Confused about science and evolution

[SocaliCatholic]

I am not a scientist, but I like science alot and after reading some of the evolution threads wrote down some questions becuase I am even more confused about what science is, and how it is possible?

• If a Christian claims charity is integral to being a Christian, and I hold him accountable to his own principles as to why he is not being charitiable, is it a logical paralell to ask the same to a scientist who believes in evolution by asking him how his beliefs in evolution evolved?
• Because evidence, tools for discovery, and theories are always changing, at what point is it logical to believe something that science puts forth?
• At what point am I qualified to belive in a scientific theory? For example, if I am an expert physicist, but not biologist, do I still have to take on faith what a biologist has discovered? How does a scientist protect himself from scientific heresies in other fields he does not specialize in or fully understand?
• If all the science community agrees on a particular fact or theory, are we still at the mercy of the grouping of previous definitions or descriptions? For example, if eveyone takes a snapshot of the earth from satellite, it appears the earth is round, but upon further inspection, the surface is not perfectly smooth, therfore it is not a perfect circle, so what is it? It is not flat or circle. I can observe all I want but cannot perfectly describe what it is beucase the variations of the earth defy any perfect geometric description. Is there error in calling the earth spherical in the first place?
• There are some very smart scientist with big words I don’t understand, so if they tell me that something like evolution is likely true based on evidence, what guarantee do I have that they are correct it is true, if I am not an authority in that discipline? Does scientfic authority come from the evidence presented, the person presenting it, or some other source?
• Do I belive something from science using the same critera I use to believe something non-science, or is my beliving something from science limited to only what I can observe even if it appears illogical, like a snapshot of a dark circle in the middle of a bunch of stars becuase of a black hole from a Space Telescope the same as beliving that my spouse cheated because I saw the photo?

 

[Charles]

When scientific issues become so prominent that they become a matter of interest or concern to the Church, then I would highly suggest learning as much about the issue as possible. Evolution, which you mention, is certainly one such issue. The way to learn about it is by reading from objective sources in the scientific community for the scientific basis of the issue as well as the Church teachings on the subject for the faith basis of the issue.

I taught middle school science at a Catholic School for three years. Evolution was a part of the curriculum and I taught it with the latest scientific information available and comprehensible to middle schoolers. But I also started the unit with a discussion of the Church’s position on Evolution and the clarification that I was not there to make the students believe it. My primary interest is always in the salavation of my students and they can get to heaven regardless of whether or not they believe in the theory of evolution. I always emphasized this to my classes. I told them I wanted them to understand evolution but I was not forcing them to believe it.

 

[Tom]

SocaliCatholic:

• If a Christian claims charity is integral to being a Christian, and I hold him accountable to his own principles as to why he is not being charitiable, is it a logical paralell to ask the same to a scientist who believes in evolution by asking him how his beliefs in evolution evolved?

Certainly you can ask him, however he will show you libraries of books of the theory of evolution. His beliefs are based on how he was educated. I find very little that science teaches that directly or overtly opposes my Christian beliefs. Evolution does not contradict Scripture to me. God created man from the earth, science teaches the same. Science tries to fill in the gaps from the creation of the earth to mankind, thanks, but so? It’s quite irrelevant to me if we evolved from an amoeba. The fact is God created us. I don’t read Gen as a history book, but as a lesson book. Remember when Jesus is asked why He taught in parables He said that is the way His Father teaches. So, is the record of creation actually one of the Fathers parables? Maybe no; maybe so. If I’m busy trying to prove or disprove either side of the argument, I’m missing Gods Word, His point of the story.

SocaliCatholic:

Because evidence, tools for discovery, and theories are always changing, at what point is it logical to believe something that science puts forth?

If it contradicts the intent of Scripture science would be wrong. If for example science were to say God did not exist, it would be wrong by the intent of Scripture. Science however does not contend God does not exist. In actuality most of the scientists who came up with the “big bang” theory were Christians, and if you read Gen. carefully, the big bang theory and the story of creation are almost identical.

