Signature in the Cell: A Follow-Up

January 12, 2010
Category: BioLogos Features

"Science and the Sacred" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Today's entry was written by Darrel Falk. Darrel Falk serves as president of The BioLogos Foundation. He transitioned into Christian higher education 25 years ago and has given numerous talks about the relationship between science and faith at many universities and seminaries. He is the author of Coming to Peace with Science.

Two weeks ago we posted an overview of “Signature in the Cell,” a book by Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute. One of the things I said in my assessment of the book was the following:

In Chapter 14, as Stephen Meyer brings his discussion about the feasibility of RNA’s role as the early storehouse for cellular information to a conclusion, he recalls a twenty year old conversation with a philosophy professor about origin-of-life-research: “The field is becoming increasingly populated by cranks. Everyone knows everybody else’s theory doesn’t work, but no one is willing to admit it about his own.” Following this statement, Meyer fast-forwards into the present, and writes of his own assessment of the field twenty years later: “I found no reason to amend these assessments.”

The work Meyer had been discussing that led up to that final dismissive statement about “cranks” on page 322, was that of Gerald Joyce and Jack Szostak. Joyce is dean of the faculty at one of our nation’s most prestigious research organizations, The Scripps Research Institute. Szostak is affiliated with Harvard Medical School, the Massachusetts General Hospital and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. He was awarded the Nobel Prize this year.

I sent a copy of my overview to all three of them and asked for a response that I would post on this site. Meyer has not responded. Here are the responses of Joyce and Szostak:

Dear Darrel,

…What you have written is extremely well done, and what you say about RNA is spot-on. It stands on its own without the need for endorsement or commentary from me….

Jerry

Dear Dr. Falk,

I'm not sure that I can be all that helpful to you. You have already pointed out in your article that considerable progress is being made on the problem of the origin of life. Speaking as a scientist, the origin of life is one of the most interesting questions in all of science. It certainly is a very difficult problem, and that is part of what makes it an attractive challenge to me. There have been incredible technical advances in physics, chemistry and biology in the past decade, and these advances encourage me in my judgment that this highly interesting problem can and will be solved.

The fact is that there are many steps on the pathway from chemistry to life that we do not currently understand. To me, and I suppose to you, these are the steps that are scientific questions to be addressed by the methods of science. To use gaps in our understanding as the basis for or as support for any kind of religious belief is hard for me to understand. As these gaps are gradually filled, the basis of that religious belief disappears. Why would someone base their religious beliefs on such a sandy foundation?

As science advances and our understanding grows, religions must either accommodate the change or enter a phase of denial, as the 'young earth' and anti-evolution ID movements have done. I agree with you that this kind of denial is a dangerous thing; denial of reality is extremely bad for the future of our country (and our world). The fact that large numbers of people take their moral guidance from leaders who are in willful denial of reality is quite frightening. I therefore wish you success in your efforts to fight this pernicious trend in American religion.

However, I suspect I must part company with you in that I believe that science and religion actually are irreconcilable. In my view a scientific world view is one based on continuous questioning and therefore a search for more and better evidence and theories; faith in the unknowable plays no role. I think that belief systems based on faith are inherently dangerous, as they leave the believer susceptible to manipulation when skepticism and inquiry are discouraged.

Best wishes,

Jack Szostak

I am especially interested in Dr. Szostak’s final paragraph. He is correct that we part company at this point, which saddens me deeply. I have written before, and I will write again: there are very sound reasons for entering the life of faith. I embarked upon a search for a source of ultimate reality and my personal search was based on evidence, too. The journey of faith is by no means blind, and there many fine scientists who—guided by faith, evidence, and reason—choose to follow the same journey I am on. Scientific pathways and faith journeys need not lead to different locations in life. In fact, I am convinced they point in the very same direction and lead to the very same place. However, that’s another blog for another day.

I also want to cite to two new postings at other sites which are successfully addressing two other perspectives of this issue right now. Dr. Randy Isaac is the Executive Director of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) and a former Vice-President at IBM. The ASA is the leading organization of evangelical scientists in this country. Isaac puts on his “information-scientist hat” to examine Meyer’s statements about the origin of the information content of DNA. Tom Oord, a leading Wesleyan theologian, explores the theological implications of the Intelligent Design movement.

Finally, I would like, once more, to offer Stephen Meyer an opportunity to post a 1000 word response to all of this on our site. He is a Christian brother. I know he means well.

Filed Under:

science, religion, intelligent design, evolution, Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell, Randy Isaac, Tom Oord, Gerald Joyce, Jack Szostak, origins, RNA, DNA

Share |

Comments (77)
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.

Glen Davidson - #2419

January 12^th 2010

There’s an odd idea that IDists/creationists typically hold, that somehow they’re exceedingly civil while their opponents are rude and thereby wrong.

Except that there is nothing civil about what Meyer and Expelled state about honest scientists, and indeed, there’s no reason to expect civil responses in return.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
pds - #2425

January 12^th 2010

Another ID bashing post that does not engage with ID in its strongest form.

Sigh.

Stephen Meyer is a “leader who [is] in willful denial of reality.” He represents a “pernicious trend in American religion.” No back up based his actual writings is provided.

