Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 3 April 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.230
News
Muslim students weigh in on evolution
In Indonesia and Pakistan, questions about how science and faith can be reconciled.
In the first large study of its kind, a survey of 3,800 high-school students in Indonesia and Pakistan has found that teachers are delivering conflicting messages about evolution.
The Can$250,000 Islam and Evolution research project is the first large study of students, teachers and scientists in countries with significant Muslim populations to examine their understanding and acceptance of evolution.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
"When the students were asked if the holy book of their religion was in conflict with science regarding explanations of human origins, 64% of Pakistani students and 36% of Indonesian students agreed." Agreed that it was or was not in conflict? The sentence reads as saying that they agreed that it was in conflict, but then the rest of the paragraph seems to contradict this. *confused*
"It means that people like myself in the ivory tower have to reach out and engage people," Though claiming to be the apex of rationality, this is the ONE thing that those in the "ivory tower" are least likely to do
Religion and science are orthogonal. Faith is destroyed if it works. In the whole of human history across the entire planet not one deity has volunteered Novocain. It is a telling omission. http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/reality.png http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/god.jpg
Religion and science are incompatible. Religion thrives when education is absent or of poor quality. It often perpetuates itself with indoctrination and violence. One hopes that as education becomes more widespread in Muslim countries, like in Turkey, they will become more secular and abandon religious beliefs. Sadly, judging by whats happening around the world and in Pakistan and Afghanistan in particular, I dont see that happening anytime soon.
Religion and Science,has no business in today World classrooms.By no stretch of ones imagination,can religion and science be bridge.Forcing our children to learn both Teaching is a danger's to all Humanity.I believe Cusmo Myths,should only be taught to people over 18yrs.of age.
"It means that people like myself in the ivory tower have to reach out and engage people," The previous comments tend to confirm my feeling that the academics are highly unlikely to "reach out and engage" anyone. Likely they will continue to insist on forcing adherence to their own Western post-modern secular dogma of "there is no God". No doubt this will create an even greater backlash.
"forcing adherence" is what religion often does. Thousands of girls and young women for example have been prevented from going to school in Taleban controlled Pakistan and Afghanistan. Hundreds of schools have been blown up or burned down. Many more have simply closed for safety reasons. You are confusing the compelling logic and evidence of science which capture the unfettered mind to the forcing of adherence by religious bigots, who use indoctrination, intimidation and violence to enforce belief and faith rather than logic and reason.
Because many religions "force adherance"--is that a valid reason for Western society to do the same? "Logic and reason" infer willingness to interact on an individual basis. There can be bigotry on both sides if we consider intransigence and refusal to reason with the opposition as the root of bigotry. Intimidation need not be used by either side.
How does one compromise with people,who believe in the Unbelievable?Is there a peaceful way for nonbeliever and believe to work out their different?
To the above question, I might reply, that it need not be a matter of compromise. The role of education is to inform--when education presumes to force adherence (demand total BELIEF)it runs the risk of becoming indoctrination. I recall (many years ago), as a student, I maintained (and still maintain)the perogative of deciding whether to believe or dis-believe (or even to hold judgement in suspension until further facts became evident) on any particular subject that was presented(while still being fully well informed--even of those matters on which I had doubt). What is wrong with that?
When you maintained your prerogative to disbelieve evidence on any particular subject, how was adherence forced upon you? Galileo was forced to recant that the Earth moved around the sun, the alternative was to be burnt at the stake as part of the inquisition. Did you have a similar experience in reverse? The equivalent of being forced to say the Earth moved around the Sun, yet mutter under your breath "but yet it does not move" because you knew better? When the truth becomes self evident and contradicts religious beliefs, you cannot have a compromise. You cannot say ok lets agree that the Earth moves around the sun 50% of the time and 50% of the time the other way round. Or maybe some humans are descended from ape-like ancestors and eventually from a single celled organism, while some were perfectly formed in an instant by the will of god.