 

[Carl]

I also am not a scientist but an aficionado of science. My friends in the scientific community continually advise me not to take any scientific discovery as gospel truth. They talk not of truth, but rather of the best current explanation for phenomenon. The assumption is that each generation of scientists will then be free to correct the errors of the previous generation.

This may partly account for why so many scientists are uncomfortable with religious thought. They are trained to stay clear of dogma. Yet many other scientists are comfortable straddling both realms.

Even in the realm of religion thought is progressive. The Church has been clarifying the Gospels down through the centuries in various Councils and Encyclicals. Certain core teachings remain constant, however. Perhaps this is true in science as well.

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

Science is based on the experience of the senses. All we know (and not theorize) in science comes from what we can observe (unaided or aided with tools that we can create, such as a geiger counter). We can find many truths in science, such as 1+1 always equals 2. We also find many theories, which are based on observations we have at the time, but could be disproven in part or in whole as evidence is further discovered.

If you look at the science related to the theory of evolution, you can observe that (1) the evidence does not support random evolution and (2) guided evolution (where a higher power encouraged it along) is much more likely and could have happened. The second is a permitted belief (among many possible) among Catholics provided that this is for the physical body and not the soul.

Unfortunately you also have some Secular Humanists trying to embed their religion into the science of evolution and then use this “science” (which it is no longer) to disprove God or some of His aspects.

 

[hecd2]

Tom:

Science however does not contend God does not exist. In actuality most of the scientists who came up with the “big bang” theory were Christians, and if you read Gen. carefully, the big bang theory and the story of creation are almost identical.

Yes, that is so. Science has no competence to give any opinion on the existence of God or on other purely theological matters.

As, for the Big Bang, the father of this theory is generally acknowledged to be a Belgian Jesuit and cosmologist, Georges Lemaitre. Almost all cosmologists now support the Big Bang theory.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[rossum]

SocaliCatholic,

I do have some scientific training, though I am not a working scientist. Perhaps I can help with some of your questions.

SocaliCatholic:

is it a logical paralell to ask the same to a scientist who believes in evolution by asking him how his beliefs in evolution evolved?

Perfectly logical. As with most scientists I am driven by the evidence, that is by the scientific literature. If the bulk of the evidence supports something then I will support it.

Because evidence, tools for discovery, and theories are always changing, at what point is it logical to believe something that science puts forth?

Science does not deal with Absolute Truth (capital letters), science deals with “the best explanation of the available data that we currently have.” There is a spectrum of belief in science from wild guess, to possible hypothesis to reasonable hypothesis to likely theory to theory. Things move along this spectrum in both directions depending on the available evidence. Remember that Newton’s Theory of Gravity was once very securely established but is now downgraded and has been replaced by Einstein’s Theory of Gravity as it could not explain certain phenomema such as the precession of the orbit of Mercury. We also know that Einstein’s Theory does not cover everything since it breaks down at the quantum scale. There is definitely a new and better Theory of Quantum Gravity out there, we just don’t know what it is yet. Einstein is just the best we have at the moment.

The main thing to remember is that all scientific theories are provisional and subject to being replaced if a better theory comes along.

At what point am I qualified to belive in a scientific theory? For example, if I am an expert physicist, but not biologist, do I still have to take on faith what a biologist has discovered? How does a scientist protect himself from scientific heresies in other fields he does not specialize in or fully understand?

I cannot read either Greek or Hebrew. Therefore I have to trust that the Bible translations I read have been correctly translated. Since no one person can know everything, there must be a level of trust in the skills and professionalism of others. This is so in science as well. Science uses criticism to try to reduce errors to the minimum. All of science is up for scientific criticism. Any experiment that cannot be duplicated is immediately tagged as dubious. All logic is examined by other scientists and criticised. What emerges is not perfect, but it is very robust. The phrase “scientific heresy” is more used by journalists than by scientists.

Is there error in calling the earth spherical in the first place?

All such scientific results should come with a margin of error - “the earth is spherical to within 0.05%”.

Does scientfic authority come from the evidence presented, the person presenting it, or some other source?

The evidence presented and the logical inferences drawn from the evidence.

