Science & Religion - Not Incompatible

[snakelegs]

“One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war.” - Francis Collins

the other night i heard on npr that francis collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute was retiring. there was a brief interview with him, which pricked my interests - i thought the guy was pretty cool because his thinking is sort of like mine - which of course is cool. francis collins has no problem combining science & religion (in his case, christianity) whatsoever. i have heard of scientists who are religious (and i'm sure there are many more than the few i've heard of), but this is the first time i've run into A Big Guy, mainstream and well respected.
personally, i don't understand those who seem to think that science and religion are incompatible - for me, learning more about nature and its sheer awesomeness has played an important part in my developing belief in god.

for those who want to read more about him i found this interview:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/collins.html

i also found this long talk he gave at stanford university. for those who like to stare at people talking, they even have a video too.

here's the link.

http://franciscollinstalk.stanford.edu/

 

[Tornado]

Science and religion can be compatible if what religion says doesn't contradict science. I don't see how that's difficult to understand?

 

[MustafaMc]

I myself am a scientist - a geneticist and cotton breeder. There is absolutely no scientific knowledge I am aware of that is at odds with my religion. In fact, the depth of my scientific knowledge, Masha'Allah, reinforces my faith in a Creator.

 

[snakelegs]

i see them as completely different systems of knowledge - not competitors. both are useful.
i also don't see any conflicts. but i also don't talk any religious books literally.
i also think many "scientific minded" types think that nothing exists if it can not be studied in a test tube.

 

[root]

I myself am a scientist - a geneticist and cotton breeder. There is absolutely no scientific knowledge I am aware of that is at odds with my religion. In fact, the depth of my scientific knowledge, Masha'Allah, reinforces my faith in a Creator.

Are you an evolutionist or creationist?

Do you think the temple foundation is in harmony with science?

 

[MustafaMc]

Are you an evolutionist or creationist?

I believe that Allah created life and all living and extinct species. By what means and over how much time this creation occurred does not change His acts of creating.

Do you think the temple foundation is in harmony with science?

I don't know what "temple foundation" means.

 

[root]

Evolutionist or creationist?

 

[MustafaMc]

Evolutionist or creationist?

Well, what does, "I believe that Allah created life and all living and extinct species" mean to you? I am certainly not a strict naturalistic evolutionists, but I have no problem with the evolutionary process IF that was the means through which Allah actively created the species. BTW the involvement or non-involvement of a Creator in the origin of species can neither be scientifically proven nor can it be scientifically disproven. However, I have not been shown logically the means through which all species could have spontaneously appeared without the involvement of a Creator.

Can three bricks ever be stacked end-to-end on top of each other without a cognizant being stacking them?

_ _ _

>

l
l
l

 

[Tornado]

Well, what does, "I believe that Allah created life and all living and extinct species" mean to you? I am certainly not a strict naturalistic evolutionists, but I have no problem with the evolutionary process IF that was the means through which Allah actively created the species. BTW the involvement or non-involvement of a Creator in the origin of species can neither be scientifically proven nor can it be scientifically disproven. However, I have not been shown logically the means through which all species could have spontaneously appeared without the involvement of a Creator.

Can three bricks ever be stacked end-to-end on top of each other without a cognizant being stacking them?

_ _ _

>

l
l
l

Argument from Design?

If you say that monkeys and other apes are our close (relatively) cousins and say that all organisms, including us, are at the edge of the evolutionary tree. Is this the case? Then you are an evolutionist (so obviously you can say this was god's plan).

If you don't agree with the top, then you are a creationist.

 

[MustafaMc]

If you say that monkeys and other apes are our close (relatively) cousins and say that all organisms, including us, are at the edge of the evolutionary tree. Is this the case?

I neither say that it is true, nor do I say that it is false. I have not seen evidence to prove one way or the other.

An analogy to consider... I find it difficult to imagine that I was ever a single egg from my mother that was fertilized by a single sperm from my father, that this zygote went through many directed mitotic divisions through various stages of development, and that I continued to develop through natural processes to the baby that was born nearly 50 years ago. However, since I have enough understanding of the biological processes that acted in sequence and concert for it to actually happen, I accept it as fact. The Theory of Evolution is a weak attempt to "scientifically" explain the Origin of the Species without the involvement of a Creator. When and if the gaps are adequately filled in then I will reconsider my position.

 

[MustafaMc]

On the video, the lecturer proposes Theistic Evolution and then puts forth a term "Biologos" at 1:19:40 which he defined as "God speaking life into being". It is interesting that the Qur'an says of Jesus at 3:59 In fact the example of the birth of Jesus in the sight of Allah is like the example of Adam who had no father and mother, whom He created out of dust, then said to him: "Be" and he was.

In the video, I found the similarity between human chromosome #2 and two shorter chromosomes in the apes to be very interesting. This can imply a common ancestor for humans and apes, but can it not also imply that apes "de-evolved" from humans through a detrimental chromosomal breaking mutational event? Its a stretch, but could this actually be spelled out in the Qur'an at 2:65 You very well know the story of those of you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath; We ordered them: "Be detested apes".

This illustrates my main objection against naturalistic evolution and that it relies upon a destructive process, mutation, as the fundamental CREATIVE process to create advantageous genetic variation for natural selection to act upon.

