Science and religion

1. Science and religion

2. Science and Religion • Conflict between science and religion began well before Charles Darwin published Origin of the Species.  The most famous early controversy was the trial of Galileo in 1633 for publishing Dialogue, a book that supported the Copernican theory that the earth revolved around the sun, rather than--as the Bible suggests-- the other way around. 

3. Watch the Agenda / Propaganda • It is worth keeping in mind as you explore these areas that underlying the many debates is the question of humanity’s place within this process. For example it is arguable that much of the Roman Church’s problem with Galileo was that it threatened the strongly held belief that humanity was the centre of the universe and therefore the reason for creation.

4. Watch the Agenda / Propaganda • It did not, of course, help his case that he was wrong about the orbits. He thought that orbits were circular rather than elliptical which meant that any maps he produced would not help sailors navigate unlike Ptolemy’s maps which had been used successfully for centuries. Taking the time to read about the trial of Galileo would be a good introduction to the nature of this debate.

5. Science and Religion • A CREATIONIST: A creationist is a person who rejects the theory of evolution and believes instead that the each species on earth was put here by a Divine Being.  A Creationist might accept "micro-evolution" (changes in the form of a species over time based on natural selection), but rejects the notion that one species can-- over time-- become another species.

6. Science and Religion • Much like scientists creationists come in all shapes and sizes, with a wide range of differing beliefs. It is worth knowing a few of these so as to understand the in and outs of the debate.

7. Science and Religion • Flat Earth creationists, for example, would take a very literal view of the Genesis description of the world; namely that the earth is flat and covered with a firmament or solid dome. The way the writers of Genesis explain the waters in the vault above and below, for example, leads to a belief in the upper vault being the source of the Flood faced by Noah. While you may not meet many who hold this belief a society still exists and can be traced quite easily.

8. Science and Religion • Another alternative is the Young-Earth creationists, who hold that the age of the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years and that all life was created in six days, and by day they mean twenty-four hours. The way of working the date of creation out would be to count the generations from Adam and Eve. Archbishop Usher in fact tied it down to a particular date; he thought that creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23rd 4004 BC.

9. Watch the Agenda / Propaganda • Another trial which highlights the need to watch out for other agendas is the Scopes Monkey trial in Tennessee in 1925. “Inherit the Wind” - a film of the trial - is well worth watching, makes the case for science over religion in typical Hollywood manner.

10. Science and Religion • However, going beyond the evolutionary theory itself, the book Scopes was teaching from was using Darwin’s theories to argue for eugenics as a way of improving the human race which has mostly been discredited since the use of made of eugenic theories by the Nazi’s in the mid twentieth century.

11. Science and Religion • You may also want to explore the Omphalos argument which argues that the appearance of age was put in the world by God despite the earth actually being young. None of these though are the most common versions of creationism held today. It is generally accepted that Progressive Creationism, a form of Old Earth creationism, is the most popular view, amongst modern creationists.

12. Science and Religion • A great deal of modern science can be incorporated into this position where the Big Bang can be seen as evidence of the creative power of God. However they would not hold with progressive evolution, believing rather that God created ‘kinds’ of organisms in the order seen in the fossil record and that newer ‘kinds’ were specially created not mutated from earlier forms.

13. Science and Religion • These are just a few of the creationist views, which you can explore in more depth, and while some may allow Dawkins and others great fun at ridiculing, it is worth remembering that the Big Bang theory itself is a theory and does not paint a complete picture of the universe itself. In fact in many ways for atheists the theory raises as many questions as it answers.

14. Science and Religion • This theory is arguing that before the Big Bang there was nothing, no time and no space. Towards the end of the 1960’s and the beginning of the 70’s three astrophysicists from Great Britain, George Ellis, Roger Penrose and most famously Steven Hawkins, looked at what Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity would mean if it were extended to include measurements of time and space.

15. Science and Religion • Their conclusions led them to argue that time and space had a finite beginning and that this beginning corresponded to the beginnings of matter and energy. This is not unlike the philosophical view of creation put forward by Boethius which your Upper Sixth will be looking at this afternoon.

16. Science and Religion • For now though you need to try and imagine the universe springing into existence from a singularity about 13.7 billion years ago. No one knows exactly what a singularity is, however they are believed to be zones of density found at the centre of black holes. At the centre of the black hole finite matter is believed to be squashed into infinite density by the extraordinary gravitational pressures.

17. Science and Religion • Infinite pressure on finite matter may make for some good debates with your friends who are studying mathematics and physics. Scientists do not know where this singularity came from, though they do seem to be clear that before this singularity nothing existed no energy, no matter and as I have said no space time continuum either.

18. Science and Religion • As there was no space they had to conclude that the singularity did not appear in space but that space appeared inside the singularity. Science, then, cannot answer the question of where the universe came from, why it happened or even where it is. All scientists can really know is that we are inside of it.

