Can Science Find God?

[The Happy Humanist]

This question is mainly (but not exclusively!) for the scientists out there.

I have been debating a gentleman in email, who asked me what I would consider as proof of God. I thought about it, and decided that, if a few dozen stars were to suddenly rearrange themselves to spell out "Howdy, it's me! -- GOD", I might be swayed. OK, I would be seriously challenged. OK, OK, I'd be singing Hosannahs and heading for the confessional.

He replied that he doubted it, that astronomers would merely chalk it up to "coinicdence", or swamp gas, or just "unknown." That got me to thinking. I know that Science is supposedly neutral w/r/t God and the supernatural; that is, it doesn't deny they exist, it just isn't set up to study that realm, or magisterium, so it can't say anything about them.

But what about a case like this, where God (finally) shows his hand unmistakably? Am I right in saying that Science would be forced to at least acknowledge that "after significant study, the phenomenon in question seems to be attributable to an entuty called God, through mechanisms currently unknown to us, but which may involve supernatural forces"? Or is my friend right, that there still could be and would be no acknowledgement?

Basically, would Science be allowed to acknowledge God if it found him?

[Bro Dave]

Why should an animal “care” whether or not it survives? Really! Even at the single cell level, life has this “desire” to avoid destruction. Why? How can a single cell animal have sufficient awareness to recognize the consequences of NOT surviving?

I'd like this question to be chiselled in stone somewhere -- along with the answer because it really is a "penny-drop" moment. All the animals that didn't care if they survived are long-gone... eaten, squashed, drowned or whatever, before they had a chance to breed. Likewise the 'awareness' of the single cell comes not from within, but from its adaptation to its environment. All the poorly adapted variations are history.

The percentage of “lucky” single cell animals that had the Happy Accident of receiving the “awarness” gene, would have to be vanishingly tiny! And, what about the “suicide” gene that is equally likely present? If you model is correct, then I conclude there must be no life on Earth! It just didn’t stand a chance.

Here you seem to accept that higher evolved creatures have their own awareness which has been transmitted up through their genetic lineage. This is easy to envisage because they have obvious sensors and motors (feelers, eyes, legs, tails etc.) to translate what's going on in their environment into an appropriate reaction for survival. But you're now balking at single-cell creatures with no apparent capacity for awareness.

In the case of these organisms they too evolve connections between stimulus and reaction but in far less obvious ways. All the action takes place at a much simpler chemical level with no mediation from a brain. The genetic coding still commands the construction and hence reaction to environmental conditions e.g. salinity, acidity, temperature and so on. Again evolved reactions result in chemical activity within the cell which produce the most appropriate reaction fro survival such as shutting-off absorbtion through membranes.

I find it fascinating, how you just accept that four chemical, arranged in a helix can somehow,(we really do not know how) manage to control whether to begin making a blade of grass or an elephant! Not only that, but DNA controls growth rates in a way that bones and muscle keep in step. It wires everything to a brain, and can even controls the body temperature within tenths of a degree. All this, while running a precise bioclock that over decades, syncronises our lives.

This is simplicity exercising complexity beyond human comprehension.

Unlike higher creatures these reactions are not mediated by a brain, but it makes absolutely no difference. Even animals with brains react to danger in an autonomous way as it is often the more expedient method of surviving.

So in both cases random mutations to the construction details can result in changes to the way an organism reacts to its environment and hence determine its success or failure in that environment. Certain tiers of this process are also concerned with the degree of variability that is permitted and these too are subject to natural selection in a way that keeps the whole process on track towards the simple, autonomous 'goal' of survival.

I know you do not want to address this, but what “repository of intellect” sets this goal?
What is capable of the recognition of faults and opportunities, and what then alters sophisticated biochemistries to product the required optimized changes? I know... Happy accidents.

Once again, all the organisms that had not evolved such refinements met with untimely extinctions.

Many branches are developed because they are needed to complete a planned more sophisticated design, and then are allowed to become extinct.