I do not see religion-bashing as moving the discussion anywhere. As scientists, we are putting forward paradigms that at times conflict with those of certain religions or religious establishments. To the people in those religions or establishments, that makes the scientific view a threat: At the least, the religion will lose stature if the scientific view is accepted over the religious one. That fundamentally is the source of the conflict. However, we must also realize that faith is a part of science, even if it is not a foundation principle like it is in religion. After all, while we are free to examine and re-examine the evidence for evolution, as a practical matter most scientists have come to take the truth of evolution as a given, and operate on that basis. Yes, our views are based on evidence, but to a fundamentalist Protestant (or Islamic fundamentalist) all that is visible is a certainty about evolution that matches their certainly about Genesis. My overall advice is that we focus at least as much on teching students about the sceintific method as on teaching them about evolution. The how and why of the scientific acceptance of evolution is as important to high school students as what evolution is.
Richard--Thank you for your comments, I think understand what you are saying. Firstly, I am not advocating disbelieving evidence--though at times I have dis-believed the particular conclusions others have made based on certain observations. I suspect that this is not uncommon (evidenced by multiple subsets of theories that have been based on the same "facts"). And no, I was not burnt at the stake for my opinions--but some of my professors certainly were not amused when I demonstrated my knowledge of their textbook "facts" and then ammended my answers with different conclusions. Even in areas in which the evidence appears to be totally self-evident to us, it is sometimes possible to reach somewhat different conclusions. For instance, bacterial resistance is often cited as a "proof" of evolution--yet, while acknowledging the fact of bacterial resistance, some my doubt its relevance to the multispecies progression of evolution since resistant bacteria are still, after all, bacteria, and have not been transmuted into something entirely different. We need not compromise--yet we can acknowedge that the same "facts" are often subject to differnt interpretation--even within the scientific community. Autocracy, on either side, invites backlash.
Edward--my apologies--the above reply should have been addressed to you.---MIKE
@ Bob O'Hara: 64% of the Pakistani students and 36% of the Indonesian students felt that the Koran was in conflict with science in regards to human origins. Even though the Pakistani students could say that evolution was based on evidence and scientific fact, they thought the Koran presented a different explanation for human origins. The Indonesian students felt differently, that there was more agreement between Islam and human origins, but they didn't have a strong grasp of the concepts of evolution. When the researchers looked at the textbooks, they found several differences. Some of the Indonesian schools were using textbooks published by Harun Yahya, which contain inaccurate information on human origins. If the Indonesian students see the material in Harun Yahya's textbooks as science, then they're not going to disagree with the Koran. The Pakistani students' responses, on the other hand, suggested that even though the textbooks contained material from the Koran that seemed to support human evolution, the students were receiving information from somewhere else, perhaps from their families, their teachers or someone else in their community.
Mike - I think that you are off on something of a tangent here. Certainly the freedom to express and justify alternave viewpoints is essential to science. Indeed, the tension between the adherents of alternate viewpoints very much helps to move science and scientific research forward. However, there are also times where the totality of the evidence is such that a given viewpoint reigns paramount, even if the details are still being argued over. Such is the case with evolution. I can sympathize about bacterial resistance (athough IMO it does support evolution theory because that use of the theory elegantly explains why it occurs), but that is only one piece of evidence and its loss does not invalidate the remainder of the evidence. -- In the end, I must agree with you about autocracy. However, I also feel that religions play an important role in the creation of moral codes and in encouraging thier use. Science is ill-equipped to deal with those issues, just a religions are ill-equipped to deal with modern biology. So FWIW, I call on each side to have a healthy respect for the other.
Mike are you saying, there should be no attempt to tell the truth. One should look the other way,why Christan,Muslin,Jews,are killing each other, over who god is the best? When in reality there is no such god for these folks to be killing each other.The hands off approach,just doesn't sit well with me.Their delusional beliefs are destroying our planet.My greatest fear is that faith believer,will have no problem pushing the "button" one day.
Why is all right for humans, to believe in the unbelievable, as the absolute truth? Are there good moral codes in teaching children to believe in Myths?
Bruce-- I can understand what you are saying, but are we talking about education (reaching minds) or simply perpetuating a culture clash? Considering the emotions on both sides I suspect that there will be a showdown--with quite unexpected and unpleasant results for both sides.