This advances the debate how?
John Kwok - #2428

January 12^th 2010

@ Glen -

Yet another of your excellent observations, which, of course, I endorse completely.
Mike Gene - #2433

January 12^th 2010

Oh, the rich irony of Dr. Szostak’s final paragraph. His ham-handed perceptions of religion and religious people are clearly rooted in stereotype, as, contrary to his understanding, the journey of faith is filled with continuous questioning and a search for a better understanding. Take this issue itself. Many Christians continually question the relation between Christianity and evolution (and all that both entail) in an attempt to reach reconciliation. Yet Dr. Szostak has declared all such efforts to be doomed as he “believes” they “actually are irreconcilable.” What happened to his spirit of continuous questioning?
Gregory Arago - #2435

January 12^th 2010

Curiosity and questioning belong on a leash called ‘scientism,’ Mike. Didn’t you hear about it? )
John Kwok - #2436

January 12^th 2010

@ Mike -

Actually, Dr. Stoszak’s final comments echo the sentiments I heard from two religiously devout scientists, Ken Miller and Guy Consolmagno, last June, here in New York City, during a World Science Festival panel discussion on Science and Faith. While both are devout Roman Catholics - and Consolmagno, the Vatican Astronomer, is a Jesuit Brother too - they declared that, while as working as scientists, they will consider only scientific issues (Religious issues have little or no bearing in their scientific work, period). It is only in their private lives that they will consider their religious views. Theirs are sentiments I have seen from other religiously devout scientists over the years, with notable exceptions from such usual suspects as “scientific” creationists, especially those at the Discovery Institute.
beaglelady - #2446

January 12^th 2010

John,

I really don’t think that Dr. Stoszak and Dr. Miller are saying the same thing at all.

I believe that Jack Szostak is espousing philosophical naturalism: the natural world is all that exists, period; while Ken Miller espouses using methodological naturalism while doing science. In Ken Miller’s work, he uses only the tools of science to study the natural world, but accepts that there is something that transcends the natural world. I think he explains that very well here. (Note how PBS uses the naughty e-word!)

btw, I also went to a world science festival event but I went to the one at the Hayden Planetarium. It was really great, but I wish I could have gone to Ken Miller’s event also!
John Kwok - #2447

January 12^th 2010

beaglelady -

You’re right, but I made this observation (#2436) merely to observe that Szostak’s position is much closer to Ken’s (and Guy Consolmagno) than it is to Darrel’s.
Mike Gene - #2458

January 12^th 2010

John,

I’m sorry, but I do not think Ken Miller would consider his faith “dangerous” because it made him prone to being manipulated as a consequence of no longer asking any questions. Szostak’s portrayal of religion is clearly rooted in stereotype and not critical thinking. Yet the irony remains in that it is Szostak who has ceased questioning when it comes the reconcilability of Christian faith and science. He *believes* they are irreconcilable, all because of his stereotypes.

I’m left wondering if Dr. Szostak thinks no one should believe in God unless God’s existence can be scientifically demonstrated.
John Kwok - #2460

January 12^th 2010

Mike -

Ken wouldn’t agree with Szostak with regards to perceiving Roman Catholic Christianity as “dangerous”. However, I believe both he and Jesuit brother - and Vatican Astronomer - Guy Consolmagno would give their consent to this:

“In my view a scientific world view is one based on continuous questioning and therefore a search for more and better evidence and theories; faith in the unknowable plays no role.”

Independently of Szostak, both voiced sentiments identical to the quote I just provided at the World Science Festival panel discussion that I attended here in New York City last June.

Sincerely,

John

P. S. Hope you understand better my position with regards to Design. Design must be seen in the context of phylogenetic history (Gordon Glover agrees with me BTW as he has noted here at BioLogos elsewhere), and it is this context which Meyer and his fellow Discovery Institute colleagues have either willfully forgotten or ignored.
John Kwok - #2462

January 12^th 2010

@ Mike -

As for this observation of yours, I think it is irrelevant:

“I’m left wondering if Dr. Szostak thinks no one should believe in God unless God’s existence can be scientifically demonstrated.”

The only ones who seem fixated on any observation that is akin to yours are creationists, and regrettably, those like Darrel who seem to think it is possible to intertwine both science and faith simultaneously; an opinion of Darrel’s which both Ken Miller and Guy Consolmagno would strongly object to.
Mike Gene - #2480

January 12^th 2010

John,

No one here is taking issue with the claim, ““In my view a scientific world view is one based on continuous questioning and therefore a search for more and better evidence and theories; faith in the unknowable plays no role.” The problem is the manner in which Szostak plays that as a supposed stark contrast with a religious world view to support his personal belief “that science and religion actually are irreconcilable.” All thinking human beings, inside the realm of science and outside the realm of science, continuously question and search for more and better evidence and theories. Faith plays a crucial role in religion simply because, at some point, many of us feel the need to make a choice, to make a decision. In science we have the option of saying “we don’t know, further research is needed.” In fact, this option is essential to science.
Mike Gene - #2481

January 12^th 2010

John,

I’m left wondering if Dr. Szostak thinks no one should believe in God unless God’s existence can be scientifically demonstrated because the question, I think, is embedded in the thinking behind *his* assertions. He clearly expresses his distaste for religion because it relies on faith, which, is supposed to be bad because it supposedly makes religious people especially prone to manipulation and causes them to stop asking questions. Thus, apparently, faith in the existence of God would be a no-no.

Finally, you write, “The only ones who seem fixated on any observation that is akin to yours are creationists…..”

No, Dawkins and the New Atheists are fixated on that very issue too. The whole ‘science and religion actually are irreconcilable’ is a core belief of the New Atheist movement.
hmm - #2482

January 12^th 2010

Kwok said:

“As for this observation of yours, I think it is irrelevant:

> Mike gene wrote:
> “I’m left wondering if Dr. Szostak thinks no one should believe in God unless God’s existence
> can be scientifically demonstrated.”“

LOL. Maybe Gene’s point was ironical…

I understood his point like this: Because Szostak’s portrayal of religion is clearly rooted in stereotype, perhaps he shares also the view that no one should believe in God, if God is not scientifically demonstrated. Only a few people have himself/herself thought, what COULD REALLY be evidence for God, but many repeats claims (e.g. the claim that for God should be scientific evidence) and stereotypes heard from someone else.
John Kwok - #2483

January 12^th 2010

@ Mike (# 2480) -

Obviously you haven’t been listening to Mere_Christian, Gregory Arago, Brian, pds, and others posting here if you truly believe this:

““In my view a scientific world view is one based on continuous questioning and therefore a search for more and better evidence and theories; faith in the unknowable plays no role.”

