidence enough for us, backed by history telling us the care taken
into transcribing the Bible. Bonus is when many believers can attest
to revelation through Scriptures, affirming that there is something
special about them. It's a mixture of prayer, the Holy Spirit, the
Bible, and Jesus' life, death, and resurrection (the gospel). I'd say
that's the only fool proof evidence, but no guarantee that just anyone
can have access to the Holy Spirit (only those He draws to the Father).
• Scientists giving their opinion on the existence of God have to step
away from the title of "scientist" for a moment and just become
"humans" w/ an opinion (just like everyone else).
• He keeps giving examples that are material: teapot, monster,
fairies. But our claim: we walk by faith, not by sight. Faith is the
evidence of things not seen.
• It's true that theologians with degrees and years of Bible studying
under their belt can still learn things from brand new, "unlearned"
Christians, but it's due to the Holy Spirit. Believers are more
credible when it comes to interpreting the Bible because they have a
direct connection to God thought the Holy Spirit. That's why it's
hard for Dawkins and others to really "get it."
• Dawkins is quick to brush off personal experiences and limits them
to images or voices. They actually vary greatly and the impressive
thing is that they all seem to end up w/ salvation (amazing or even
scary enough to change you). Not every experience is just on quick
one. Some continue with little confirmations along the way that it's
from the Lord. He keeps thinking too physical, dismissing mass vision
because others around the world don't see the same thing. Well duh.
"Visions" by definition aren't seeing things that are actually
happening right then and there in front of you. It's symbolic or
telling of the future. And just like reoccurring dreams, who's to say
God doesn't use our neurons to communicate w/ us? We are physical
beings, after all.

***"Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom or the strong man boast
of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who
boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows ME, that I am
the Lord…" ~God, through Jeremiah (Jer. 9:23-24)***

Science 'n Religion

Some readings; conferences 10/21/07

Autobio Charles Darwin— This was extremely long for my taste, so for
the most part I just had to skim it, but I enjoyed the interesting
little stories and his opinion of the various people he met. I like
that it makes it so personal, reminding us that Darwin is a person,
and science is done by people with lives and families. His church
exposure/religious exposure was to Unitarianism (like Jehovah's
Witnesses, they deny that Jesus Christ was/is God in the flesh, thus,
have no means of salvation; don't look to the Bible as authority, as
God's main way of communicating to us, so what, do they just make
stuff up?) I also found it interesting that his family wanted to
cover up some of his writings, which again makes us remember that
science is a human effort. Darwin, like all of us, was a curious
human w/ many questions and uncertainties. There's nothing wrong with
that.

What is life?—This one got on my nerves. I just could not get into it
and it was so long. Basically, it's an overview of how life
works/what makes up organisms from a scientific (especially physics)
perspective.

Beyond Belief Conferences
Perhaps I'm just being simplistic. I know God and I know Him to be
powerful. I don't doubt that. "Science doesn't make it impossible to
believe in God." I've thought this for years, that's why I'm so
fascinated w/ science (more specifically, how the process works), but
my love and devotion to the Lord has increased (in fact, science has
helped this). Homosexuality is an abomination to God, so for someone
to say, `No it's not' is ludicrous because He says so Himself
throughout the Bible! Just because other animals in nature do it,
doesn't make it right for humans. Silly justification, just like the
saying "Would you jump off a bridge just because your friend does it?"
We're fortunate to have eternal souls, but honestly there's much more
expected of us than of animals. Metaphysical/philosophical non
scientific statements. Man, when he points out that a lot of
scientists would rather do science/concentrate on science instead of
thinking about God, it actually makes me think less of science. I
mean, regardless of them, God's work is God's work but I'm less
inclined to trust man's work when they're not led by God. I have to
admit that it's not all sunshine and rainbows; that people don't
always use science to bring glory to God. Totally missed the point of
Collins' personal experience, criticizing his conversion as
unscientific. Well, duh!! A true believer wouldn't put science on a
pedestal the was many scientists do because they can see the big
picture. Science as the way God does what He does is only a small
part of what's important to a believer. Hopefully, we would value God
for God, not for what He does. All I see is people and what these
people value most. Some are all about finding things out, some are
all about money, some are all about family, some are all about
themselves, some are all about God, the things He values, and letting
Him be a part of all those other values just mentioned. Can you live
a long happy life regardless of your values and concentrations in
life? Yeah, sure. Why, not. But the scary thing is that this life
might be just a tiny blip of your entire existence and the rest of the
time will be spent as the result of that tiny blip. It could all rest
on a simple yes/no question: When face to face with God, will He
embrace you or say He never knew you since you never knew Him?