I'am almost to the point of being paranoid,to visit the gas station.I fear there might be some faith believer there on a high level of stress,ready to kill their- self and other.The media has been pushing religious bombing at "WE The People",for the last 20yr.Now I'am seeing main street believer,copying this bad behavior.Removing "religious beliefs" from the picture,in my opinion,would be common-good.Such a move would save Innocent people from being harm.
Mike-I believe faith beliefs system,should be on the hot-seat for their bad behavior toward other.It's their system of beliefs,that makes it ok to kill other,in the name of their god."We The People",have let this system of beliefs go uncheck long enough.I see nothing wrong with standing toe-toe with myths believer.Right and Wrong,in my opinion,can't be bridge.Their system of beliefs,teaches our children bad behavior.Is it mentally health to teach children to believe in invisible beings?
Excuse me Bruce, but are you using the term "religious beliefs" as a generic term or do you differencitate between say, heavily armed Islamic suicide bombers and nearly passivistic Witnesses whose worse "crime" is waking us up on Saturday morning?
Edward-As a scientist,are you obligate to teach the truth as you know it?
Mike-I believe all faith believing system are fundamentally the same.They all claim to know what goes on beyond ones death.As if living ones life here on this planet,is not all that important.I would need firm proofs of such beliefs, to accept what they claim to be the real truth.Faith believer have no such proofs to offer me.The people who have and control bigger and smarter bombs,keep me very agitated,as to their real intention."Faith Believer Bully",they ruffle my feathers.Their system of beliefs,has no business in the educational system.
Edward Schaefer you have made two sweeping statements about science. First you have said that "faith is a part of science". This is completely wrong. Faith forms no part of science. Certainly not the faith of religion. The "faith" that there are underlying laws that govern the physics of the Universe, that the sun will rise from the west and set in the east, that water will flow downhill, that we can dip our hand into water at 20 degrees C at atmospheric pressure without getting burnt, etc etc are simply matters of experience. Evidence leads us to believe the very great probability of these and other scientific truths. On the other hand the belief that god's name is Allah and Mohamed is his prophet etc etc (other beliefs of other faiths) and that we will burn in eternal hell if we do not believe that, have got no empirical data to support them. The second big fallacy you have touted is that "..religions play an important role in the creation of moral codes and in encouraging thier use. Science is ill-equipped to deal with those issues..." The moral codes of religion are almost universally obnoxious. Let us take the three major religions the Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions. Modern western laws allow freedom of religion and thought and have abolished torture and capital punishment. The punishment in all three of the above religions is "eternal" damnation - burning in hell - for merely refusing to believe their faith. The threat and promise of the ultimate cruelty and torture. Besides that there is decapitation, cutting of the arms and legs (often alternate), blindings, lashings and stonings prescribed in this this life by the religious laws of some religions. Having being brought up a Christian, I strongly believe in the basic secular morality taught by Christ. Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, not to cast stones or judge others. The laws were made for man and not man for the laws. But we can accept this morality without the rest of the faith and dogma of Christianity. You have said that we should focus on teaching students about the scientific method. The central dogma of the scientific method is that there is nothing sacred. Nothing that cannot be questioned. It is because of this that science and religion are incompatible. The faith of religions is sacred and cannot be questioned.
Richard - You have largely hit the nail on the head, especially with your noting that the faith of science is "[c]ertainly not the faith of religion". However, faith, in the form of trusting what has been done and formulated before, is a part of science. Face it: Are you going to reverify Newton's laws of motion every morning? Are you going to double-check the validity of Maxwell's Equations every week? Are you going to take an annual trip to the Galapagos to ensure that Darwin's finches really do provide evidence for evolution? Of course not! Instead you assume the validity of that which has been done and researched before, or at least do so in the absense of good evidence to the contrary. Like it or not, that is as much faith as assuming that God exists or that someone who walked this Earth almost 2000 years ago was God on Earth. -- More importantly for the pruposes of this discussion, we as scientists must realize that religious fundamentalists do not see any difference between the use of faith in science and their demands for faith from their followers. For them a competing creed is a competing creed and that is that. For us, the issue is more complicated, and as difficult as it is we must communicate that issue effectively if we are to gain respect. Fighting religions on their terms is a losing battle. Yet if scientists are blind to the fact that faith really is a part of science, that is what we will end up doing.
