FSM, seriously?

Well, Spring is (?) upon us, the weather is ever so slightly warmer than it was a month ago, it rains every single day and I've finally moved to a new house that rocks. It's all good in the hood then (except I still don't have broadband at home, but that's me being inefficient at organising the move, you would've though that after moving 12 time in my first two years in Scotland I would have picked up a few tricks, but no, I haven't, in the same way that I still use a lot of comas in my sentences and write in really long sentences within even longer brackets, enough now), and as such I don't feel the need to write about it (see previous post).

Today's subject will be about a subject that's ok to talk about anywhere in the world EXCEPT the US of A. Intelligent design.









No, no, don't yawn and click on the "Find next blog" button. Wait! This could be interesting for a change.

Let me first clarify my position on a key parameter of this discussion: I am a scientist.



And, to make things even worse, I am a physicist (there has to be a relevant remake of the above song for physicists. If not, dear Dandies, please...?). And I am interested in the whole Bing Bang, superstring, branes, essence of time and space, the more philosophical aspects of science if you will.

As for religious beliefs... I was brought up as a Christian, though I practice about as often as I practice exercising (my less-than-trim-but-not-obese figure helps to clarify this as "very rarely, but haven't given up completely"). So in the scale of Science vs. Religion, we know by now which way the scale tips.

It has been with great interest then that I have followed the whole intelligent design argument in the past years - I am quite late dealing with this come to think of it, aren’t I? Well, I had better things to do, such as, er, uhm, well, you know, stuff. About the whole State lawsuits on this I personally believe that, uhm, this argument is, like, and such as, South Africa and The Iraq, pointless. No further comment on this, if people want to be anal about certain things and if religious fanatics are making use of the overzealous lawsuit system in the US, that is certainly stupid but (for me) besides the point. Which is, to say, this:

Is there any point/truth/basis in this intelligent design theory?

I have heard in the past the statement that "All/most scientists that delve into the mysteries of Nature deep enough are eventually convinced of the existence of God". I cannot judge the validity of this statement. None of the scientists I have known seemed to have turned towards religion because of the results of their research, so I'm tending to write that off as an urban legend. Carl Sagan, for example, definitely upheld his own scientific beliefs until the very end, without though ever denying people their right to believe. I'm fine with this line of thinking, you believe what you want, I believe what I want, we're both happy (yay! Happy days!).













The problem starts when people start thinking of science and religion as mutually exclusive - or perhaps this should be rephrased to "science and Christianity as mutually exclusive", since I am not aware of another religion that has had such a big problem with science (feel free to correct me on this). In any case, the argument stems from this particular clash, so let's focus on this. So why should they be mutually exclusive?

Christianity states that God created the world (I won't be drawn into the "in 7 days" argument), and that's about it, He is the Alpha and the Omega, everything and anything that happens is His will. Done.

Science states that the Universe started, but we don't know how. It is because of the particular beginning that certain physical laws apply, and these laws determine how everything and anything happens. Semi-done.

Where is the mutual exclusivity then? It does not appear to be included in the above sentences, as the logical conclusion could be that, since science cannot tell us how it all started, it might as well have been God that did. As a consequence of that, certain principles apply, and all is happening according to them. God could have simply "kick-started" the Universe, and then it goes on about its way based on the initial conditions. I think a lot of people would be happy with this amalgamation of theories. I mean, why not?












The problem arises when looking at what both sides go on to support. Christians are happy to believe that God continually interferes, changes and modulates the Universe around us to serve His purpose, and that we shouldn't really bother trying to understand all this, for "He works in mysterious ways". Scientists say God isn't modulating anything, he might not even be real, seeing is believing and we will continue to look until we have proof. And that last single word perhaps summarises the key difference between the two sides.

Science needs proof. You can say what you want, make any claims you might come up with, but if you don't have proof brother, you're out; it's simply speculation.
Religion is based on faith. You do not need proof, your faith is more than enough; believing is seeing.

Faith is undisputable. You cannot present evidence against it, you cannot disprove it, you cannot offer an alternative. It is not open to different interpretations (heresy!), it does not change itself based on new facts and evidence, like science does. And that is why it is so powerful.


















Back to the argument at hand. An attempt was made to dress up religious beliefs with the cloak of science through the theory of intelligent design. To summarise: science stands, but only if we accept that God is behind it all. We did evolve from amoebas, but only because God guided us. We evolved the way we did simply because God directed us so. Darwin wasn't completely wrong, but he wasn't completely right either; he forgot to attribute everything to God.






















Really? I mean, really really? Since when does religion need a scientific base to support its beliefs? What about "For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand"? Nope? Has faith really become so weak in people that they start needing evidence to believe?

On the other hand, for as long as science cannot provide us with a definite answer to the Big questions, the human mind will continue to seek ("seek and you shall find"). It is quite possible that no answer can eventually be found, and certainly rather improbable that this would occur within our lifespans (prove me wrong, I would love that).

I'm a big fan of "seeing is believing", and not the other way around. It works for me, it floats my boat, and if it still leaves me with unanswered questions, I'll go on looking for an answer even harder. I might end up believing in God (properly I mean), or I might not; maybe my answer will be "it was all a cosmic accident, oh dear, we never saw that brane coming our way", or maybe it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster that started it all. No one knows for sure, though some people have their own beliefs about this, and that's alright.

















People are entitled to their beliefs. Cool.
Beliefs and knowledge are two different things. Cool.
Pasta rules. Also cool.

Perhaps this quote by Carl Sagan sheds a bit of light on why people are in the end so determined to prove the existence of God in the traditional, Christian way:

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

Now if only I could find a "Gravity Fish" picture...