I would strongly suspect that all of them would disagree most vehemently with your observation.

As for the “irreconcible” differences between science and religion, I strongly endorse the Dalai Lama’s position that Buddhism must conform with science, by stating that Buddhism must change if it is found to be true that Buddhism is wrong and science is right.
John Kwok - #2486

January 12^th 2010

Mike (# 2481) -

I stand corrected with your observation regarding the New Atheists, but my observation was addressed primarily with regards to the comments I have read on this thread by creationists posting here.

Since I have read nothing further from you regarding the potential relationship between Design and phylogenetic history, I hope you understand and appreciate both mine and Gordon Glover’s position, and will accept it as yours as well.
Mike Gene - #2487

January 12^th 2010

John,

I didn’t see anyone else in this thread taking issue with that claim, but you are right in that I should have said “I am not taking issue with the claim…..”
John Kwok - #2490

January 12^th 2010

@ Mike -

They have been writing comments here and elsewhere that would be contrary to the quote from Stozsak that I have cited. Won’t cite them, but you must have missed what they’ve written.

Are we okay now with how you ought to perceive the relationship between Design and phylogenetic history? If we are, then the “middle way” you’ve proposed with regards to evolution and Intelligent Design makes absolutely no sense, period IMHO.
Jordan - #2494

January 12^th 2010

@ John Kwok

Regarding:

“In my view a scientific world view is one based on continuous questioning and therefore a search for more and better evidence and theories; faith in the unknowable plays no role.”

Is that meant to apply to science or all knowledge/reality? I would say that there is quite a fair amount of what I’d call faith in science (essentially it’s extrapolation from what we do know to what we don’t), but I would agree that faith in “unknowables” does not play a role in science.

However, when it comes to religious faith, especially something monotheistic like Christianity, it seems logical to allow for some “unknowables”. If you think of an infinite and very omni- kind of being then it seems to make sense that their might be things we just can’t know fully. I kind of consider the trinity one of those things. That doesn’t mean we don’t have opinions, ideas, theories, but it could be we’ll just not be able to figure it out.

(contd.)
Jordan - #2495

January 12^th 2010

(contd.)

Similarly, you’ve quoted in the past something from Ken Miller about abandoning any faith that is hostile to science (I’m paraphrasing but I think that’s the gist). You keep wanting to people to consent or dissent to that statement but it’s kind of misleading to me. I know a great many YECs that would fully agree, for instance. I think what you’re really trying to say is that any faith that places “non-scientific” ways of knowing above “scientific” ones should be abandoned, is that right?
Charles Tysoe - #2501

January 12^th 2010

Hi Dr. Falk,

Good, and fair, of you to invite Dr. Meyer to post his pov on your site here.

You have taken offense to some of Dr. Meyer’s prose, alluding to certain scientists as “cranks”, on behalf of those three men, and invited them to respond to the insult. In the process, their responses and comments on the blog, contain many of the same kind of personal slurs with respect to creationists and ID’er’s. To borrow a phrase found here, this advances science and knowledge exactly how?

And until you folks can make it clear on this scientific site, that the ID movement in general and Discovery Institute in particular, are not multiply-redundant pseudonyms for young earth creationism—and the proof is abundant—you had better leave off speculating about chemical pathways to the “origin of life”, or in fact just stay away from chemistry altogether.
beaglelady - #2507

January 12^th 2010

Is that meant to apply to science or all knowledge/reality?

Jordan,

I think that’s the really big question here. I assumed that he was speaking of all knowledge (not just science) because of his last statement.
John Kwok - #2509

January 12^th 2010

Jordan -

Yes, Ken Miller has said that those who belong to faiths hostile to science should give up such faiths (presumably for those which do respect science… but I am assuming this). And I think both Ken Miller and Vatican Astronomer Guy Consolmagno - a Jesuit Brother - would agree to Szostak’s statement, but only as it applies to science. However, I might add that Ken Miller would also subscribe to the Dalai Laima’s observation that if Buddhism is wrong and science is right, then it must conform with science.

In Ken Miller and Guy Consolmagno you have two religiously devout scientists, quite confident in their religious views, who recognize that, as scientists, science must take overriding precedence over their religious convictions. The same can not be said for so-called “scientific” creationists at the Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and other similar organizations. Regrettably, in light of Darrel and Karl’s recent comments, I wonder whether they too would agree with Ken Miller and Guy Consolmagno’s recognition that, as professional scientists, science must be absolutely paramount over their religious convictions.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok
Jordan - #2514

January 12^th 2010

@John Kwok:

The problem I have with Ken Miller’s statement is that it doesn’t seem all that useful. I would imagine most people who you consider to be hostile to science firmly and sincerely believe they are being friends of science. I think most scientists who are YECs, OECs, or ID would agree with Ken Miller. The statement entirely hinges on “hostile to science”. In a practical sense, it basically just means everybody who doesn’t agree with you (“you” in a general sense).

I don’t know Ken or Guy, but do you think would they say “science must take overriding precedence over their religious convictions” when they are out of their lab? My area of research has pretty much nothing to do with origins (it does in a very remote way but nothing significant) and so I’ve really never felt any conflict between science and faith when actually doing science. When I leave the lab though, things are different.
John Kwok - #2517

January 12^th 2010

@ Jordan -

You haven’t been reading carefully. I have said that, when they are working as scientists, both Ken Miller and Guy Consolmagno believe that their scientific obligations and views DEFINITELY TRUMP their religious convictions. It is only in their private lives that they will consider their religious convictions (In plain English when they are not performing their scientific duties.).