Science & Religion posts

On misconceptions of evolution; a little on Creationism (Oct. 1, 2007)

I wrote this last semester while taking a Nature of Science class. My
personal view: no I don't think evolution is absolutely the way or
only way that life looks like how it does today, but it is acceptable
and scientifically supported. Just like it makes me sad when
scientists make ignorant claims about the existence of God, it also
makes me sad when Christians don't understand the beauty of science as
a process of finding things out.

As far as Creationism, it depends on the definition since there are so
many variations. If it means that there has been no change since life
first appeared, then that is different that what science has found.
Science has found that there has been change over time and they call
this evolution. To this, according to biologists, there is no doubt.
There once were dinosaurs. Things die. Things survive and are able
to reproduce. There has been more going on in this world than what we
see today. One explanation of this change over time is natural
selection. There are various others (i.e. mutations), but this is the
major one. Creationism (and intelligent design) aren't considered
science because there are no ways to test some of the claims (how can
we possibly test miracles? That'd be so messed up to bug God just to
prove a point) or to be disproven.

Common misconceptions:

Lamarckian evolution is not what scientists believe (i.e. an antelope
becoming a giraffe: NO!).
Evolution does NOT occur on an individual level (something gives birth
to something that's a different species), but on the population level
of a species. The point of bringing up mutations is that genes are
going to eventually differ somewhat in a few individuals (i.e.
bacteria), but in nature (versus the lab) the change in gene frequency
is likely to do w/ genetic drift (most animals in nature have the
freedom to come and go to different regions as they please, especially
after a long period of time). We're talking MILLIONS of years, even
billions in the case of cells (roughly 3 billion for prokaryotic
cells=no nucleus is the estimate due to fossils found; 1.2 billion for
eukaryotic=has nucleus cells.)
Be careful of vocabulary. In science, a theory is an explanation of
how something occurred. Random means more like it can't be predicted
by science; scientists haven't figured out the pattern yet. So random
mutations are mutations that occur for a reason not yet explained by
science.
Nowadays, science is supposed to be different from religion (only in
the past 2 centuries have they appeared to be in opposition with each
other; before religious people loved science because it was a way to
study how God created the world). Science admits its limitations (and
so would good scientists) and has no authority to say anything about
the divine and spiritual world what so ever. Therefore, rejecting a
piece of science for nonscientific reasons is common (happens a lot in
the scientific community), but ignorant (sadly, a lot a Christians do
this, too). A lot of time, though, opposition has motivated
scientists to get even stronger support about their theory and it has
helped it (i.e. dinosaurs going extinct due to meteor impact;
location: Yucatan peninsula; it took awhile for people to accept that).

Science doesn't say a Designer (more specifically, God/spiritual
being) didn't do all this. It just says there are limits as to what
it can study. It never proves anything. It can only be disproven.
In fact, a big thing about the nature of science is that it is always
changing with new evidence. It's tentative and is "founded on the
proposition that everything we think we know about the natural world,
can be rejected if it does not meet the test of observation and
experiment" (Finding Darwin's God).

Darwin's Origin of Species: Concept is simple enough: conditions of
nature are constantly acting on natural variation, selecting out
unsuccessful variations and rewarding successful ones. When forces
divide a single species into 2 populations, natural selection will act
on each separately, until they have accumulated enough differences
that each becomes a separate (and new) species. 1.) Domesticated
plants and animals show a tremendous range of variation (i.e. Great
Dane and Chihuahua). 2.) A similar range of variation exists in
nature among wild species (how different 2 populations have to be
before they are considered separate species). 3.) All living things
are engaged in a struggle for existence. 4.)
Struggle+variation=natural selection. The struggle for existence
would act automatically in regard to variation (those that lose in the
struggle for existence don't get to produce the next generation, but
those that do succeed get to pass their winning traits along to their
offspring). The reason it's such a big deal, though, is because it
revolutionized biology. Before, it was pretty much just collecting
and naming organisms. Now, it is studying what things are made up of
and how it all comes together. It revolutionized science period:
geology, paleontology.