Do I belive something from science using the same critera I use to believe something non-science

Not always. There are non-scientific sources of knowledge. The Bible is a valid source of knowledge in theology but it is not a valid source in science. Even for a Christian scientist the Bible is not a valid source of scientific knowledge. A scientific audience may contain Christians, Jews, Moslems, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists etc. Within science only scientific evidence is valid, as it is the only source of knowledge that all scientists can agree on.

Thankyou for the interesting questions.

rossum

 

[JimG]

Science works from inductive reasoning, taking in a variety of experimental data to arrive at a hypothesis, then a theory, which can be tested through further experiment.

Philosophical thinking works from deductive reasoning, starting out with some first principles (i.e.: I exist. I can know, etc.) and reasoning to conclusions.

Neither method is suitable for all kinds of knowledge, and often the methods are intertwined.

It would be nice to have scientists who were familiar with the humanities and non-scientists who were at least conversant with the main ideas of science. Too often these two branches of knowledge simply get divorced from each other.

While the big bang is the most commonly accepted scientific idea of the origin of the cosmos, I think it is a mitake to lay too much theological weight on it. Some decades ago astronomer Fred Hoyle proposed what he called a “steady state” universe, which effectively had no beginning. Either view would have been compatible with God creating the universe. But the big bang is more philosophically satisfying. Nevertheless, it will continue to be tested by the scientific evidence.

JimG

 

[hecd2]

T.A.Stobie:

We can find many truths in science, such as 1+1 always equals 2.

1+1 always equals 2 is a mathematical truth not a scientific one. There is a difference.

We also find many theories, which are based on observations we have at the time, but could be disproven in part or in whole as evidence is further discovered.

All scientific theories are open to revision.

If you look at the science related to the theory of evolution, you can observe that (1) the evidence does not support random evolution and (2) guided evolution (where a higher power encouraged it along) is much more likely and could have happened.

Really???!! Do you think you can support your assertion that the evidence does not support random evolution as opposed to evolution ‘encouraged along by a higher power’. What particular evidence are you alluding to? I think the evidence supports the notion of random mutation and Natural Selection (which is quite different from the notion of ‘random evolution’). But the guiding influence that takes randomness out of evolution is Natural Selection not a higher power - at least not directly.However there is still quite a lot of randomness in evolution: have you heard of Kimura’s theory of Neutral Drift?

The second is a permitted belief (among many possible) among Catholics provided that this is for the physical body and not the soul.

I am opposed to the Church talking about ‘permitted beliefs’ when it comes to matters of science. The Church has already covered herself in ignominy sufficient times by meddling in science to have learned the lesson not to do so. I, and almost all Catholic scientists that I know simply ignore these admonitions and carry on doing science. That is the wise approach.

Unfortunately you also have some Secular Humanists trying to embed their religion into the science of evolution and then use this “science” (which it is no longer) to disprove God or some of His aspects.

Indeed it is inappropriate to use any part of science to attempt to disprove God or purely theological notions, but where these ideas spill over into science (eg genetic polygeny versus monogeny; directed evolution; mind as an emergent property of brain) the Church is extremely ill-advised to take a hard line against the science as it will almost certainly end up with egg on its face.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

JimG:

While the big bang is the most commonly accepted scientific idea of the origin of the cosmos, I think it is a mitake to lay too much theological weight on it. Some decades ago astronomer Fred Hoyle proposed what he called a “steady state” universe, which effectively had no beginning. Either view would have been compatible with God creating the universe. But the big bang is more philosophically satisfying. Nevertheless, it will continue to be tested by the scientific evidence.
JimG

Well it’s true that we shouldn’t lay too much theological emphasis on any scientific theory. However, Big Bang is preferred over the Hoyle, Bondi and Gold hypothesis not because of philosophical satisfaction but because of the evidence. The Steady State hypothesis bit the dust the day that Penzias and Wilson discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background. Recent detailed measurements of the CMB (such as those made by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotopy Probe) and galactic surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey are all homing in on a consensus cosmology. Steady State is just not a credible hypothesis anymore, because of the existence of the CMB, the temperature dependence of the CMB with red-shift, the existence of quasars and the uniformity of distribution with distance of weak radio sources. There is a lot more detail here:
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[rossum]

hecd2,

1+1 always equals 2 is a mathematical truth not a scientific one.

