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?

[Impstout2]

The origanil question is" Can Science Find God"
My answer was Yes! As soon as science can reproduce the creation of life from non life."
If science can create life by assembling chemicals into a code that forms a living thing and it survives to replicate and adapt to it's enviroment than science has proved intelligent design can create life.
If science can make life by creating earths early conditions and life arises from it than accident or the enevitablity of life would have a strong case.

The Happy Humanist
There may be a supernatural explanation, but we scientists are not equipped to study such a thing.

Science is always trying to explain what is precieved as supernatural. In fact that is what drives people to science. An innate need to understand.

That is what drove Darwin and any number of scientists back as far as recorded time. Many phenomena where considered supernatural until someone created an experiment that explained it.

[Cephus]

Saying that life evolved from self replicating self organizing chemicals without any experimental data requires as much "faith" as belief in a creator. If chemicals can self organize into a living "thing" we should be able to do experiments to prove it. Maybe even computer simulations that change the variables millions of times.

Do you have a couple million years? Unfortunately, there isn't any way go create complex multi-cellular life in the lab using the same forces evolution used without it taking a lot longer than a human lifespan. That's called reality. You can't demonstrate stellar generation either, that doesn't mean stars aren't generated in the stellar nurseries. We can only demonstrate a couple of steps along the way to show that the theories are sound, which they undeniably are.

It is a proven fact that proteinoid microspheres are generated naturally given the conditions that existed on the early Earth. It is a proven fact that these proteinoid microspheres, when fossilized, are utterly identical in every way to the earliest found fossils on Earth. That's an important demonstration of the generation of life from non-life and the fact that proteinoid microspheres show some, but not all of the characteristics of 'life', like viruses and many other things, have shown that there isn't a definite line that can be drawn between life and non-life. They are not two separate categories but a continuum.

[Cathar1950]

Oh yes I remember the episode well. I knew I hade heard it some place.
Yes some Scientist do think they are gods.
Some Christians think the speak for God.
I don't think science has all the answers it does have it's limitations.
Knowledge can come from many places but it should be verified and tested as best we can.
I tend to be a humanist of sorts as well as a Theist of sorts and have been influenced by Hartshorn and Whitehead.
Whitehead said if you think you know what is going on your most likely wrong. There is the simple minded and the muddle headed. Any one who
Who thinks they know it all is simple minded and if you know any thing at all you have to be confused.
My Theist ideas are pretty open and might just be my belief in the human
potential and love for humanity. It doesn't have much bearing on the Bible.
I see it as a human invention. I think we need to have good crap detectors.
Reason seems to be our best bet along with experience.
I often find myself on the agnostic and atheist side due to some of the silly beliefs of others. Yet I can find wisdom in many of the worlds religions. Maybe everything I think is stupid but I don't think every stupid thought. Mostly you need a sense of humor.

[Cathar1950]

Cephus wrote:

That's an important demonstration of the generation of life from non-life and the fact that proteinoid microspheres show some, but not all of the characteristics of 'life', like viruses and many other things, have shown that there isn't a definite line that can be drawn between life and non-life. They are not two separate categories but a continuum.

The continuum is an often over looked factor in most endeavors.
It does seem that we like to put things in boxes for our ease. It is perfectly understandable. But we lose a little when we do it.
I was reading an article on the sperm cell how it was two viruses transfering half our genes. There is so much of life that has a sympathetic relationship.
Ok maybe all of life.

[The Happy Humanist]

Science is always trying to explain what is precieved as supernatural. In fact that is what drives people to science. An innate need to understand.

That is what drove Darwin and any number of scientists back as far as recorded time. Many phenomena where considered supernatural until someone created an experiment that explained it.

Precisely. And aren't you glad they did? Or would you rather that scientists threw up their hands at every turn and say, "God did it."

Naturalism, as it relates to the study of science, is not atheism. It is merely a working assumption, one that has led to a staggering number of revolutions in our knowledge. Behind it all is the tacit agreement that, yes, it might ALL be God's work, and nature is just the conveyor. But science is the study of nature, NOT of all reality. God simply doesn't enter the picture the way we've framed it.

That the knowledge brought to us by science has led many scientists and other thinkers to doubt the existence of God is a by-product of the process, it is not ingrained into the process.