19. Science and Religion • Many say that Science is about how we came to be and that philosophy is about why we came to be; I would hope that it is in this debate that scientists and philosophers recognise that they have much to learn from each other. It is also worth keeping in mind that examiners are not expecting anyone to find answers for these questions but they will expect you to show that you have read around the area and that you understand what the issues are.

20. The Survival of the Fittest • Darwin’s five year journey on the Beagle's through a very wide range of the earth's environments set the course for the rest of his life. During the voyage Darwin made meticulous notes on his observations led him to the conclusion that a gradual transformation of species had taken place which had brought about the spectacular variety of life which now exists on our planet. So he had to come up with a theory which explained the casual features which had brought this about. He was also keen that the explanations were empirically verifiable.

21. The Survival of the Fittest • The theory set out in The Origin of the Species can be seen as a series of causal elements that, working together, will produce the needed transformations. Scholars have summarises this process into 9 sections. • Species are made up from individuals that change ever so slightly from each other with respect to a wide number of traits. • Species on the whole increase in size over generations at an exponential speed.

22. The Survival of the Fittest • Within a species, nature creates a situation where there is a constant battle for survival. This is brought about by things like predators, disease and limited resources. • Nature would seem to give some members of a species slight advantage over the others. These will allow some to resist disease better, others to be faster than their predators, or others to find their needs more easily.

23. The Survival of the Fittest • It is then easier for these members of the species to survive and to care for their offspring. • As traits are inherited from parents, those who tend to survive better will pass on these survival traits to their offspring. • This is where Darwin gave the name of ‘Natural Selection’ to the process of passing on these favourable traits.

24. The Survival of the Fittest • Eventually, over a long period of time, natural selection will tend to make the nature of a species change. • It is this process which ultimately brings about new species with different classifications. The processes also weeds out changes or mutations which do not strengthen life. This theory not only explains the variety of species but predicts the need for continued changes both positive and negative among species.

25. The Survival of the Fittest One of the advantages of this narrative for Darwin is that each stage is empirically verifiable. It is important when thinking about the survival of the fittest though not to think in terms of physically stronger. Carl Sagan in his series of videos, Cosmos, gives a good example from Japan. Some of the crabs found near one of the islands had markings on their shells similar to a Samurai warriors face mask. Superstition stopped the locals from eating these crabs making that variation more likely to survive and more crabs with these markings spread through the islands.

26. Science and Religion Scholars have taken different stands on the significance of this work Writers such as Richard Dawkins are very clearly on one side and you can see this from many of his writings such as this one in the guardian on February the 9th 2008, he describes the theory of natural selection as: ‘Big enough to undermine the idea of creation but simple enough to be stated in a sentence, the theory of natural selection is a masterpiece..’

27. Science and Religion Other Darwinists, such as Michael Ruse, hold more nuanced positions and find Dawkins evangelical atheism unhelpful to the debate. When reading Dawkins discussions my own students very quickly spotted the basic problem with this end of the debate; namely, most people with a modern sophisticated understanding of religion do not recognise as valid the extreme versions of religious belief that he criticises. There are plenty of good arguments on both sides without depending on fundamentalist approaches from either side.

28. Science and Religion Some religious responses, for example would use the scientist own language and start with the second law of thermodynamics which is often better known as the scientific concept of entropy. This concept basically says that in any natural process there exists an inherent tendency towards the dissipation of useful energy, or in more basic terms left alone order tends to revert to chaos.

29. Science and Religion This would seem to fly in the face of all we have just discussed about natural selection tending towards the improvement of those species most capable of survival. Many would see this as pointing towards a divine agent, particularly as the degree of chance needed for the creation of life being against all the odds. This point is best explored through a study of the anthropic principle.

30. Science and Religion • There is also the obvious argument that many religious believers would use, which is that evolution can be seen as the method God uses to develop individual species within an overall plan beyond human comprehension. The same argument can be developed given a theist or deist view of a divine agent

31. Science and Religion A deist would simply see god as starting off creation and leaving it to develop; the sort of god who takes credit for the big picture but leaves the rest up to us. A theist can also see God in the developmental stages of each variation; though given some of the dead end mutations one might need to question the nature of such a god.

32. Science and Religion • There is no time here to go into all the arguments involved in this debate. However I would strongly recommend that you do your best to read some of the writing of scholars such as John Polkinghorne, a scientist and a Christian minister who has written extensively on this area. He has for example a fascinating chapter on creation in his book Science and Christian belief. Keith Ward also has several excellent arguments in his books listed in our bibliography and I would also recommend Alister McGraths interesting little book The Dawkins Delusion.

33. Science and Religion It is important to remember that for those who do not depend on a fundamental literalist view of sacred texts Darwin did not undermine their faith. In fact it could be argued that he took the debate forward in the process of the struggle to understand God and the universe which has gone on for as long as human beings have asked questions. It is just as important to make sure that you do not fall into the trap of looking for areas where scientist have no answer and saying ‘Ah there is where the work of our God may be found’.