Even in mathematics it is not strictly true. In boolean algebra 1 + 1 = 1, in binary 1 + 1 = 10 and in numbers base three or greater 1 + 1 = 2. T.A.Stobie, SFO’s example was not well chosen.

I notice that in your post #10 you talk about the Big Bang. If you are interested in Cosmology then you may want to look at the Scientific American article The Myth of the Beginning of Time. It gives some insight into current hypotheses on the beginning (or not) of the Universe.

rossum

 

[AnAtheist]

rossum:

hecd2,
Even in mathematics it is not strictly true. In boolean algebra 1 + 1 = 1, in binary 1 + 1 = 10 and in numbers base three or greater 1 + 1 = 2. T.A.Stobie, SFO’s example was not well chosen.
rossum

You are confusing truth with notation. 10 (binary) equals 2 (decimal).
The + in your boolean example is not an addition operator, I suppose you mean AND or you are refering to group theory addition, which is usually noted a + with a circle around it.

 

[AnAtheist]

SocaliCatholic:

I am not a scientist, but I like science alot and after reading some of the evolution threads wrote down some questions becuase I am even more confused about what science is, and how it is possible?

Well, I am a scientist, so let me answer some of your questions:

SocaliCatholic:

• If a Christian claims charity is integral to being a Christian, and I hold him accountable to his own principles as to why he is not being charitiable, is it a logical paralell to ask the same to a scientist who believes in evolution by asking him how his beliefs in evolution evolved?
• Because evidence, tools for discovery, and theories are always changing, at what point is it logical to believe something that science puts forth?

Scientists do not “believe” in theories. Theories are checked by experiments whether they describe nature correctly or not. If a theory is applicable it is accepted, not believed in.

SocaliCatholic:

• At what point am I qualified to belive in a scientific theory? For example, if I am an expert physicist, but not biologist, do I still have to take on faith what a biologist has discovered? How does a scientist protect himself from scientific heresies in other fields he does not specialize in or fully understand?

Again, “heresy” is the wrong term. There is no faith in theories, hence no heretical theories. There are contardicting theories, and experiments will figure out which one is more applicable (i.e. correct).
After all, non-experts have to rely on the authority of the experts. And everyone is free to study the field one is interested in himself and become an expert too.

SocaliCatholic:

• If all the science community agrees on a particular fact or theory, are we still at the mercy of the grouping of previous definitions or descriptions? For example, if eveyone takes a snapshot of the earth from satellite, it appears the earth is round, but upon further inspection, the surface is not perfectly smooth, therfore it is not a perfect circle, so what is it? It is not flat or circle. I can observe all I want but cannot perfectly describe what it is beucase the variations of the earth defy any perfect geometric description. Is there error in calling the earth spherical in the first place?

Calling the earth sperical is an approximation. On a planetary scale it is round. Regarding mountains and valleys in orbital calculations is unnecessary.
Science often makes those approximations. If you calculate the time you need to get from New York to Washington by train, you do not use relativistic formulas, you simply divide the distance by the average velocity (t = s/v). This formula is wrong, but it does suffice for low velocities compared to lightspeed.

SocaliCatholic:

• There are some very smart scientist with big words I don’t understand, so if they tell me that something like evolution is likely true based on evidence, what guarantee do I have that they are correct it is true, if I am not an authority in that discipline? Does scientfic authority come from the evidence presented, the person presenting it, or some other source?

Again, you have to rely on the person. Keep in mind, that there are hundreds and thousands of experts on one topic constantly cross-checking their evaluations. There is no single source of authority. Like the Pope as the supreme authority in Church topics.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

Thank you very much to all who responded to my orignial post.