 

[Tornado]

You then seem to be a creationist. I'm not aware of blatant gaps that exists (even if there were gaps, I'm reminded of idea "god of the gaps" You may have not seen evidence, but it's there. Theory of evolution is anything but weak seeing how this, above any other, would be the most scrutinized idea and yet it continues to survive after a century (150 years now since Darwin published his book?) even as I'm guessing entirely new fields pop up. I can easily regard Darwin's (plus anyone else who had the idea/contributed) idea to be at the top of important scientific discoveries.

Regarding that second post, remember, we are also apes. You are definitely a fan of god of the gaps. A theory encompassing life is bound to not have all the answers so soon.

Slightly off topic I think now, sorry.

-Peace

 

[MustafaMc]

You are definitely a fan of god of the gaps. A theory encompassing life is bound to not have all the answers so soon.

And as I said, when I see additional evidence, I will reconsider my stance. Even if naturalistic evolution is proven as fact, do you think that science can ever PROVE that Allah was not actively involved in the process?

 

[Tornado]

And as I said, when I see additional evidence, I will reconsider my stance. Even if naturalistic evolution is proven as fact, do you think that science can ever PROVE that Allah was not actively involved in the process?

God lies in a different magisteria. At no point did anyone say it didn't involve a god. I'm astounded by additional evidence you would need aside from the plethora that is already there. Little details fall in the gaps of god idea.

-
Peace

 

[MustafaMc]

I'm astounded by additional evidence you would need aside from the plethora that is already there.

I have a problem with the process of superior multicellular, multiorgan beings spontaneously (without the active direction of a Creator) evolving from a unicellular common ancestor (that doesn't even have a nucleus to contain the chromosomes) by predominately relying upon a destructive subprocess, mutation, to create superior genetic variation that results in a superior protein function. It is like saying that a man operating a crane with only a wrecking ball built the Empire State Building from iron ore and sand.

 

[Tornado]

Time is the biggest factor here(billion years is a very long time) and anything can happen. I'd understand if you said that god helped evolution out but it seems you almost reject it saying it couldn't happen (it happened, what other explanations would you give for why we so closely resemble other apes both physically and genetically and the fossils are already there on the biological tree (if some aren't --> god of gaps) and genes only further enhance support of evolution. Evolution is a process, not something that magically creates complex things (Empire State Buildings).

At least you require evidence for some things.

So it's safe to say that by not actually accepting evolution and being a creationist (which you don't have to be by simply asserting that god helped evolution), that science and religion in your case are not compatible.

-
Peace be with you.

 

[MustafaMc]

I'd understand if you said that god helped evolution out but it seems you almost reject it saying it couldn't happen (it happened, what other explanations would you give for why we so closely resemble other apes both physically and genetically and the fossils are already there on the biological tree (if some aren't --> god of gaps) and genes only further enhance support of evolution. Evolution is a process, not something that magically creates complex things (Empire State Buildings).

No, I don't accept that "Allah helped out evolution", but I personally don't have a problem with "Allah could have actively created the living and extinct species through the process that we understand as evolution".

So it's safe to say that by not actually accepting evolution and being a creationist (which you don't have to be by simply asserting that god helped evolution), that science and religion in your case are not compatible.

I am a creationist though not in the typical sense of six 24 hour days. By what process Allah created species is relatively irrelevant to me, even if that process was evolutionary He still directed the process and He defined the end results. The problem is that this can neither be scientifically proven nor disproven - yet it is my innermost belief that is what happened.

 

[Azy]

I am a creationist though not in the typical sense of six 24 hour days. By what process Allah created species is relatively irrelevant to me..

One of the things I find interesting about creationism is that it's proponents will hound evolutionists with questions of "how? How? HOW?" and express total disbelief at an explicable mechanical process, but are completely unfazed and uninterested by the processes involved in an intelligent agent creating a whole universe by simply willing it.

 

[MustafaMc]

One of the things I find interesting about creationism is that it's proponents will hound evolutionists with questions of "how? How? HOW?" and express total disbelieve at an explicable mechanical process, but are completely unfazed and uninterested by the processes involved in an intelligent agent creating a whole universe by simply willing it.

I contend that the Theory of Evolution is not an "explicable mechanical process" because it leaves out so many of the hows and interjects "over enough time the small changes somehow lead to new and improved species". I am a geneticist and I am knowledgeable about mutations. The foundation creative process for evolution is a DESTRUCTIVE process - mutation. So many of these mutations are masked because they are in recessive form. When close relatives have offspring (incest or marrying 1st cousins) are the children significantly stronger and more intelligent than their parents or are they often born with birth defects and expressing other genetic disorders? Well, this is a prime example of the effects of mutations on "survival of the fittest".

I am indeed amazed at the intricacies of genetics and biology. Likewise, I was amazed to learn that the human chromosome 2 apparently is a composite of 2 smaller chromosomes in apes. This was put forward as evidence for undirected evolution from a common ancestor, but I can imagine that Allah could have directed the development over time of the ape and the human species from a common ancestor, or He could have created them instantly from clay or other common building materials. The irrelevance comes in to play in that neither affects my faith in Allah as the active Creator of the species.

 

[Azy]

I'm sure we've been through a lot of this before in another thread, but just putting most of the points aside for a moment...

Why do you dismiss certain scenarios as unlikely when you would be quite happy to accept that God could have created us from clay and left false evidence pointing to evolution within the DNA of humans and apes?

What is it about these scenarios that make them more or less likely in your mind?