I'm sorry Edward, but having faith that Newton's laws of motion will be in operation tomorrow is not quite the same as having faith that something akin to a god exists. We have been experiencing Newton's laws since humans have been recording history and they've been repeatedly confirmed by thousands of scientists--nothing exists to think things will suddenly change. On the other hand, the existence of a god has not been documented by anyone in such a way that can be confirmed. Oh, by the way, Newton's laws have been shown to be wrong at certain scales--they are just generalizations! Scientists rejected Newton's laws many decades ago following more detailed observations. That's scientific 'faith' for you! Scientists reject things in light of new evidence. You might say that scientists have 'faith' that new observations and experiments will either support or refute our current understanding! Religion requires that you just keep the faith forever and ever, ignoring any new observations.
Russell - "We have been experiencing Newton's laws since humans have been recording history" - How interesting, especially since friction is so ubiquitous here on the surface of the Earth that for millenia before Newton came along it was believed that an impetus was need to make something move. -- Personally, it amazes me how strongly most scientists deny the role of faith in science. I wholeheartedly agree that faith does not play the same role in science as it does in religion, but just as science would be stiffled if any theory became a truly unquestionable dogma so too would the aims of sceince be thwatred if people constantly jumped on the bandwagon of every new theory that came along. Instead, scientists demand that the adherents of the new make a good, strong case for changing from the old. In feuling the conservatism of sticking with an old theory until the case for abandoning it has been well made, faith plays a very important and positive role in science. -- You are free to deny that role if you like. Just be warned that if you do, you will never understand why religious fundamentalists treat science like it is a competing religion, or why we cannot win by fighting the fundamenalists on their terms.
In "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" St. Augustine asks himself whether the author means to affirm that humans were created at the same time as the rest of the universe or later. He concludes that human kind "unfolded" from creation. In the dictionary, this is one of the definitions of evolution. So, St. Augustine believed in the evolution of man. What makes the teaching of evolution contrary to theism is the dogmatic assertion that only random change produces evolution. If there is a God that directs things to some end, there is a contradiction. Incidentally to say that religion and science are "orthogonal" means you can adjust one without changing the other, if "orthogonal" is to have the same meaning it does in mathematics. Truth in religion derives from testimony (as does truth in our courts, largely). Truth is science derives from experiment, supposedly, or philosophical reasoning. These are not necessarily orthogonal: Testimony about the existence of giraffes contradicted the supposed impossibility of long necks. Theology is philosophical speculation on the testimony of Scripture
Edward, it's my understanding that theories are accepted as useful (valid) until evidence shows that a new theory explains more things, and explains them better than the old theory. I don't have faith that our current theories are true, it's just that nothing explains observations any better, yet. To me, having faith in a theory is accepting the theory without any supporting evidence. If there is supporting evidence for a theory (such as accurate predictions being made based on the theory) then one does not need to have faith in it. Using an analogy, if I know nothing about my surgeon's record of success/failure, then I would be relying on faith to go under the knife. If I knew that he had performed the procedure 100 times and each time was successful, then I would not be relying on faith to go under the knife, but rather a track record of success. Evolution has a very good track record of success, so I do not have to accept it on faith.
if one considers the framework of evolution as a competing religion, then one would ask the question, "do you believe in evolution?" And thereby misses the question. let's focus on education. A teacher of science does a student disservice if that teacher fails to impress upon the student the fine and rich complexity of competing hypotheses and the constant re-evaluation thereof. The value and strength of science is to persuade with reason and to argue with objective observations. We would want to teach students to apply the principles of doubt and falsifiable testing. An intellectually honest religion (or preacher) would welcome this form of learning especially when calling out doctrines to task. Let's not confuse human corruptions of religion and Faith with the genuine articles.