I believe Ken’s statement is quite useful, simply because it echoes what the Dalai Lama has said about what the proper relationship between his faith - Buddhism - and science should be. No religiously devout scientist I have known would disagree with Ken’s declaration IMHO. The only ones I have encountered who would are those who call themselves “scientific” creationists, like YEC invertebrate paleontologist Kurt Wise or the Discovery Institute staff.

I tend to take a dim view of “origins” research, unless it refers explicitly either to the origin of life, origin of the solar system, origin of the universe, etc.
beaglelady - #2519

January 13^th 2010

Here’s a very good panel discussion featuring Eugenie Scott, Denis Lamoureux, and Francisco Ayala. They discuss, among other things, how important it is to separate science and religion when doing science. I highly recommend this. (Lamoureux and Ayala are believers; Scott is not.)
Jordan - #2535

January 13^th 2010

@John

I am very much trying to read carefully. Indeed, these discussion are far from academic for me. This is my career (science) and my faith. This is an enormous chunk of who I am as a person.

My question about Ken and Guy (and the panel that beaglelady just mentioned) is that I wonder what they mean about separating science and religion? For instance, I tend to pray over my experiments (especially when they’re not going well, naughty me) and I often marvel at God’s creativity and power when doing my science. Should I not do those things? Should I check my faith at the lab door? Suddenly I’m no longer a follower of Christ?

Or is it that when we do science we choose to operationally use methodological naturalism regardless of our background and beliefs and don’t assume God is violating on a regular basis the physical laws he created? That is how I tend to see it anyway.
John Kwok - #2538

January 13^th 2010

@ Jordan -

I am not going to speak for both my friend Ken Miller and Vatican Astronomer Guy Consolmagno. But again, let me say this: THEY DO NOT THINK OF RELIGION when they work professionally as scientists. They have said that if there is a potential conflict between their religious faith and their scientific principles, then SCIENCE COMES FIRST and they do not even think of their religious faith, period. It is only in their private lives (or in Guy Consolmagno’s case when he works solely on religious matters as a Jesuit Brother) that they will think of their faith.

I worked closely in the past with a very devoutly religious scientist, eminent ecologist Michael Rosenzweig, a Conservative Jew. When he was pursuing his excellent scientific research in ecology, not once did he thought of his religious faith. It was only when he was not working as a scientist did he think of his Judaism. I know other scientists who lead lives similar to Rosenzeig’s, Miller’s and Consolmagno’s. I believe all of them would strongly question how you lead yours (Speaking for myself, as a Deist who is no longer a scientist, I do too.).
John Kwok - #2541

January 13^th 2010

@ Jordan -

A member of my family is an Evangelical Protestant Christian who is a member of Tim Keller’s congregation in New York City. Don’t ever remember hearing her ever saying that she “prayed” over her experiments. As a devout Christian, even she recognized that she could not mix her science with her faith. May I suggest you follow her example, as well as Rosenzweig’, Miller and Consolmagno’s?
Jordan - #2545

January 13^th 2010

@John Kwok:

Hmm, interesting. I don’t want to derail this topic (we’re already quite a ways from the original post) but I would be quite surprised and shocked indeed if most Christian scientists don’t pray or have *some* religious thought while doing science.

I think problem isn’t being religious while doing science, the problem is doing bad science in the name of religion. As long as a person is doing good science I don’t see why it would matter.
Pierre - #2546

January 13^th 2010

Just because some scientists deal with their religious convictions by separating them from the science does not mean that this is the correct way to do things. Yes, these are all very intelligent highly eminent people in their fields. But, no, they do NOT have all the answers…and I would bet that they would admit to that readily. They are not wrong to say that science should be separated from religion for the sake of the science. But, to say that it is important to separate science and religion and leave it at that is to do a great disservice to science and religion BOTH. Yes, one must rely on fact and observation when doing science and interpreting results and not bias themselves based on their religious beliefs—that is unquestionable and critical to keeping science done correctly-period. Having said this, as a believer I marvel everyday at what I see in the lab and the wondrous things God has created and the great detail and complexity of the mechanisms He has put in place for creating and maintaining life. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as it does not interfere with or bias my observations. ... Continued….
Pierre - #2547

January 13^th 2010

... continued…
My beliefs have no bearing whatsoever on the rate constants I measure for an enzymatic reaction, or on the conclusion I make on how those rate constants define the activity of the enzyme at pH 7.4. However, to COMPLETELY divorce my religious beliefs from my science would be like putting blinders on and trying to see the big picture…it is not impossible, but severely limiting and much easier to make mistakes and go off in the wrong direction. Yes, there are times when a scientific discovery challenges my beliefs…that means simply that my understanding is incomplete. If I changed my convictions and religious beliefs based on every new scientific discovery that seemed to pose a challenge I would never believe in anything…which is where many people are at, unfortunately. One should not base their science on religion, and one also should not base their religion solely on science, since what we know changes daily. There is a reason why it is called research, and that is because we DON’T know everything. ... continued…
Pierre - #2548

January 13^th 2010

...continued…
One has to stay open to that fact and realize that our interpretation of science is based merely on what we know and observe in this world. For all practical purposes, that is all we need to expect from science. However, my faith is unwavering and unchanging. My understanding of the bible and my religious beliefs may be incorrect, but my faith is never changing. I feel that a large conflict occurs when one places too much emphasis on what they understand and do not give themselves enough room to grow.
Brian - #2549

January 13^th 2010

Szostak’s piece is a fantastic example of oversimplification through conflation: science with naturalism; religion with a god of the gaps stereotype; design with belief in a young earth; faith with discouraging skepticism and inquiry….