I can see why some could be uneasy about natural selection. It looks
as if life is by chance. That the winners are here at the cost of the
"unfit". Why would God take time to create "unfit losers" that die?
Doesn't He care about them, too? Creation accounts in the Bible,
though, only go as far as talking about the winners. There is no
mention of the losers. And we know very well that our image of
"perfect creation" isn't very accurate. God is good and perfect (just
like the Bible says; i.e. Matt. 5:48), but this world most definitely
is not. There are physically, mentally, and emotionally unhealthy
people everywhere, and there is death. Creatures were created and
died. Species of today look different than millions of years ago. Is
it a conspiracy? Are scientists making things up? Or do we have to
admit that we do not know everything? That the words of the Bible go
far deeper than what our brains interpret (and so we actually NEED the
Holy Spirit). We want to think we have everything figured out, but
God Himself says we have to have His Word written on our hearts. That
means thorough studying, depending on the Holy Spirit, and leaning not
on our own understanding. What science suggests is something that we
would have never guessed years ago: life's a bit more complicated than
just popping up out of nowhere. God takes a lot more time and thought
than we will ever be able to imagine. Evolution is only the beginning.

In scientific terms: evolution would be a law (though an archaic term)
and natural selection the theory (meaning explanation) that explains it.
It is the origin of species, NOT the origin of life (completely
different topic).

Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller. Is the author credible?
Scientifically speaking, yes. As far as faith and being a believer
not only in God generally but specifically the God of the Bible and
the authority of the Bible, not sure. He's Catholic; he does make a
distinction b/w religion as a culture and religion as pure faith.
Overview: he talks about how some people, scientists included, think
evolution=no God (although science has no way of ruling out divine
things). Also, how other people view it as dangerous because they
think it's trying to claim the same thing.

A misconception about science is that it is based on experiment and
direct, testable observation. This is untrue because that would mean
only things discovered in labs are trustworthy (randomized test). But
nature doesn't necessarily happen like this. Some naive people would
say that we can't really know about the natural history of the earth
because no one was there to actually witness anything (including
evolution), but they don't understand just how much is put into
science. Scientists don't just pick some theory because nothing else
makes sense. It takes a lot of evidence (direct or indirect) to
convince the scientific community of something. Just like a judge
doesn't have to witness a crime to be able look at evidence and decide
a criminal is guilty, so science works (similar to what Christians use
to show the validity of the Gospels: looking at the circumstantial
evidence, reading the testimony of witnesses, using historical methods
to find out how soon they were written down, etc). There is so much
work that goes into it. It really is impressive!! Just think about
astronomy and all we know about the sun and supernovae, and other
planets. Scientists use brains that are mini models of God's.

Science gives natural explanations for things instead of saying
something occurred by a miracle. This, then, makes true miracles that
much more significant and special. Can't really understand it, just
accept it and appreciate it. Science is tyte, though, because it's
trying to understand the stuff that we can study and understand to a
degree (we have eyes and creative minds to think with, we best use them!)

Religion & Science posts 2

Gingerich/Dyson Videos (Oct. 1, 2007)

