I'm a great believer in doubt. At least I think I am. (Creationism vs. Evolution)

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | January 17, 2006 | Ray Norris

[dead]

I AM a scientist and I have no beliefs. At least, I don't think I have.

But isn't that the point? If I knew I had no beliefs then that would itself be a belief. And that's the difference between science and belief, a point missed by advocates of intelligent design, who want their beliefs taught alongside science. A believer knows things, but a scientist tries to discover things. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against beliefs or religion. I have enormous respect for religion, and am fortunate to count Christians, Muslims, Wiccans and indigenous Australians among my friends.

And my respect for their beliefs is tinged with envy. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be supplied with a User Manual for life, an omniscient mentor who you can ask for advice, and a knowledge that if you screw up this life then there's always another one?

I am awed by their beliefs, which have inspired some great human achievements. Oh yes, and some of the bloodiest moments in our history, too - but we scientists and rationalists haven't done too well on that score either, have we?

Which brings me to morality. Every religion claims its own system of ethics and morality. Well, funnily enough, my morality is much the same as yours, whether you're Christian, Muslim, Wiccan or whatever. We all think it's bad to lie, steal, kill or rape. Most of us think tolerance is pretty good, too.

So who gave me my morals? Since they're shared by most of the world, regardless of religion, I expect it's coded in my genes. But maybe I'm wrong; maybe it originated in the Creation.

US creationists ask why a belief in mainstream science should get special treatment in schools, while a belief in creationist science is relegated to religious instruction. They miss the point. A believer in science is not a scientist. A true scientist has working hypotheses, any of which can be discarded if evidence for a better hypothesis comes along.

That's what science is - a pragmatic method for exploring our world. If creationism was able to predict discoveries and generate technology, science would embrace it in a flash. But it doesn't. It obviously works in a religious sense for its adherents, but it doesn't do much for the rest of us. It's simply a set of beliefs, not a technique for finding out about the world.

And that leads to a curious asymmetry. I can never come up with a scientific argument to invalidate the beliefs of my religious friends; they have rock-hard, first-hand experience of their faith. But my self-doubting "working hypothesis" of science is always open to attack. As a scientist I must always be open-minded and take seriously any competing idea that might have mileage.

And as an astrophysicist, I really ought to be paying attention. I'd look pretty silly telling St Peter I'd dedicated my life to finding out the secrets of the universe, and had overlooked this awesome Being who had created it.

I don't believe it's going to happen. But I could be wrong. Sorry.

Professor Ray Norris is an astrophysicist with the CSIRO Australia Telescope.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Do you "know" the earth revolves around the sun, or do you "believe" it?

[TigersEye]

I have no direct experience of it so it's a belief.

[wallcrawlr]

ping

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[js1138]

You are not responding to what I said. Faith and confidence are not synonyms. Words have connotations that aren't always made clear by dictionaries. Confidence implies favorable experience. Faith is independent of experience.

Science is based on experience, and science assigns various degrees of confidence to hypotheses and theories based on the ability to replicate results, the number of different sources and types of confirming evidence, the absence of contradictory evidence.

From what I have been able to gather from your posts, you do not assign a probability for your faith being correct. Science always deals with degrees of certainty and uncertainty.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You are not responding to what I said.

Sure I am. A thesaurus lists "confidence" as one of the synonymns for faith. The word faith has more to to with confidence than it has to do with unreasonable speculations or fantasies. Faith always has an object, and it is seldom, if ever, blind.

[punster]

Everyone failed to get the thrust of my arguments. The arguments were a slam on Louis Sheldon and other television evangelists.

[TN4Liberty]

I disagree with this pretty completely. It's true that rather than studying every scientific topic myself, I do have faith in the peer-review process.

Interesting point. Would the agreement of multiple concurrent, contemporaneous writings of events 2000 years ago count as peer review?

[coloradan]

But you would expect that to be the case whether evolution is true or false.

I'm not sure a creationist would expect that at all.

But the fact it is the case does not make evolution right (unless of course you presuppose common descent).

I agree with Karl Popper that you can't prove anything, only disprove something. I believe evolution is true, but I don't think similar-DNA "proves" it. However, there are things that, if they were true, would disprove it. But I don't think there's anything that could possibly disprove creationism, except God Himself coming down out of the clouds and denying it. Until that happens, no matter what we find out about life on this earth, creationists can simply say "God made it that way."

[Fester Chugabrew]

Would you consider it unscientific or inaccurate to say, "We know the earth revolves around the sun?"

[munchtipq]

Not really. Multiple people writing the same thing isn't really the same idea as a journal where what gets published has to be approved by experts in the field who can reproduce any experiments done in the paper, and see all the same evidence. I think that's more of a issue for judging historical accuracy rather than scientific validity...

[johnnyb_61820]

Why is this a difficult question? Every island has a unique population, even recently-birthed islands. Often times animals find their way by rafting. There are other modes of transportation possible as well. It is also possible that it hadn't broken off immediately afterwards yet.

[Rippin]

Sorry for being so slow :)

[TigersEye]

Would you consider it unscientific or inaccurate to say, "We know the earth revolves around the sun?"

Without an accompanying demonstration that puts one in direct experience with that knowledge? Yes. Without that it is a belief not knowledge.

[metmom]

Ummm,...they hopped?

[metmom]

moral absolutes ping?

[ThinkDifferent]

"Ever wonder how far space goes? It is does not go on forever"

I think it probably does.

I've heard this from a number of scientists and always found it confusing. Is the hypothesis that the universe is unbounded (like the surface of a sphere), or actually infinite in extent? If the latter, does that imply that there's an infinite amount of matter as well?

[microgood]

But not similar scars from viral infections. There is only one way that viral infection insertions can be inherited, and that is when the virus infects the egg or sperm cell prior to or at at the time of conception, thus changing the germ line. Such events are uncommon and, for the species, each such event is unique.

Assuming no horizontal transmissions, how is your statement about retrovirus insertions falsifiable? In other words, does this disprove universal common descent in that any species that did not have this viral insertion is not a common ancestor?

Also, if this is the evidence for common descent, how was common descent falsifiable before this discovery.

[Physicist]

I've heard this from a number of scientists and always found it confusing. Is the hypothesis that the universe is unbounded (like the surface of a sphere), or actually infinite in extent?

The universe is exquisitely flat...perfectly, as far as we can tell. That means it's like a hypersphere, but one with an infinite radius. Certainly the amount of space that's out there is very large compared to our Hubble volume.

If the latter, does that imply that there's an infinite amount of matter as well?

Yes. Of course, all but a tiny amount is receding from us faster than light.

[metmom]

"Thanks for responding in a civil manner. I know some of these discussions can get quite "emotional" :)"


Coyoteman's a gentleman who will have the patience to explain something to someone who has an honest question, even if he's answering the same question for the 50th time. He even puts up with the stupid stuff. He usually drops out when the going gets nasty. Just my observation.

[metmom]

Infomercial "wikipedia" carries Dr Ross as "Creationist" by profession, mentioning only in his bio that he is "trained in astronomy".

LOL. He's got a PhD in astronomy from the Universtiy of Toronto and a post doctoral fellow at CA Insitute of Technology for several years. (From the *about the author* section in a book of his I have.)