E.O. Wilson on the "fault line" between faith and science

[unschooler]

Let's accept the fault line between faith and science
By Edward O. Wilson

If the perennial culture war between science and fundamentalist Christianity about evolution seems insoluble, the reason is that it is insoluble.

The fault line, which affects conservative belief not just in Christianity but in almost all other religions around the world, can be found along the outer edge of biology. On one side is the acceptance of evolution of all life independently of God, a view held by a small minority of Americans. On the other lies a spread of beliefs, from denial that evolution ever occurred to acceptance that it did but under the direction of God.

This gap, opened by Charles Darwin in his 1859 On the Origin of Species, has not been narrowed by the endless debates that ensued. Quite the contrary, it has been steadily widened by the growth of science.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-15-faith-edit_x.htm

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. I'm so tired of this issue

will it NEVER go away? What does it have to do with anything in our lives today?

[papau]

3. looking for converts as do all folks of faith :-) - in any case as written

it is a harmless summarry of what he thinks he observes.

[jonnyblitz]

8. yeah that would suck if people started using reason and rational

thought to discover how things come about rather than some book that tells you the earth is flat, bushes talk, virgins have babies and gays are worthy of death. we have a gov't right now being run by people who think like that. How is that working out for you? :crazy:

[Strong Atheist]

4. We won't let it. Will you? nt.

[jonnyblitz]

7. what does it have to do with are lives? OMG are you SERIOUS?

look at who attacked us on 9-11 and look who is running the friggen govt!! these people aren't exactly "scientists" who are bringing us all of this death and destruction!! if we have a citzenry of NON-thinking people who believe ancient myth because they are told to over reason and rational thought then we are in some DEEP SHIT. look what is happening NOW in the name of religion , ie Bush and AL QUEDA. i cant believe you even wrote that. unbelievable.

[papau]

2. the acceptance of evolution of all life independently of God is faithbased

Since it can not be proved - and indeed is not a scientific "thought" as it can not be tested.

As to his rules:

The first is that all biological elements and processes are ultimately obedient to the laws of physics and chemistry. OBVIOUS

The second principle is that all life has evolved by random mutation and natural selection.

AS TO THE SECOND, DARWIN DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY SINGLE CELL WOULD GO MULTI-CELL WITHOUT MUTATION - BUT ... SURVIVAL NOT AN ISSUE/CAUSE IN THIS CASE. THE WHY IS MISSING SO WE ARE LEFT WITH IT JUST DID.

[funflower]

5. Faith-based?

Science: Hell if I know. Let's work on that problem.

Faith: I know the answer. It's right here in this 5,000-year-old book.

[Silent3]

6. Please insert here...

...pages and pages of previous explanations about the nature of scientific theory, the scope of scientific theory, the fact that a theory doesn't have to answer ALL QUESTIONS to remain a solid theory, etc., etc., etc., which have never sunk in and to which you are apparently impervious and/or oblivious. Yeah, it's all just faith. Now go and have a cookie.

[SidDithers]

9. You always seem to get this point backwards...

An absence of belief in a God is not the same as an active disbelief in God.

There's nothing faith-based about an acceptance of evolution independant of a God, because that's all we've got evidence for.

Sid

Edit: cleaned up some sloppy wording.

[Jim__]

10. Ignoring the question of faith-based belief...

... can you clarify your second point? Namely, the point: DARWIN DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY SINGLE CELL WOULD GO MULTI-CELL WITHOUT MUTATION - BUT ... SURVIVAL NOT AN ISSUE/CAUSE IN THIS CASE. THE WHY IS MISSING SO WE ARE LEFT WITH IT JUST DID.

Did Darwin claim that single-celled life became multi-celled life without a mutation? If not, why would he try to explain this? Or, are you using DARWIN to mean the Theory of Evolution? And, if so, the same questions apply. My understanding of the Theory of Evolution is that changes are caused by mutations, so why would anyone using the Theory of Evolution draw the conclusion that single-celled life became multi-celled life without there being a mutation?

And, why would you say that survival is not an issue in this case? Again, this is just my understanding, but under the Theory of Evolution, survival is always an issue. If there is a mutation, and the mutation decreases the chance of survival, the mutation will probably not survive for many generations -i.e. if multi-celled life decreased the chance of survival, then we probably would not have multi-celled life today - at the least,the mutation must be neutral toward survival.

And, finally, THE WHY IS MISSING SO WE ARE LEFT WITH IT JUST DID, the "why" is always missing; except for the simple fact that RNA and DNA replication is imperfect and so, periodically you get a new genetic sequence. That new sequence then struggles for survival; just like the old genetic sequence. The new genetic sequence is just the result of an imperfect copy of the old genetic sequence; in other words, it just happened.