There are billions of 'happy accidents' in this process, just as there are billion of unhappy ones too. The trick is that the unhappy ones are soon lost to the world, while the creatures benefiting from the happy ones are the ones we see all around us. I rather think it's time you stopped referring to 'happy accidents' in the way you do. It makes no point of worthiness except to draw obvious criticism.

No, the point it makes, is that happy accident and Unhappy accidents must also produce many many benign absurdities. These are not present, and cannot be ignored simply because you have no way to address them.

We are limited in our ability to grasp concepts outside of our experience, or at least vicariously of the experiences of others. The concept of non-time and non-space, are just now being seriously considered. Once you get your arms around those concepts, the concept of the “eternal now” makes more sense, and God residing there seems entirely reasonable. It removes the necessity of being or not being created. God simply “is”.

I see this as a question of "who deserves the credit" for everything. Sure the universe is a fantastic place but I think this fact tempts people into assuming something even more fantastic deserves to be given the credit for it all. Here comes the tricky bit: there are plenty of natural examples of things that look designed, that look like someone ought to be given credit for them -- like the Giants Causeway who's very name exemplifies the human instinct to give credit to the supernatural for what are in reality natural occurences. But die-hard spiritualists can always claim that supernatural forces have forged the world in such a way as for these natural things to emerge in the first place. But this only strikes me as a redundant move. Once this view is set aside fro a moment and the circular reasoning that goes with it is broken, we do indeed see that natural forces are capable of producing fantastic things. And hence that is where all the credit should go.

I think we are in an area of agreement. It is indeed all about who gets the credit,(or in this case does NOT). God certainly does not need our credit, and for me, I simply try to seek the truth, no matter where it leads me.

However, I do care when very intelligent people, find it necessary to reject even the possibility of the universe having a Creator, and therefore a direction and a plan. I understand that many religionists have so muddied the intellectual waters, by proclaiming Deity is everything from terrifying to silly! I also understand that because of this, many intelligent people find it necessary to distance themselves from all things spiritual. But that is sad, not to mention unscientific. Starting out by throwing away a possible explanation is sure to taint the outcome of any investigation.

I think we have both managed to express our understandings here, and I suspect neither will change their opinion with further debate. I only hope that there are no doors so forbidden, that you cannot open them. I do accept evolution as an awesome mechanism. Our real difference is I see it as an intelligent tool, and you see it as a random accident.

And so, unless you’d really like to do so, I see no point pursuing this further. I have been honored to participate in these exchanges.

Bro Dave

[QED]

I find it fascinating, how you just accept that four chemical, arranged in a helix can somehow,(we really do not know how) manage to control whether to begin making a blade of grass or an elephant!...

...This is simplicity exercising complexity beyond human comprehension.

I would not accept it if it was just four chemical bases that started things of, but this is not how it was. There are known chemical precursors that initiated higher levels of order. Of course it all looks to be beyond comprehension, but that's the top-down view. Have you never engaged in a long term project where the accumulation of many small acts has assembled into one almighty piece of work? I'd suggest thinking of the progress from a three-note theme to an entire symphony in the mind of Beethoven or the individual paint dabs from the hand of Vermeer. Of course these are examples of conscious creations which we are so familiar with, but geology has its own counterparts that form the landscape around you.

I know you do not want to address this, but what “repository of intellect” sets this goal?

I don't see why you get the impression that I am avoiding answering your questions -- unless my answers are being totally overlooked...

What is capable of the recognition of faults and opportunities, and what then alters sophisticated biochemistries to product the required optimized changes? I know... Happy accidents.

I can see that you still haven't got the gist of this: 'Recognition' of faults and opportunities stem from the outcome of the 'field testing' of any given random mutation. A 'fault' will show up as a failure to persist with that particular mutation. An opportunity will be 'recognized' as an increase in the population bearing that mutation. The biochemistry is being randomly jiggled in a 'sensible' fashion (evolution having already set limits on how things can go on average) and the environment is the 'judge' of the success or failure. The “repository of intellect" that you're looking for is spread out between the two: the organism and its environment -- both of which are dynamic.

