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?

[Cephus]

Yes! As soon as science can reproduce the creation of life from non life.

Done. In fact, scientists are having a problem drawing a line between life and non-life these days because there are so many entities which have some, but not all of the classic indicators of life. We've been able to generate proteinoid microspheres and other 'proto-life' in the lab since the 80s though.

Of course, the creationists have an answer for that as well. They sit around and demand that science create life and when science does, they whine "See? It took intelligence, that proves creationism!"

It's all creationist bunk.

[juliod]

scientists are having a problem drawing a line between life and non-life these days

And that line is entirely illusionary. There's no clear distinction between life and non-life.

A lump of sodium metal is non-life, right? Yet if I convert it into sodium chloride, and eat it, those same atoms will become a constituent of my cells. They are life then, aren't they?

I can take a Snickers bar (non-life), eat it, then wait 24 hours. It's alive then, isn't it? Adding to my waistline.

Where's the difficulty in creatign life from non-life?

DanZ

[Cathar1950]

I was talking about at the subatomic level. But you made a good point.
You also made me hungry.
They even have life forms that live off methane and heat.
Life maybe abundant in the universe.

[Impstout2]

Cephus please explain what "protolife" is
I know that virus may not have all the nesseccary parts to be considered life, but protolife?
The only thing that was created since the 80's are long chain protiens.
The ideas that life, which is a hugh leap from long chain protiens, has been created in a lab is wrong.
Cephus said
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
And science would say we think it happened this way, because god does not exist. By the way I am 100% believer in evolution.
That said. science has no experiment to show how life began.
Show me how
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.

[Impstout2]

Cephus please explain what "protolife" is
I know that virus may not have all the nesseccary parts to be considered life, but protolife?
The only thing that was created since the 80's are long chain proteins.
The ideas that life, which is a hugh leap from long chain proteins, has been created in a lab is wrong.
Cephus said
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 And science would say we think it happened this way, because god does not exist. By the way I am 100% believer in evolution.
That said. science has no experiment to show how life began.
Show me how
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.

[The Happy Humanist]

And science would say we think it happened this way, because god does not exist. By the way I am 100% believer in evolution.

Impstout, I'm glad you are a believe in evolution, but there is one notion you need to disabuse yourself of. Science does not, in any way shape or form, say that God does not exist. It cannot say that, by definition. The proposal that God does not exist is not testable, and therefore not subject to scientific scrutiny. What science says is that, according to our prootocols, this is what the data suggest, or this is the best naturalistic theory that fits the data. There may be a supernatural explanation, but we scientists are not equipped to study such a thing. "We are not programmed to respond in that area." It is not denial of God, it is simply staying within the bounds of their expertise. Your acceptance of evolution suggests that you agree with the protocols of Science. Staying away from statements about God, whether positive or negative, is one of those protocols.

[QED]

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.

Impstout2, have you ever come across Conway's Game of Life? This is a computer program which implements a very simple set of rules to govern a state space in which cells in a grid are are born, bred and die according to their immediate surroundings. Of all the possible structures, some become mobile (gliders) and others can be factories for things like gliders. What this showed me was that from simple rules in simple environments interesting things can happen... life-like things.

This is a long way off from the sort of simulation that would be required to match nature, but as far as demonstrating principles goes, for such a simple game to be so revealing seems significant. Also we have to have the proper degree of respect for the natural analog: Billions of years and countless discrete chemical reactions are things utterly beyond our simulation capabilities but this needn't make us give-up on the theory. With Genetic Programming we can use the principles of evolution by natural selection to produce autonomous designs for engineering. The designs thus produced demonstrate that it does not always take an intelligence to make intelligent design decisions. Once this is understood, the leap of faith you speak of becomes far smaller.

[Ian Parker]

With Genetic Programming we can use the principles of evolution by natural selection to produce autonomous designs for engineering. The designs thus produced demonstrate that it does not always take an intelligence to make intelligent design decisions. Once this is understood, the leap of faith you speak of becomes far smaller.

The scope of Genetic Algorithms is an interesting topic which I think has been discussed previously in this thread and also in the thread specifically on Intelligent Design. Basically where we have what amounts to a differentiable manifold (e/g. Analogue Electronics GAs work really well). In writing programs and in solving theorems they do not work well.

Indeed Intelligent Design can be done without Intelligence. If you look at it from the stand point of AI it depends on what you define intelligence to be. Another way in which we can have "Intelligence" is to have a timeline where you can go backwards and forwards in time. The existence of this is the subject of some debate but the physics appears reasonable.

The thing which in fact gives the greatest difficulty in "bootstrapping" is in fact Intelligence or AI. If there were an easy bootstrap it would have been done by now.

Another thing we have to consider is the rate at which attempts are done. In the case of chemistry and unicellular organisms the rate of attempts are very high and beyond current computer simulation. Intelligence on the other hand is present only in large multicellular organisms, reaching a pinnacle in ourselves. The simulations are within computer range. Always assuming a random process.

Another case of ID not discussed here is the physical constants of the Universe. Unless we have a hyperuniverse this, unlike Evolution, is a one shot process.

[Cathar1950]

The Happy Humanist wrote:

""We are not programmed to respond in that area." It is not denial of God, it is simply staying within the bounds of their expertise. Your acceptance of evolution suggests that you agree with the protocols of Science. Staying away from statements about God, whether positive or negative, is one of those protocols.." It is not denial of God, it is simply staying within the bounds of their expertise. Your acceptance of evolution suggests that you agree with the protocols of Science. Staying away from statements about God, whether positive or negative, is one of those protocols.

LoL where have I heard that "We are not programmed to respond in that area." I like it.

Staying away from statements about God, whether positive or negative, is one of those protocols

You should add when conducting science. Just because your a scientist doesn't mean you can't consider God. That wouldn't be any fun.
I am not a believer in Evolution I just think it is a natural part of the universe and the evidence is overwelming. I can't imagine any kind of life with out evolution. I also think many don't understand evolution.
What I have a problem with is the bible believer.
They fail to realize they were many Christianities. Some how they think they have the only truth. These ideas if introduced into the science curriculum could destroy any future scientific advances.
Will science someday find God or not find God. I don't know it seems to be beyond any science we have today. Some belive God is a scientist.
I have played that Game of Life, I even used it is a soc. class. Cool

[The Happy Humanist]

LoL where have I heard that "We are not programmed to respond in that area." I like it.

Trek Classic, "I, Mudd."

You should add when conducting science.

I should also add, "as long as the supernatural has no observable effect on the natural." We are, after all, discussing whether or not Science can acknowledge God if he actually made an unambiguous appearance.

Some belive God is a scientist.

And no doubt some scientists think they are God...