I am noticing a pattern here. If I may infer the following, It appears that like any school of thought, science is a range of thought with an open circle at each end of its range that can challenge eveything up to the point of the domain, but is not concerned with the ends of its domain itself, but assumes the validity of the ends of its domain of thought, and its discipline is the all the logic that is in between those assumptions Sort of like a relay race where the thought is passed onto the next group of people concerned with that school of thought.

So it appears that if I speculate about about the speed of light, science can describe what it is, but cannot tell me what it is!

Also it appears that if one were able to tell another person what something is there would be no need for any school of thought in the first place?

It appears that becuase science increases its control over nature over time that some people loose that humility and start beliving that science one day will be fully able to describe everything? So then if that were possible then the day that science actually described eveything it actually would not be science becuase science by its definition does not allow itself to fully describe everything???

 

[hecd2]

rossum:

hecd2,
Even in mathematics it is not strictly true. In boolean algebra 1 + 1 = 1, in binary 1 + 1 = 10 and in numbers base three or greater 1 + 1 = 2. T.A.Stobie, SFO’s example was not well chosen.

I notice that in your post #10 you talk about the Big Bang. If you are interested in Cosmology then you may want to look at the Scientific American article The Myth of the Beginning of Time. It gives some insight into current hypotheses on the beginning (or not) of the Universe.

rossum

No, This is not seeking truth but playing childish word games. My point does not depend on changing number base or changing logical systems. In base greater than three arithmetic 1+1=2. There - satisfied?

Have you read my article on the Big Bang and modern cosmology here:
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm
You will learn something.
I tend not to read popular science as presented in magazines like Scientific American, preferring the primary literature.

As for what happened before the Planck time, perhaps Samir Mathur and Stephen Hawking are homing in on it with their recent work on black holes. Are you interested in learning about this and why black holes are also relevant to the Universe before the Planck time?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[JimG]

hecd2:

However, Big Bang is preferred over the Hoyle, Bondi and Gold hypothesis not because of philosophical satisfaction but because of the evidence. The Steady State hypothesis bit the dust the day that Penzias and Wilson discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background.

Of course you’re right. I realize that the Steady State theory died some time ago of natural causes. I just wanted to caution that any scientific theory, by its very nature, may not be able to satisfactorily meet theological speculations, as they exist in two different spheres of knowledge.

JimG

 

[hecd2]

JimG:

Of course you’re right. I realize that the Steady State theory died some time ago of natural causes. I just wanted to caution that any scientific theory, by its very nature, may not be able to satisfactorily meet theological speculations, as they exist in two different spheres of knowledge.

JimG

Dear Jim, yes, of course this is generally true. The vast vast majority of scientists recognise that Steady State is a busted flush. Nevertheless some very respectable scientists like Burbridge and Narlikar and Hoyle up to his death in 2001 still supported it and Arp, a Nobel Laureate, supports the Plasma hypothesis. Nevertheless the very powerful consensus is around the Big Bang which has received overwhelming evidence in the last year in support of it.

Where theological and scientific ideas overlap and are in conflict( which ought to happen rarely), the theological should be cautious because the scientific can usually produce immediate objective evidence.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Vindex_Urvogel]

JimG:

Science works from inductive reasoning, taking in a variety of experimental data to arrive at a hypothesis, then a theory, which can be tested through further experiment.

Science as practiced since Popper is most certainly not inductive. Inductivism and positivist approaches to philosophy of science are quite thankfully dead.

Vindex Urvogel

 

[hecd2]

Vindex Urvogel:

Science as practiced since Popper is most certainly not inductive. Inductivism and positivist approaches to philosophy of science are quite thankfully dead.

Vindex Urvogel

Oh really? Science is not inductive since a philosopher of science that perhaps 2% of working scientists have even heard of wrote? If science is not inductive then what is it?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Mistermerlin]

My own theory is simple and to the point:
God created the universe in such a way so as to give the appearance that some other type of occurence happened. He may have created the universe only 6000 years ago and made it seem like there was life here millions of years before that. Or He may have made the universe millions of years ago. Either way, He is all powerful isn’t He? I think it’s a big test of our faith in HIM.