Yes, given these definitions, science and religion are irreconcilable. But how many false definitions can one man incorporate into a 4 paragraph piece?
hmm - #2550

January 13^th 2010

Kwak wrote about his family member who is christian:

“Don’t ever remember hearing her ever saying that she “prayed” over her experiments. As a devout Christian, even she recognized that she could not mix her science with her faith. May I suggest you follow her example, as well as Rosenzweig’, Miller and Consolmagno’s?”

Being quiet about praying does not imply that the person had never prayed while doing science. It sounds like argument from ignorance (from being quiet to conclusion that there has never happened prayer). I agree with Jordan. Praying (at least sometimes while doing science) is common among many christian scientists, at least so far as I know.
Brian - #2552

January 13^th 2010

John @2483:

Sorry to say that, in my case anyway, you are completely wrong. I would say that my “world view is one based on continuous questioning and therefore a search for more and better evidence and theories.” Much of what’s posted here I don’t agree with, but this is precisely the reason I come—to have my views challenged.

Of course, for any of this to matter at all, you would need to exhibit the same qualities that you are expecting of the people you don’t agree with: continuous questioning, more and better theories…
John Kwok - #2554

January 13^th 2010

@ Pierre -

The scientists I know who have been religiously devout and have successful careers in science HAVE SEPARATED their religious convictions from their science when working as scientists. IMHO that makes the most sense, since I agree with those who would contend that to mix the two while working as a scientist leads to bad theology as well as bad science. Again, let me remind you that a Jesuit brother, Vatican Astronomer Guy Consolmagno, does not think of his religious faith while he is working as the successful planetarly scientist that he is.

Whenever I have spoken to Ken Miller or Mike Rosenzweig about their religious faith, it has never been while they were working as scientists (Nor would they have been interested in such discussions if I had pursued it while they were pursuing their scientific duties.).

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok
John Kwok - #2555

January 13^th 2010

hmm -

Even if my relative could pray privately, it would be obvious, since her co-workers are all Jewish. But more pointedly, she has told me that she does not pray when she has done any scientific research, period (In her spare time she has participated often in Bible Study sessions with fellow members of Reverend Keller’s congregation.).
John Kwok - #2556

January 13^th 2010

@ Jordan -

I strongly doubt it. Most Christian scientists I have known - or still know - do not pray in the course of their scientific duties. Why? Because they recognize that by doing so, they are conflating their scientific work with their religious views, and presumably because they also recognize that mixing the two yields bad science and bad theology.
Pierre - #2557

January 13^th 2010

@John,

Well then, I guess that that’s all there is to say. Since I don’t behave the way you think a scientist should behave, I must be wrong.

May I ask if you have thought about any of these issues for yourself? You seem to rely heavily on what others tell you to think and believe…just sayin…
John Kwok - #2560

January 13^th 2010

@ Pierre -

I’ve spent a lot of time discussing these issues with others in the past, including graduate school (In fact, I probably spent a fair amount of time discussing religion with ecologist Mike Rosenzweig, who was one of my graduate school mentors, when we weren’t discussing science.). Does it mean I agree with everything that others have said? No, and, indeed, if you have been reading my posts faithfully, I have observed that I strongly disagree with Ken Miller’s acceptance of a weak anthropoic principle. But I will also say that I regard as the most sensible approach towards science that should be followed by a religiously devout scientist is the path that is taken by the likes of Ken Miller, Guy Consolmagno and Mike Rosenzweig. Any other approach doesn’t make sense to me, and, I might add, is an approach that is followed daily by Discovery Institute “scientists” and other so-called “scientific” creationists.
John Kwok - #2561

January 13^th 2010

@ Pierre -

For anyone who opts not to follow the path taken by the reliigously devout scientists I have mentioned, then that individual runs the risk of allowing oneself, to paraphrase Dr. Stzosak, to become “susceptible to manipulation when skepticism and inquiry are discouraged.”
Pierre - #2563

January 13^th 2010

@John,

I thought so. Thank you for proving my point. nuff said.
John Kwok - #2565

January 13^th 2010

@ Pierre -

Am not proving your point. I have spent time being surrounded by devout Christians, especially in college, where I was the resident skeptical member of the Campus Crusade for Christ chapter (and would serve as the sole “evolutionist” on an ad hoc “Origins Committee” which would organize a campus debate on “creationism” which had Institute for Creation Research vice president Henry Morris debating a young assistant professor of biology named Kenneth R. Miller.).

I might add that I don’t agree at all with “evangelizing” done by New Atheists like Sam Harris, Christoper Hitchens and Richard Dawkins on behalf of their “faith”. But I will observe too that some of their comments are sensible, especially regards to the demarcation between science and religion.
John Kwok - #2568

January 13^th 2010

Jeffrey Shallit has just weighed in, demolishing Meyer’s interest in “biological information”. This is a readable account and should be seen as valid from a fine mathematician who has evaluated critically Dembski’s work for years:

http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/10/stephen-meyers-bogus-information-theory.html
hmm - #2569

January 13^th 2010

Kwok:

“Again, let me remind you that a Jesuit brother, Vatican Astronomer Guy Consolmagno, does not think of his religious faith while he is working as the successful planetarly scientist that he is.”