I think we have both managed to express our understandings here, and I suspect neither will change their opinion with further debate. I only hope that there are no doors so forbidden, that you cannot open them. I do accept evolution as an awesome mechanism. Our real difference is I see it as an intelligent tool, and you see it as a random accident.

And so, unless you’d really like to do so, I see no point pursuing this further. I have been honored to participate in these exchanges.

Well I've done my best to explain why I see no yawning chasm in the material analysis of life and how it all evolved. A clear view of how every plant insect and animal that ever was has come about gives a perspective that you yourself seem to acknowledge, only to you the results of this process seem so awesome that you readily believe those telling you that evolution was devised as a clever tool to bring it all about.

But understanding the process means that we should look past the wonder of its products and ask instead if there is anything miraculous about the process itself (let's remind ourselves that we agree the process as described is fully sufficient for the production of every living thing). The process however is so simple as to be inevitable. Anything that can replicate itself with a degree of variability will find a way to persist in a variable environment when viewed as a collective. The question becomes "is this something so complex that it had to be set up by an intelligence?" To me it seems an inevitable consequence of logic. Now you can argue that there is metaphysics involved in reaching this point, but that's where I leave the discussion.

[Impstout2]

Yes! As soon as science can reproduce the creation of life from non life.
The idea that chemicals can self organize should be replicable. If it cannot be replicated than how is it good science to say life just occurred from nothing? Science has shown us how evolution has changed life, just not how life started. If life can evolve from non-life why has it not continued for the billions of years the earth has been here. Why is new life not forming all the time. Old life changes all the time but no new life has appeared. Does this show the existence of God? Hardly. It does show that the creation of life is very rare though. God is as good an explanation as any science has given to the beginning of life.

[The Happy Humanist]

Yes! As soon as science can reproduce the creation of life from non life.
The idea that chemicals can self organize should be replicable. If it cannot be replicated than how is it good science to say life just occurred from nothing? Science has shown us how evolution has changed life, just not how life started. If life can evolve from non-life why has it not continued for the billions of years the earth has been here. Why is new life not forming all the time. Old life changes all the time but no new life has appeared. Does this show the existence of God? Hardly. It does show that the creation of life is very rare though. God is as good an explanation as any science has given to the beginning of life.

I fail to see how God is a good explanation of how life began. A good explanation provides some understanding of the process, even if only a rough outline. We can hypothesize a rough outline of how life began on this planet, interaction of certain chemicals, reducing atmosphere (which by the way explains why we don't see the process today), etc. Can you give me even the barest outline of the actual process God used to create life? Did he have blueprints? Did he use casting molds? If he just "spoke" life into existence, can you describe how this works? By what process do the words create reality? If you cannot give us any answers to this, then your "explanation" hardly qualifies as scientific, and thus is best left out of science classes.

[Ian Parker]

I fail to see how God is a good explanation of how life began. A good explanation provides some understanding of the process, even if only a rough outline.

There is in fact the possibility of some form of experimental verification along the lines of exobiology. If as many people suppose life originated in volcanic vents this process should be repeatable elsewhere. There are volcanic vents on Europa. Actually the ice surface is fairly young, if there is strongly established life it might not be necessary to drill 100km through. There will be the remains of life in a cubic meter of top ice.

If there is no life on Europa it would cast doubt on the volcanic vent theory. Life on Mars by the way is no proof either way as life can travel from Earth to Mars on meteorite debris.

The general theory of life put forward is that it evolved from self replicating chemicals. What the statistics of this process was no one knows. The aced test to me is its repeatability. The fact that life is not arising all the time is no real argument. The fact is that the present Earth is a competitive environment in which the first cell would be "unfit".

