Evolutionary theory is far more complex (and exciting) than that. My impression is that research is progressing in all areas (“macro” and “micro”) to solve problems, fill gaps, and to take advantage of new methodology. Disciplines from palaeontology to biochemistry and molecular biology are involved. The theory is dynamic, constantly being enriched and developed.

I think, in this situation if people find new knowledge conflicts with their beliefs they should at least entertain the idea (as the Dalai Lama suggests) of changing their beliefs rather than trying to change reality. And, I agree that does eventually happen – religious beliefs have radically changed over the last few centuries (although some still cling to old versions).

The “god question” (is there or isn’t there one) doesn’t particularly interest me because there is no clear hypothesis (everyone’s god is different, personal to them), it seems to have more to do with personal emotional satisfaction. it is a problem only when it becomes more than a personal belief, a reason for telling other people how to live their lives or instruct them on the nature of reality.

Anyway, I agree it shouldn’t be left to the physicists. I suspect though, the really interesting aspect of this area is not “does a god exist or not” but how the concept has evolved in humanity’s minds, its historical role (for bad as well as good), and the role it plays today (together with other similar beliefs). I think we (humanity) is only starting to investigate these areas and I also think the role of areas like evolutionary psychology and neuroscience will be more important than physics.

I actually worded that a bit sloppy… I suggest we need to employ other disciplines, other fields of enquiry, other areas of thought – other than physics, for example – in order to really get anywhere in the ‘god discussion’.

To restate (some of) my view again:
-God is the ‘Creator’, meaning that all things (reality) exist because of God’s nature/intent/purpose/action.
-Genesis 1-2 is a Theological text, not a scientific one, so arguements about 7-days, etc. are burdening the text with a burden never intended for it to bear.
-Micro-evolution (change within species) is observable and certainly believed by me…
-Macro-evolution (common descent of all life to one species) is not only theoretical still, but must be challenged/sharpened/etc. like any other theory (I suspect you agree?)

enough for now…

-d-

If there is more to reality than “material” (as most people understand it – as having “substance”) then of course we study it in the scientific manner (What has happened is that the meaning of “matter” and “material” has changed over the years as we have become aware (by scientific investigation) of the deeper complexity of reality – that is why I say the word is loaded).

I don’t think science “discards” theories because of words (these sort of words don’t usually get used in day-to-day science). But theories do get tested and consequently rejected, modified, developed. It’s happening all the time – show me a theory which doesn’t develop in this way and I say it will be a dogma, not a scientific theory. Evolution itself is a great example of a changing, live, theory because it is being tested in practice. If the proponents of ID would only genuinely develop their ideas in this scientific manner there would be some chance of any valid parts of their ideas being confirmed and adopted. (No other scientific group has produced textbooks for children before doing the science – that surely tells us something!)

Yes, I do not believe in the non-material (used in the general way – non-natural or supernatural). That is my personal belief. (It has to be personal as there is no way of testing one way or the other.) But, over the years, I have worked with many people who do profess a belief in the supernatural – that is there personal belief. It’s never been a problem and the scientific method has always been the same – building theories based on testable evidence. (I think this sort of experience of cooperation and common values leads to people respecting the beliefs of others).

“I say again; If reality includes the ‘non-material’, then we may need to employ other ’sciences’ in our use of the principles of the scientific method…” What other science? I am at a loss to understand how we study something in a testable, verifiable way if we assume that it is not ordered, not capable of interaction and hence not capable of being (potentially) known and understood. I think when we are confronted with something like this we just have to see it as a matter of personal belief rather than scientific theory. And aren’t most Christians happy to accept evolution that way – to believe their God had some sort of hand in it without feeling the need to distort the science – in fact accepting and using the science.

You’re right, I am always in a hurry – full time job, theological paper with lots of reading, part time rock-star [:)], husband, etc. I squeeze in what I can when I get time!

Re: Enlightenment – indeed, we don’t want to go back to pre-’it’, but I suggest we (I for one) don’t want to be hand-cuffed by its terms: i.e. the sharp divide between ‘nature’ and ’super-nature’. As if we could lump all the things we ‘understand’ into the ‘nature’ category, and all things we don’t ‘understand’ into the ’super-nature’ category.

You should know me well enough from my previous comments on other blogs [:)], to anticipate my reaction(s) to not only the word ’supernatural’, but also the word ‘objective’ (both of which you used at least twice), as if anyone’s perspective of ‘reality’ is ‘objective’. (There is no view from nowhere…) You should also know how much I totally agree with the principles of the scientific method (and it’s philosophical side-kick ‘critical realism’).

But the scientific method should be un-biased. It should not discard some theories because they use certain words. It should not have any way to discern between what you call ‘normal naturalist science’ and any other kind of science.

Perhaps these thoughts will help…

‘Critical realism’ and the ’scientific method’ share the same principles – they operate on the same assumptions. One is a philosophical method, the other is (aptly named!) a ’scientific’ one. Who says that the ’scientific’ one can only operate with material things? What if there is more to reality than ‘material’? (I am aware how frustrating ‘what-if’ questions can be, but I only use that form because I am under the impression that you deny the ‘non-material’)

Can you see how it could appear that you are drawing your own boundaries for what will ‘fit’ (only ‘normal’, ‘natural’, ‘objective’)?

I say again; If reality includes the ‘non-material’, then we may need to employ other ’sciences’ in our use of the principles of the scientific method…

(I sincerely hope your use of ’supernatural’/'objective’/'normal’/etc. will be more careful…)

Always enjoy the dialogue, and thank you again for the on-going sharpening!

-d-

Well done post. I’ve got to be quick (I’m cooking tonight!), but a few questions/comments…

“Scientific theories are derived from empirical evidence, formulation of hypotheses, testing in practice and experiment, objective assessment of results involving statistical analyses and critique by colleagues and publication by a peer-reviewed process. We just don’t deem knowledge scientific until it has undergone this process.”

A lot of word-defining could ensue from this list of requirements for entry into the pearly gates of ’scientific knowledge’. It seems that if reality (in theory) includes (for want of a better word) ‘things’ that are non-material, then they wouldn’t make it very far down this list. So, is this presentation of the scientific method exclusive to material ‘things’? Should we seek a way to ‘open’ (a cheeky reference to this blog’s title!) the method to the non-material? Surely the principles of the scientific method would allow this suggestion to be ‘innocent until proven guilty’?

-d-