Edward actually Newton's laws of motion ARE verified every morning and every second as apples fall, galaxies, planets and satellites revolve and rockets and missiles are fired. And Maxwells equations get confirmed every time you switch on the TV or listen to the radio. The evidence is continuous, mounting and supportive. The faith of religion however is quite the opposite. Every day the absence of evidence only increases. You and others are using God and religion synonymously - they are not. I do not have a problem with the existence of God, but not one that interferes with the natural laws as there is no evidence of that. One of the reasons for the creation of the concept of God was to explain natural phenomena. Why rain? A rain God, Why Thunder? - a thunder god, Lightening, mountains, rivers lakes seas etc - a god for everything. Too many Gods? - lets have one God who does everything - lets feel more logical, more superior. However with every scientific explanation the need for God became less and less necessary, till today he is not needed at all for any natural phenomena. I have a problem with religion however. You talked about the scientific method. The scientific method starts with a question, weighs answers against evidence and comes to tentative conclusions, which can be modified over time with more evidence and better answers. Religion on the other starts with conclusions, not only that God exists but his name is such and such, his spokesman is so and so, his wishes are such and such and God help you if you don't obey. It then defends these conclusions, as absolute truths for all time, against all evidence to the contrary and /or absence of any evidence in support of the conclusions. That is faith and that is what science doesn't have. You have accused me of religion bashing. If by that you mean only stating the logical case for science and against religion I am guilty, but if by that you mean ridiculing religious adherents I am not. I would never do that. However I would not either try and "engage" in, for example a Muslim or other religious believer by trying to search for some writing in their book of faith and say how in some convoluted or obscure way it might agree with evolution say, while being categorically contradicted elsewhere. The only way I could possibly engage with them is to state the truth as I see it, which I have done above. The type of "engagement" you have suggested is unlikely to convince a religious bigot like bin Laden and his like or even a dedicated "moderate" muslim. He would not be likely to be impressed either by the greenies, who seem to be rooting for him, or Christian fundamentalists linking arms and singing Kumbaya.
I am quite interested in this subject and the problems that may occur at the interface between science and religion. I look forward to reading through the other comments. It is interesting that we concern ourselves with religion, especially creationists (of any religion). The creationist dwells in our gaps of understanding and uses the lack of evidence as evidence. This is hard for scientists to accept, as it isn't a very scientific argument. Religion is clever because their publications have a quite different review process.
Russell - IMO, once you reach the point where you no longer are consciously thinking about whether a theory is true or not, then you have entered the realm of faith. The same would apply to your going under the knife: If you have not considered the risks of the surgery but instead feel that a good track record is enough, then you are having faith that the surgeon will not botch up the 101st time (although I do admit that 100 successes bodes well for the outcome of your operation). So to some extent, our differences are semantic. Even so, a religious fundamentalist sees ourselves as putting forth the works of Darwin, Newton, Einstein and others to replace those of those of Moses, Jesus, and the other prophets. Furthermore, if you promote evolution as a scientifically established fact, then the fundamentalists will see faith on your part. I admit that it is a faith born of long experience instead of divine revelation, but it is still faith, and will be treated as such by the fundamentalists. Your faith in evolution will also be seen as such by students if you only say "we have experience on our side, so trust us". Like it or not, this business of "our paradigm is better than yours" has been at the crux of every religious conflict through the ages: So if you hold up the scientific method as being better than the Bible, then you are only stepping into the ring with fundamentalists. If instead, you say "Look: We are going only on what we can observe and reason out over time from those observations in science. Here is where it has led and why", then you are going to be much more impressive. You also have to put forth the imperfection of science as a strength: Science is a constant search of the truth, and all that resolving a higher level issue does is to allow us to argue more over lower levels of detail. Furthermore, showing how the fundamentalist lie about science does much to diminish their stature. What we cannot do is to put forth our certainty against theirs: That is only a battle of faith against faith, and that we cannot win.