34. Darwin’s Black Box Darwin said: ‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.’

35. Darwin’s Black Box Simply put, Michael Behe thinks he has found such a case. Behe claims that with the opening of the black box of the cell through the last 40 years of research in molecular and cell biology, there are now numerous examples of complex molecular machines that absolutely break down the theory of natural selection as an all-encompassing explanation of living systems.

36. Irreducible Complexity and Mousetraps Behe claims the data of biochemistry argues strongly that many of the molecular machines in the cell could not have arisen through a step-by-step process of natural selection. In contrast, Behe claims that much of the molecular machinery in the cell is irreducibly complex.

37. Irreducible Complexity and Mousetraps • What is irreducible Complexity? Something is irreducibly complex if it's composed of several parts and each part is absolutely necessary for the structure to function. The implication is that such irreducibly complex structures or machines cannot be built by natural selection because in natural selection, each component must be useful to the organism as the molecular machine is built.

38. Irreducible Complexity and Mousetraps Behe uses the example of a mousetrap. A mousetrap has five parts that are absolutely necessary for the mousetrap to function. Take any one of these parts away and the mousetrap can no longer catch mice.

39. Irreducible Complexity and Mousetraps The mousetrap must contain a solid base to attach the four other parts to, a hammer that clamps down on the mouse, a spring which gives the hammer the necessary power, a holding bar which holds the now energized hammer in position, and a catch to which the holding bar is secured, holding the hammer in coiled tension.

40. Irreducible Complexity and Mousetraps Eventually, the jiggling action of a mouse, lured to the catch by a tasty morsel of peanut butter, causes the holding bar to slip away from the catch, releasing the hammer to spring down upon the unsuspecting mouse.

41. Irreducible Complexity and Mousetraps It's fairly easy to imagine the complete breakdown of functionality if you take away any of these five parts. Without the base, the other parts can't maintain the proper stability and distance from each other to be functional; without the spring or hammer, there is no way to actually catch the mouse; and without both the catch and holding bar, there is no way to set the trap. All the parts must be present and accounted for in order for a mouse to be caught and the machine to function at all.

42. Irreducible Complexity and Mousetraps • You can't build a mousetrap by Darwinian natural selection. Let's say you have a factory that produces all five parts of a mousetrap but uses them for different purposes. Over the years as the production lines change, leftover parts of no-longer-made contraptions are put aside on shelves in a storage room. One summer, the factory is overrun with mice. If someone were to put his mind to it, he might run by the storage room and begin to play around with these leftover parts and just might construct a mousetrap.

43. Irreducible Complexity and Mousetraps • But those pieces, left to themselves, are never going to spontaneously self-assemble into a mousetrap. A hammer-like part may accidentally fall from its box into a box of springs, but it's useless until all five parts are assembled so they can function together. Nature would select against the continued production of the miscellaneous parts if they are not producing an immediate benefit to the organism.

44. Irreducible Complexity and Mousetraps One of Behe's examples is the cilium. Cilia are tiny hair-like structures on the outside of cells that either help move fluid over a stationary cell, such as the cells in your lungs, or serve as a means of propelling a cell through water, as in the single-celled paramecium.

45. Irreducible Complexity and Mousetraps • A cilium operates like paddles in a row boat; however, since it is a hair-like structure, it can bend. There are two parts to the operation of a cilium, the power stroke and the recovery stroke. The power stroke starts with the cilium essentially parallel to the surface of the cell. With the cilium held rigid, it lifts up, anchored at its base in the cell membrane, and pushes liquid backwards until it has moved nearly 180 degrees from its previous position.

46. Irreducible Complexity and Mousetraps • For the recovery stroke, the cilium bends near the base, and the bend moves down the length of the cilium as it hugs the surface of the cell until it reaches its previous stretched out position, again having moved 180 degrees back to its original position. How does this microscopic hair-like structure do this? Studies have shown that three primary proteins are necessary, though over 200 others are utilized.

47. Irreducible Complexity and Mousetraps • If you made a cross-section of a cilium and made a photograph of it with an electron microscope, you would see that the internal structure of the cilium is composed of a central pair of fibers surrounded by an additional 9 pairs of these same fibers arranged in a circle. These fibers or microtubules are long hollow sticks made by stacking the protein tubulin. The bending action of cilia depends on the vertical shifts made by these microtubules.

48. Irreducible Complexity and Mousetraps • The bending is caused by another protein that is stretched between the pairs of tubules called nexin. Nexin acts as a sort of rubber band connector between the tubules. As the microtubules shift vertically, the rubber band is stretched taut, the microtubules continue to shift if they bend. Whew! I know this is getting complicated, but hang with me a little longer.

49. Irreducible Complexity and Mousetraps • The microtubules slide past each other by the action of a motor protein called dynein. The dynein protein also connects two microtubules together. One end of the dynein remains stationary on one microtubule, while the other end releases its hold on the neighboring microtubule and reattaches a little higher and pulls the other microtubule down.

50. Irreducible Complexity and Mousetraps • Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion.