Ahmetcelik,
A recent edition of New Scientist (9 Jul 05) (newscientist.com) addresses this very issue, giving reference to further resources. It seems we are still caught in this conundrum of an argument.
It is important to understand that the notions of evolution and creation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. To start, for all we know, there may be a god who “created”…“evolution” (if I were God that’s what I’d do…then sit back and interactively enjoy the show).
You might be interested to do a bit of research on “scientific philosophy”.
The philosophy of science is a fascinating arena, and asks questions such as: “what is science?” (sounds simple)
“what can science do?”
“what is the nature of scientific explanation?”
According to scientific philosophy, the justification of scientific explanations occurs on different levels, from the naive level to the more sophisticated. It is interesting to note that most of the controversial arguments between science and religion occur on the naive level. Followers of Science and Religion alike volley with naively justified arguments that would make a true philosopher cringe.
Philosophers of science such as Karl Popper devoted much energy to ensuring that scientific explanations remain reliable, even confounding us with gems like “a good theory is one which, in theory, can be proven wrong in practice” Meditate on that one and you’ll see it’s true.
Scientific philosophy also explores the nature of logic, which leads to some interesting extrapolations like “just because the prediction came true doesn’t mean the theory is correct” Scientists don’t like stuff like that. Even though they’re supposed to search for truth, many are just searching for a Nobel, or perhaps a dirty great big grant.
Not that the motives of many religious establishments are any purer, in their so-called search for truth.
A scientific explanation gains its credibility by possessing certain characteristics such as:
-Naturalistic. Must appeal to naturalistic properties, processes, entities etc. For example, when determining why it storms, one should explore the possible natural causes, before assuming SUPERnaturalistic causes, such as an annoyed deity.
-Not spatio-temporally restricted. eg It’s not really a “law” if it only works at certain points in space and time.
-Supports counter-factuals. Conditional/hypothetical claims with the pattern
“If X were to be the case, then Y would be the case” where X and Y have never happened.
-Causal. Identifies causes of an observation. Like 1. Why does the old metal ruler expand when hot? The heat CAUSES the expansion.
Big problems come here, as the reasons for why things happen continue down orders of causal magnitude…
2.Why does heat make the ruler expand? Because the ruler is metal and as far as we know, heat always makes anything metal expand.
3.Why does all metal expand with heat? Because certain elements behave in such a manner…and temperature does certain things to systems…
…etc etc until you reach a certain depth of understanding and can at this time go no further.
If you asked a quantum physicist why metallic substances behave the way they do he’d rant on about subatomic particles and probabilities and then say “the subatomic particles behave this way because…they always have”. When looking at such explanations, it seems as though science does not really explain, merely describe. It describes how and what, rather than explains why. Which is still really cool. But proving ultimate explanations are beyond both parties at the moment; when you reach quantum level, even scientists rely on their faiths. And who’s to say there isn’t some sentient entity, composing and shaping, at the bottom of it all, behind all that is.
It would explain a lot.
Then again, perhaps there is no end, like when you face two mirrors together. Each level of perception gets deeper and deeper infinitely and there is no ultimate reason why, or description of what. And this does not dispel the notion of God either.
So, as science and religion throw nonsensical arguments at each other, we might begin to ask “what’s really the issue?”
The battle for epistemological authority seems to be the driving force for both contenders. They both want to be the one EVERYONE goes to for answers. This is because, in this world, epistemological authority is the ultimate power. No wonder neither pole will give up. No wonder at the underhanded things both have done to try and preserve or enhance their status in the eyes of hoi polloi.
There should be no argument. Anyone who has studied any science, and not at least wondered about a God-like entity, suffers from some kind of blindness.
The order and complexity of life (and the closer you look the more complex it becomes) could stand as testimony to the intentions and ingenuity of a creator. How many times have you heard a scientist call DNA a blueprint? A map, a code, a plan, programming…sounds suspiciously like someone clever designed something.
But even those who assume divine design exists should not wish to prevent scientific exploration from delving as deep as it can. While this can make a mockery of many religious, orthodox explanations (eg thunder comes from pressure waves, not angry gods), the search for a deeper understanding leads to life enhancing enlightenments.
In medicine, for example, continuing research has enabled professionals to understand the body in ways never before known. New structures and biochemical pathways discovered mean treatments can be developed for previously incurable conditions.
So, while we should consider that God may well exist at the end of reason, or exist wherever he wants even if there is no final reason, we should still marvel as scientific revelations increase our understanding of our own astonishing existence.
S.