It looks like you were putting words in Consolmagno’s mouth. He has written for example:

“The roots of my passion for astronomy draw from many sources. Certainly growing up during the age of Sputnik and Apollo played its role…

But my passion for the study of the stars also draws on my… belief in a Creator who made this world. He made it deliberately: “God said, let there be… and there was…” He made it rationally: “In the beginning was the Logos.” He made it out of love: “God so loved the world that He sent his Only Son.” This means that to love the stars is an act of worship of their Maker. To puzzle out how they all work is a way of becoming intimate with the mind of that Maker.”
http://cosmicdiary.org/blogs/brother_guy_consolmagno/?p=31

“Science and faith, he says, are not mutually exclusive if you believe God initiated the Big Bang. “Science is fantastic in and of itself as a human experience, and for me ... it’s also a religious experience.”“
http://www.technologyreview.com/article/24101/
John Kwok - #2570

January 13^th 2010

@ hmm -

I heard Consolmagno say that, when working as a professional scientist, his religious views carry no weight, period. It is only in his private, personal life, or when he discharges his religious duties as a Jesuit brother, that he will consider his religious convictions. I am not putting words into his mouth; I HEARD HIM SAY IT last June (And, I might add, so did actress Cameron Diaz, who was sitting near me in the audience when we heard it.).
hmm - #2571

January 13^th 2010

Kwok, it is a different claim. It looks like you were not able to understand this question from christian scientist’s perspective. Consolmagno does not separate science and religion seeing them mutually exclusive. He sees that it is possible to be religious while doing science. BUT he sees that religious arguments have no weight in science. As Jordan said, “I think problem isn’t being religious while doing science, the problem is doing bad science in the name of religion. As long as a person is doing good science I don’t see why it would matter.”

You claimed that “Guy Consolmagno, does not think of his religious faith while he is working as the successful planetarly scientist that he is.”

And I showed that you are wrong in that. For him doing science is not exclusively separated from religion. But in the reported results there are no religious arguments: religious arguments have no weight in his scientific papers. But written papers are different thing than whether christianity has any part in his doing of science.
beaglelady - #2575

January 13^th 2010

I think that the important thing is that the scientist should not look for supernatural causation when doing science. In that way, his religious convictions should not influence his work. If an “ID scientist” prances into the lab with a predetermined notion that he will find God’s hand at work pushing genes around, or whatever, that is probably what he will conclude.

It’s the same in other professions. A doctor should not consider demon possession in a kid who’s having seizures. A detective who is looking for a missing person should not consider that maybe the person was translated/assumed into heaven like Enoch. And so on…

Note that in all of these hypothetical cases that proper investigation of the matter at hand would stop in its tracks if the supernatural had been considered. (And that’s why ID is a science-stopper!)
Mark - #2596

January 13^th 2010

I seriously doubt Meyer will post here. You have done everything but banned him from the site with all your harsh reviews of his book and commenters like BeagleLady calling for scathing, condescending reviews of his book to be posted on Amazon.com.

“Christian brother” huh? Yeah ok
Glen Davidson - #2597

January 13^th 2010

So Meyer can’t take the heat of honest criticism?

Well, he generally avoids it, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s true.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
beaglelady - #2598

January 13^th 2010

Mark,

I wasn’t trying to hurt Meyer’s feelings. I thought the review was a good one and therefore should be posted on Amazon. It was unfavorable but certainly not scathing and condescending. Amazon includes both favorable and unfavorable reviews. This way, shoppers can determine whether or not the book is for them. Do you think unfavorable reviews should be allowed?
Knockgoats - #2714

January 15^th 2010

“Note that in all of these hypothetical cases that proper investigation of the matter at hand would stop in its tracks if the supernatural had been considered.” - beaglelady

Not so. It is a fallacy that science cannot investigate supernatural causation: the early geologists all expected to find evidence of a supernaturally caused global flood - but mostly, were honest enough to admit that they did not. Many 19th and early 20th century scientists took part in scientific investigations of mediumship. Recent scientific investigations have been held into the power of prayer. If it turned out that epilepsy could be cured by prayer, science could investigate what prayers work best. Science has almost entirely abandoned the search for supernatural causes because it never had useful results. Methodological naturalism is the outcome of experience, not an essential part of the scientific method.
beaglelady - #2717

January 15^th 2010

The supernatural is beyond the power of science to investigate. Otherwise, how do you control for the supernatural—e.g. sealing the supernatural from an experiment as a control? You can’t. How can you make sure God is working on your behalf when you pray, using the tools of science? You can’t How can you make sure God is NOT working on your or anyone else’s behalf when you DON’T pray? You can’t.
So I don’t think that study of prayer really was measuring what it claimed to be measuring. It was too simplistic.
Knockgoats - #2749

January 16^th 2010

If experiments on the power of prayer had positive results, believers would be trumpeting them to the skies. I’ve given clear examples of how science has been used to investigate the supernatural, so it’s really rather pointless saying it can’t. It can’t disprove the existence of the supernatural, but that’s another matter.
beaglelady - #2759

January 16^th 2010

The experiments disproved a push-button, magic-genie god who answers to our every whim and stays away when not being told what to do. That is all. But I don’t think that’s what prayer is all about. God answers all prayers, not just some, but His answers are not our answers. And so I don’t think science can investigate the power of prayer. How can you truly seal off the control patients from God’s influence?
Knockgoats - #2765

January 16^th 2010

beaglelady,
You simply ignore the points I have made: if such experiments had shown positive results, can you honestly say that believers would not have pointed to them in triumph? Ministers of religion have in any case been willing to participate in them. You also ignore the other cases I offer of science investigating the supernatural.

God answers all prayers, not just some, but His answers are not our answers.

Can you really not see what empty nonsense this is? If we pray for peace and a world war breaks out, if we pray to be well and die in agony, if we pray for our child’s safety and they are kidnapped and murdered, if we pray for strength and fail the test, according to you this is still God answering our prayers. I’d get equally good results praying to a stale crust of bread.
beaglelady - #2771

January 16^th 2010

if such experiments had shown positive results, can you honestly say that believers would not have pointed to them in triumph?

Yes I agree that most believers would have pointed to them in triumph. And I also believe that you would have found an alternative explanation. Is that not true?

My point is that the experiment is not measuring what it assumes to be measuring. As for the other case you mention, even incontrovertible evidence for a worldwide flood would not demonstrate that God had caused it.

And if you don’t like my bit about God answering all prayers somehow even if he doesn’t do what we request, that’s a philosophical issue, and you are most welcome to your own views about the matter.
Knockgoats - #2772

January 16^th 2010

“Yes I agree that most believers would have pointed to them in triumph. And I also believe that you would have found an alternative explanation. Is that not true?”

No. If such experiments, carried out under properly controlled conditions, repeatedly showed positive results, I would abandon naturalism.

“My point is that the experiment is not measuring what it assumes to be measuring.”

They measure whether prayer, under specific conditions, has the result that what is prayed for is more likely to occur. That’s exactly what they are intended to measure. Conclusion: at least in the range of conditions so far tested, there is no evidence that it does.

“And if you don’t like my bit about God answering all prayers somehow even if he doesn’t do what we request, that’s a philosophical issue”

No, it’s simply an empty assertion, since nothing whatsoever could ever count against it. As empty as my assertion that I keep a completely undetectable unicorn in my garage.
beaglelady - #2774

January 16^th 2010

They measure whether prayer, under specific conditions, has the result that what is prayed for is more likely to occur. That’s exactly what they are intended to measure.

Okay, but that assumes a push-button, magic genie kind of god who always acts when we pray, doing exactly what we order him to do, and doesn’t act when we don’t pray. That’s an assumption that I and probably others don’t share.

And in the experiments how do you seal off the influence of God from the control group?
Knockgoats - #2777

January 16^th 2010

“Okay, but that assumes a push-button, magic genie kind of god who always acts when we pray, doing exactly what we order him to do, and doesn’t act when we don’t pray.”

No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t even assume prayer would have the result prayed for because of God - it might be some kind of direct action of human volition on the world. If results had been positive, testing whether simply wishing for the result, or praying to Satan/Allah/Brahma/a crust of bread worked as well would be an obvious next step. Or, one could see whether results from a group of Christians, a group of agnostics and a group of atheists all praying in the same way differed. You see, I can outline a whole scientific research programme that would be worth pursuing if, contrary to fact, experiments had shown any evidence that prayer makes any difference.

As to your second question: I have already said science cannot disprove the existence of the supernatural, but it can investigate it. Moreover, your query applies to any scientific experiment whatever in any field, since we can’t possibly shield them from an omnipotent god’s influence - so what you are actually arguing is that science is impossible. Are you happy with that?
Gregory Arago - #2786

January 16^th 2010

I like your bit about God answering all prayers, beaglelady! : )

The problem here is with ‘naturalism,’ as stated in #2772.

One can be a natural scientist and not a ‘naturalist,’ can’t one?

If so, then one opens them-self to ‘the reality of’ non-natural or extra-natural things. Perhaps they are worth learning something about in this little life of ours surrounded by a dream?

Results from sociology of religion around the world don’t place religious believers in an unfavourable light when it comes to happiness, that’s for sure!
Knockgoats - #2789

January 16^th 2010

“One can be a natural scientist and not a ‘naturalist,’ can’t one?”

Yes.

“Results from sociology of religion around the world don’t place religious believers in an unfavourable light when it comes to happiness, that’s for sure!”

The happiest country in the world, according to a recent study, is Denmark, which has a very low level of religious belief. The USA, which is far more religious than any comparably rich country, has high levels of infant mortality, drug abuse, mental illness, homicide, imprisonment and obesity compared to other rich countries, and low levels of social trust, educational attainment, life expectancy and social mobility. Of course, neither this nor your claim has any relevance whatever to whether religious beliefs are true, and of course, almost all of them (at least) must be false, as the beliefs of different religions and sects contradict each other.
beaglelady - #2807

January 17^th 2010

KG,

I’m not arguing that science is impossible, Hardly! I just think the experiment was too simplistic to show anything conclusively. And I’ll be praying tomorrow in church. I hope my mind doesn’t wander and start thinking about this thread. btw, prayer isn’t all give me this, give me that.

btw, the USA sounds really bad! I wonder why so many want to either move here or visit?

Any plans to move to Scandinavia? It might make you happier.

-Karen
Knockgoats - #2818

January 17^th 2010

beaglelady,

I’m not arguing that science is impossible
I know, but that’s what your argument implied.

btw, the USA sounds really bad! I wonder why so many want to either move here or visit?
I’m simply reporting facts which do not comport with the idea that highly religious societies work better, which is simply false. I know how disturbing many Americans find it when they come across someone who does not consider the USA the nearest thing to paradise on Earth, but “them’s the facts”. People want to move to the USA because it’s rich; exactly the same applies to western Europe - most Americans seem completely unaware that there are many people wanting to move here as well. People want to visit the USA because there’s a lot to see and do - again, just as with Europe.
Gregory Arago - #2822

January 17^th 2010

Which ‘recent study’ were you refering to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index

Denmark comes in about 100th place across three years on this survey!

~~
Woud you be willing to expand on how a person can be a ‘natural scientist’ and not a ‘naturalist’?

You said it is possible, but then you seemed to claim adherence to ‘naturalism’ (#2772). So are you not somehow biased in your assessment?

Are you a natural scientist, Knockgoats?

(And have you been to Scandinavia?!)
Knockgoats - #2832

January 17^th 2010

Gregory Arago,

Denmark is the world’s happiest country - official.

Admittedly, the results of such surveys are likely to depend on what questions you ask, but more objective measures also show that a wide range of social pathologies are far more prevalent in the USA than in less religious rich countries. This is likely due to the USA’s greater economic inequalities (see Wilkinson and Pickett The Spirit Level - but these may well explain its religiosity too. At any rate, religiosity is clearly no prophylactic against them.