[QED]

I think it's a good question to ask: Why is all (known) life based on the same basic system of DNA? I think it was Jose that pointed out that life is pernicious -- it feeds on other life all the time. Everywhere we look we see the same system because it squashes any other evolving contenders before they get anywhere. Multinational companies display the same sort of behavior and if we are still around in a billion years time MicroSoft will probably be supplying us with our toothpaste and everything else.

[Impstout2]

I fail to see how God is a good explanation of how life began.
God is as good an explanation
"
AS good" is not the same as" good."
The question was Can science find God
My answer was Yes! As soon as science can reproduce the creation of life from non life.
[
color=darkred]We can hypothesize a rough outline of how life began on this planet, interaction of certain chemicals, reducing atmosphere [/color]

We can hypothesize such but it is no more replicable than the hypothesize of creation so no better an explaination.

If you cannot give us any answers to this, then your "explanation" hardly qualifies as scientific, and thus is best left out of science classes.

Nowhere in what I said suggested I what to teach God in science classes.
What should be taught is there is much debate on the origan of life.
Science "explanation" hardly qualifies either. I will stick with the fact that science needs to be replicable.
If there were a god, I'd still have two testicles. -- Lance Armstrong But than he might not have won 7 races

[Impstout2]

I fail to see how God is a good explanation of how life began.
God is as good an explanation
"
AS good" is not the same as" good."
The question was Can science find God
My answer was Yes! As soon as science can reproduce the creation of life from non life.

We can hypothesize a rough outline of how life began on this planet, interaction of certain chemicals, reducing atmosphere

We can hypothesize such but it is no more replicable than the hypothesize of creation so no better an explanation.

If you cannot give us any answers to this, then your "explanation" hardly qualifies as scientific, and thus is best left out of science classes.

Nowhere in what I said suggested I what to teach God in science classes.
What should be taught is there is much debate on the origan of life.
Science "explanation" hardly qualifies either. I will stick with the fact that science needs to be replicable.

If there were a god, I'd still have two testicles. -- Lance Armstrong But than he might not have won 7 races

[The Happy Humanist]

We can hypothesize a rough outline of how life began on this planet, interaction of certain chemicals, reducing atmosphere

We can hypothesize such but it is no more replicable than the hypothesize of creation so no better an explanation.

Mmmm...we can conceivably replicate early conditions someday. The process of Creation, however....that might be tough...unless you have contacts in the Q Continuum.

If you cannot give us any answers to this, then your "explanation" hardly qualifies as scientific, and thus is best left out of science classes.

Nowhere in what I said suggested I what to teach God in science classes.

True. Withdrawn. I just couldn't resist getting that shot in.

If there were a god, I'd still have two testicles. -- Lance Armstrong But than he might not have won 7 races

True. He might have won more.

[Cephus]

I would not accept it if it was just four chemical bases that started things of, but this is not how it was. There are known chemical precursors that initiated higher levels of order. Of course it all looks to be beyond comprehension, but that's the top-down view. Have you never engaged in a long term project where the accumulation of many small acts has assembled into one almighty piece of work? I'd suggest thinking of the progress from a three-note theme to an entire symphony in the mind of Beethoven or the individual paint dabs from the hand of Vermeer. Of course these are examples of conscious creations which we are so familiar with, but geology has its own counterparts that form the landscape around you.

See, that's the problem with 'creationists', they don't understand how it works and therefore, would rather just say 'God did it' rather than make their brains hurt. The other problem is their massive egos that insist that humanity was somehow predestined to exist, that evolution started out trying to make humans. Then they take that misconception, look at the odds, and declare the process impossible. Evolution didn't try to make humans, it tried to make SOMETHING and we're just what came out of the mix. It could have been something that looked like an elephant, at which point the elephant-creationists would probably be sitting around doing the same thing. It's impossible for evolution to work because evolution *HAD* to make elephants!

In the end, it's all ignorance and most of it is self-imposed.