Owen Gingerich: Religion and science can coexist; essential that
there's no element w/ mass 5; people might see it as a blunder, just
like w/ would look at a lot of things and say it's
unintelligent/pointless/etc (i.e. sometimes I complain about ants, but
they are important for the overall biosphere, too); unity in the
universe and science leading to an ultimate unity is the driving
force; anthropic principle; 3 ways: master plan of designer (religious
evidence); we're in one of many universes (mathematical evidence, but
not enough scientific support thus far, more philosophical than
scientific, but perhaps Heaven could be considered another
universe/dimension); no alternative universes possible; atheism is a
religion in itself, it takes a lot of faith to be an atheist, nothing
scientific about it, assuming what they can't prove; ultimately the
reason why many scientists and people in general reject God is simply
for personal reasons (love of their sin/godless way of life, confusion
about evil, etc). God is way bigger and more complex than we can
imagine, no He is not a man, we are made in the image of God, but I'm
pretty sure He didn't mean physical image; I don't think of Him as
physical, I wouldn't really know how to describe Him in that way (and
I say "Him" only to make it easier to describe God, because since both
men and women were made in His image, then we can be sure that He has
both masculine and feminine characteristics/emotions/etc plus a whole
bunch of divinity that doesn't even compare to us). All I can say w/
some certainty is a little on His personality, His desires, His plan
as a whole and other things that are found in the Bible. God's way of
communicating with us is personal, through humans, but also in many
other ways (which we probably haven't even recognized yet) i.e.
nature. I agree that our image of God-my image of God-is no doubt
very simplistic compared to how He really is, but I think that what He
has revealed to us thus far is enough to at least allow us hope of
learning more and being in His presence someday. I semi-agree w/
Gingerich's comment about God reaching out and communicating in unique
ways to various cultures, through various religions, and to random
people (after all, I would have never started believing and trusting
in God had He not captured my attention and turned me to the Bible).
However, from a Christian prospective (and a logical one) there can't
be many paths because if there were, we would be gods in that whatever
religion we think up would be legit and come true. There would be no
such thing as evil and sin (so maybe God just added evil for kicks and
giggles?) because there are MANY religions that do not address those
and/or have a way of atoning/becoming right w/ God in order to join
Him in Heaven. Or God wouldn't be holy, etc. I could go on and on,
but the bottom line is Jesus would be a liar and the Bible would be
full of lies because Christ said that HE is the way, the truth, and
the life. Gingerich is either not a Christian or a baby Christian
that has dangerous misunderstandings (Christ to him is a prophet, like
Islam's view; not God, so not capable of taking our sins and making us
right w/ God, no salvation, etc). I think it's still possible that
he's saved though because I remember when I was a baby Christian-and
even now!-there was a lot that I misunderstood due to not being well
versed in the scriptures. This video was interesting, but at the end
of the day my main concern will always be whether people are saved or
not because God is too flippin awesome and amazing for any1 to miss
out on.

Dyson: Hehe, he's funny at the beginning when he's giving the
interviewer a hard time finding something they can relate to/agree
with completely. To him, religion is a way of life w/ out belief,
which for born-again Christians is pretty much the complete opposite:
we'd rather steer away from being "religious" and concentrate on
devotion to God and growth in His Word (the Bible). My dislike of the
word "religion" is that for the most part it is man-made. We, as
humans, come up with certain ways of doing things, traditions,
additional rules, etc that aren't necessarily bad, but they could
distract from being fully focused on God. I get kind of annoyed when
my friends introduce me as "religious" because I don't consider myself
that at all. "Someone who's on fire for the Lord," that's how I'd
like to be described. Anyway, yet again I'm a little disappointed
because it doesn't seem as if this one is saved either. I wish
there were more scientists I could relate to. Honestly it sucks,
because if you think about it, the gospel really is quite simple,
simple enough that children can understand it and be saved. Why then
can't some of the "greatest" minds get it? Man, I love science but
now it kind of seems like we're being attacked (scientists are). You
know how it's harder for rich people to enter Heaven because they're
so wrapped up in their materialism and tend to think that they don't
need anything, especially God? Well maybe scientists can be viewed as
"intelligently rich" and they're so busy thinking up all these things
and trying to figure stuff out that they too get distracted from God.
So far, we've heard from highly credible scientists, but not
necessarily highly credible believers of God.

Science & Religion posts 2

Today's class (Sep. 28, 2007)

Phew, my heart's racing. I'm actually tired and want to go to sleep,
but the Spirit's prompting me to say something so here it goes. It's
in response of Lane's suggestion to read the Bible for yourself. You
guys, seriously, reading it changed my life. I wasn't even sure if
there was a God before and honestly didn't even care, but years ago
when I started to pray and ask Him to show me SOMETHING, He lead me to the Gospel of Matthew, specifically towards the end where it talks
about Jesus going to the cross and being resurrected. From that I
realized that God is so real, so personal, so sweet, so desiring to be
known and loved back that He would come to Earth as man; so desiring
to be known by me that He would take the time to answer prayers and
rescue me from a life of pain and darkness. So, personally, that's
why I trust the Bible as being from God and important to read, because
that's what saved me. That's what brought me to know there is a God.
I read it like a history book, a book of wisdom, but mostly I read it
like love letters. When I read through the Old Testament, I learn
about God's character: His holiness, and desire for justice, and
putting up with the Israelites, them going against Him, forgetting
about Him, mocking Him, and yet every time when it seems like He
should totally just wipe them out of existence (and believe me,
sometimes He comes close), He forgives them and gives them a second
chance, and why?? Because He loves them. And I read the New
Testament and about God getting so personal with us by sending a part
of Himself-Jesus Christ-to live with us (us meaning human beings).
Commandments and guidelines for our lives because like a parent--a
really wise and loving parent--God desires the best for us. I don't
know about you, but I would never read my fiance's love letters
objectively or a book of poems or a good novel. I'm subjective
because who I am influences me and influences what I get out of
things. In the case of science, yeah, we'd be going in circles never
making any progress if scientists weren't attempting to be objective.
But we are not talking about science.