FInally, if it were possible for the supernatural to impinge on the natural in a measurable, unambiguous way, I am assured that science would acknowledge it.

==JJS==

[Ian Parker]

Do you have a couple million years? Unfortunately, there isn't any way go create complex multi-cellular life in the lab using the same forces evolution used without it taking a lot longer than a human lifespan. That's called reality.

I am not here producing an argument against your position. I am merely saying it has a number of nooks and crannies in the scientific sense. One of the consequences of a series of (not quite) irreducible steps may be that we have convergence. Let us look at one particular aspect optical activity. Now life is predominantly electromagnetic, not weak nuclear. The EM force has no chirality whereas weak nuclear violates CPT. This means that one chirality in optical activity may be preferred even though the weak force probably contributes about 10^-12 of the forces in life.

However if you play a very long poker game, even if the difference between the 2 players is weak nuclear dextro rotation may win. chirality in exobiology will give some clue as to the statistics of life's origin and the reducibility of the steps. It may be quite a sensitive statistical test. If there is life on Europa the ice, and the organic compounds it contains will be optically active - but which wa?

like viruses and many other things, have shown that there isn't a definite line that can be drawn between life and non-life. They are not two separate categories but a continuum.

Viruses are not living as they depend on a host. They evolve symbiotically.

[Bro Dave]

It is a proven fact that proteinoid microspheres are generated naturally given the conditions that existed on the early Earth. It is a proven fact that these proteinoid microspheres, when fossilized, are utterly identical in every way to the earliest found fossils on Earth. That's an important demonstration of the generation of life from non-life and the fact that proteinoid microspheres show some, but not all of the characteristics of 'life', like viruses and many other things, have shown that there isn't a definite line that can be drawn between life and non-life. They are not two separate categories but a continuum.

None of this precludes a Creator from establishing within His creation, the abilities and propensities for life to evolve. Evolution is simply the drive mechanism used to bring about the original design plan. IMHO

Bro Dave

[Cephus]

The continuum is an often over looked factor in most endeavors. It does seem that we like to put things in boxes for our ease. It is perfectly understandable. But we lose a little when we do it.

Of course, there are no boxes, we just look at things that way because it's easier to categorize things. The reality is, as you stated, that life is a continuum and where, exactly, we draw the line between alive and not alive is open for question. It's not as cut and dried as some people, particularly some theists, would like it to be.

[Cephus]

None of this precludes a Creator from establishing within His creation, the abilities and propensities for life to evolve. Evolution is simply the drive mechanism used to bring about the original design plan. IMHO

Nor does it mean there is a Creator to begin with. You're certainly welcome to your opinions, but as far as backing them up objectively, that's something no theist has ever been able to do.

Heck, we could claim the universe was created yesterday and all of our memories were implanted and all of the evidence of a long history were invented and planted. There's nothing that you could do to prove it wrong either.

But it's absurd to even consider it a possibility until some evidence comes up that it might be true.

[Bro Dave]

None of this precludes a Creator from establishing within His creation, the abilities and propensities for life to evolve. Evolution is simply the drive mechanism used to bring about the original design plan. IMHO

Nor does it mean there is a Creator to begin with. You're certainly welcome to your opinions, but as far as backing them up objectively, that's something no theist has ever been able to do.

For me, God just set it all in motion. That includes a huge intervening administrative corp to both take his plan and transform potential and energies into material realities. Then they help to in “turning the crank” to evolve mortals who, along the way, discover God, and share the journey with Him.

The difficulty for most of us, is we fuss over God’s direct involvement or lack thereof. For God, like any "playwrite" who has finished the script, “The play's it the thing”! But this "play" unfolds in a sort of self scripted way, while being fully supported by the “back-stage-crew”.

It may actually be more important in these early stages of our career, to reject the ridiculous images of God conjured up from our very finite and very corruptible backgrounds. That cleansing allows for a clearer, if still limited, view of God and His plan.

Heck, we could claim the universe was created yesterday and all of our memories were implanted and all of the evidence of a long history were invented and planted. There's nothing that you could do to prove it wrong either.
But it's absurd to even consider it a possibility until some evidence comes up that it might be true.

The “evidence” is within. We stand in the middle of all the “trees” disputing whether or not there is a “forrest”.

Bro Dave