Of course a person can be a natural scientist and not a naturalist - the BioLogos founder and two of its current heads are examples. Why should the fact that I am a naturalist myself prevent me recognising this simple fact?

You seem to have a rather obsessive interest in people’s qualifications. I’d rather you addressed my arguments. My work spans the natural-social science boundary; I have been to Scandinavia.
Gregory Arago - #2841

January 17^th 2010

“My work spans the natural-social science boundary” - Knockgoats

I’m rather curious to hear what ‘profession’ one holds whose work does this. It is not so common.

Would you not agree that *most* natural scientists are also ‘naturalists’?

To suggest that F. Collins, K. Giberson and D. Falk are *not* naturalists is an interesting statement!

Of the study you cite (in contrast to the more mature and non-Euro-centric study I cited), 8 of the top 20 nations have crosses on their flag. It may very well be true that countries founded on religious morality are happier. Do you have a study to counter that?

What are you advocating as a worldview here, Knockgoats?
Knockgoats - #2845

January 17^th 2010

Gregory Arago,

I am using the term “naturalist” to mean one who does not consider there is any good reason to believe that anything supernatural exists. In that sense, I am a naturalist and Collins, Giberson and Falk are not. Atheism, or at least agnosticism, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for naturalism.

Would you not agree that *most* natural scientists are also ‘naturalists’?

I don’t know. Certainly, the prevalence of naturalism rises with level of scientific education and eminence. American scientists are much less religious than the general public.

What on Earth has the presence or absence of a cross on a flag, or my profession, got to do with the topic of the post? If you have a point, why not get to it?
Gregory Arago - #2851

January 17^th 2010

“the prevalence of naturalism rises with level of scientific education and eminence.” - Knockgoats

This is a rather bold statement about education, knowledge and perhaps even about wisdom.

There are countries in the world where higher education correlates with religious faith. Smart people can have faith! : )

“American scientists are much less religious than the general public.” - Knockgoats

Yes, in a ‘scientific age,’ Americans have tended to become more ‘rational’ and less ‘mystical.’ But Americans are still highly superstitious.

F. Collins, D. Falk and K. Giberson are three examples, and there are many more, of ‘natural scientists’ who believe in ‘non-natural’ or ‘extra-natural’ things.

I’d like to ask Collins if he considers himself a ‘naturalist.’

What would it take for you to believe in ‘non-natural’ or ‘extra-natural’ things, Knockgoats?

As a human-social scientist, this is not difficult for me in the slightest. In fact, it is a prerequisite to becoming a human-social scientist. Some things simply *are* non-natural.

Thus, naturalism as ideology can be seen to collapse at its respective boundaries.
beaglelady - #2852

January 17^th 2010

I know how disturbing many Americans find it when they come across someone who does not consider the USA the nearest thing to paradise on Earth

Do you think this is some kind of revelation to me?
Knockgoats - #2855

January 17^th 2010

Gregory Arago,

This is a rather bold statement about education, knowledge and perhaps even about wisdom.

No it isn’t. Try reading what I said.

What would it take for you to believe in ‘non-natural’ or ‘extra-natural’ things, Knockgoats?

Any number of things: the Rapture, the stars suddenly rearranging themselves to spell out I AM THAT I AM, magic spells starting to work, leprechauns paying off Ireland’s debts from their pots of gold, the discovery of fossil rabbits in Cambrian strata… I could go on indefinitely.

As a human-social scientist, this is not difficult for me in the slightest. In fact, it is a prerequisite to becoming a human-social scientist. Some things simply *are* non-natural.

No it isn’t (I’m one too, primarily), and no, there is absolutely no good evidence that there are any non-natural things. Naturalism is a hypothesis, not an ideology.
Knockgoats - #2862

January 17^th 2010

beaglelady,

Well I did wonder. Your response was so stereotypically American-nationalist.
Gregory Arago - #2864

January 17^th 2010

You’re ‘primarily’ a human-social scientist who doesn’t believe in/accept ‘non-natural’ things?!?

That will be the end of my side of the conversation then.

It is from my ‘culture’ to know that ‘nature’ is not the end of things.
Knockgoats - #2865

January 17^th 2010

Gregory Arago,

I think you have rather a talent for misinterpreting what other people say. What do you mean by “natural” and “non-natural”? Of course I can distinguish between things that are the outcome of human action and things which are not; but consider that human minds and culture are part of nature. I am contrasting “natural” with “supernatural” (gods, demons, magic, elves, fairies, werewolves, vampires etc.); not with “synthetic”, “artificial”, or “anthropogenic”.
Gregory Arago - #2866

January 17^th 2010

Didn’t C. Darwin mean by ‘artificial’ something ‘non-natural’?

Your preferred ‘contrasting’ is simply an outcome of your (anti-theistic) worldview.

There is no need to believe that the only ‘opposite’ to ‘natural’ is ‘supernatural.’ Indeed, the prefix ‘super-’ indicates that there *must* be another alternative to ‘natural.’

I do hope you will search for it genuinely someday.
Knockgoats - #2870

January 17^th 2010

Gregory Arago,

I made the sense in which I was using “natural” quite clear. You are aware that words can have more than one meaning, I take it? In other contexts, I would indeed contrast “natural” with “artificial”.

Indeed, the prefix ‘super-’ indicates that there *must* be another alternative to ‘natural.’
No it doesn’t.

I do hope you will try a genuine attempt to understand what others say an drespond to it without obfuscation, someday.
- Add Your Comment
- Science & the Sacred welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.
- Comment:
  You have 1250 characters remaining.
- Name:
- Email (will not be published):
- URL:
- Remember me

Signature in the Cell: A Follow-Up

Filed Under:

Add Your Comment