I know people who throw out the whole Bible because they see
contradictions. They give up before even seeking answers (and I'm not
claiming that I know all the answers, but I can point you to the One
who can). The Gospels were written to 4 different audiences by 4
different authors, with 4 different points of view, but they were led
by the same Spirit of God and gave the same main and SO IMPORTANT
message: that Jesus died to open up a way for us to know the holy God,
and He is faithful because He promised to be resurrected and He was.
No, the disciples didn't get it when the tomb turned up empty. It
took them awhile--it took some of them Jesus Christ standing face to
face w/ them and allowing them to touch His hands for them to actually
say "Oh... Now we understand." Jesus had tried to explain it to them,
even at the last supper He was trying to help them see. Believe me,
it's not so uncommon. I do it all the time and even doubt God's
ability to handle situations even though He has proven faithful time
and time again. And Mary being so caught up in her grief and not
recognizing Jesus wasn't that uncommon either. When Jesus was walking
on water, His disciples were freaking out because they thought He was
a ghost and even doubted it was Him after He spoke to them. No, I
really don't think--actually, I know that we as humans haven't learned
everything there is to know about the Bible just like the field of
science still has many more exciting things to bring to light. But
thank goodness for the foundations we're able to build upon. Oh my goodness, I for realz didn't mean to write that much. My bad it's not about the videos or readings, I just had to share w/ you guys. G'nite!!

Religion & Science posts

Stephen Hawking's Universe (Big Bang) (Sep. 15, 2007)

Oh, I totally loved this video!! I watched this in my astronomy
class at OCC and was so fascinated by the science behind all of it.
I have enormous respect for Hawking and scientists like him. Their
intellect is astounding and I enjoy learning stories behind how
certain scientific theories (explanations of natural phenomena that
are invented, not discovered) came to be (the people invovled, their
thought process, the time and energy and creativity it takes).
True, it saddens me a little that one of the most brilliant minds
probably doesn't have much stirring in his heart and soul, but his
contributions toward science are commendable and sooo important.

For those interested in a brief history of the different hypotheses
of the universe (expanding, oscillating, steady state, etc) and how
God is tied in from a Christian perspecitive, there's a book called
The Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross. Warning: it's full of physics
so if you enjoy that, you'll find it really interesting. I had the
pleasure of hearing Hugh Ross speak and I find him credible as a
Christian and physicist/astronomer (BS, Masters, and PHD). It gets
on my nerves when people who aren't even credible in the field try
to write books and get attention. That's why I decided to take this
class instead of Dead Sea Scrolls because they had me reading
propaganda from authors who weren't even legit historians. But I
totally digress... :)

Randall/Wilson/5 min philosophy (Sep. 25, 2007)

Ugh, I tried to post this a long time ago, but it didn't save.
Anyway, let's see if I remember anything... So yeah, I agree with a
lot of you that the Randall part of the video, though a pretty
interesting concept, was a little too drawn out and full of Physics
for my taste. She's a super smart lady, but saying "Hey, there's
evidence for the existence of other dimensions" or whatever you want
to call it would have been sufficient. The Wilson part wasn't
especially exciting to me... But the philosophy in 5 minutes video
was interesting! So it's some sort of reincarnation they're talking
about, huh? Except you're stuck being yourself, which hopefully
you're cool with. It was kind of encouraging: if you have to relive
this life, you'd want to make it count, right? You'd want every day
to be full of meaning. The freaky thing though is that after talking
to a demon that you obviously recognized to be a demon, you would call
it a god. I'm sorry, but if I was wise enough to know it to be
something that is evil and full of lies, i would not be calling it a
god and I would probably not believe it anyway because hello: lies.
but yeah, that's my story.