I'm still not sure where the faith is in science! I do not have "faith, in the form of trusting what has been done and formulated before" nor would any other scientist worth his lab coat or field boots. I am skeptical of every published paper! Though I may *tentatively* and *cautiously* accept their conclusions (depending on their methodology and interpretation of their results). However, when dozens, hundreds, or thousands of published studies, using several independent data sets and methods, point to the same conclusion, then it is time to move beyond tentative and cautions acceptance and consider it a "fact"--which I define as "something that is considered to be true based on enough evidence to convince experts in the field, but that, given new data, may actually not be true". I challenge anyone of faith to hold their own concepts of "fact" to that same standard.
Russell - Perhaps it would help to distinguish between "faith" and "blind faith". Blind faith is where you refuse to even test the assumption in question, and that is what religion demands of you. Just plain "faith" is where you are not looking at the assumptions, and something that "is considered to be true based on enough evidence" tends to become something that you do bother to question. So the difference in faith between science and religion is mostly that in science you normally don't question the fundamentals (as you usually are building on them), but in religion you can't. -- Still, you are missing my main point here: Normally my view of faith in science is somewhat impolitic, and is often misinterpreted as implying a rigidity in science that truly is not there. However, in a conflict between science and religion, the people on the religious side of the conflict will see our use of faith and treat it as if it was the blind faith of religion. Denying the presence of faith is useless in this case, as it makes you look like a liar. Instead you have to make clear what is fundamental in science, and why something like evolution has become an accepted scientific fact under the rules of science.
I'm not quite sure that having an assumption (e.g, that an object will fall down and not up; that the sun will still be the center of the universe tomorrow) that is based on mounds of evidence is the same as faith. . . . though perhaps you can possibly consider the assumption that a certain "fact" will NOT be different tomorrow to be the same as faith. Though, I do agree that there is a bit more "faith" in science than most scientists would like to admit. For instance, we have faith that the experiments outlined in a published manuscript were actually carried out. And although we demand and attempt replication, it?s not because we think the other scientists were lying about what they did. Though, maybe we should even be skeptical down to this level, given all the news about falsified results over the years. But, in general, we have faith that an investigator has actually performed the lab work that was stated. Granted, this may be just because the vast majority of us are shocked to think that a scientist would actually lie given that a basic tenet of the scientific process is that we attempt to replicate results. Regardless, this is besides my main point, which is this: Perhaps the scientific community should focus on using the many scientists that do believe in God (regardless of religious affiliation) to act as liasons between these two camps that are seemingly often at odds. I think much of the contention from the religious folks stems from the fact that scientists are often portrayed as all being atheist/agnostic individuals who are completely and utterly logical all of the time, who think that people who believe in God are idiots, and who spend all of their waking hours trying to ?disprove? the existence of a higher being. Now, I?m sure that some scientists are like this, but we can?t let them be the only face of science. We have to make it clear that the theory of evolution (with an accurate explanation of what ?theory? means in this context) is a result of years of collecting data to try to explain the natural world as we see it/experience it/can measure aspects of it. Now, it will be hard to un-convince some people that the presence of gaps in the data is akin to evidence that evolution is wrong. But, there are many gaps in the story of Jesus. Does that stop most practicing Christians from believing in him?
Edward Schaefer the faith of religion is not the "faith" of science, and hence shouldn't be used, at least in the same context, in science. You seem to get this but then you do, confusing yourself and your argument. Your equivocating about the word and circular logic really makes no logical point. "So if you hold up the scientific method as being better than the Bible, then you are only stepping into the ring with fundamentalists (how does that figure?). If instead, you say..." - (essentially the same thing in a round about way) - then the fundamentalist will throw up his hands in abject surrender. And again - "Denying the presence of faith is useless .." (in science) instead you have to ... (fiddle faddle with your words, obfuscate with your language and logic and then the fundamentalist Christian, Muslim and Jew will all embrace evolution). QED. Let me make things clear arguing from one fundamentalist point of view. The following are true and axiomatic. There is no God but God and Mohamed is his prophet. This God is all knowing and truthful and has revealed his truths to Mohamed in the Quran, where he says that man was created in an instant by him, as were all the animals and life on the Earth, as they are. I have faith all the above is true. This cannot be questioned. Now come up with a logical argument to convince me that we and the apes have evolved slowly from a common ape-like ancestor quite naturally without the aid of God, using the above truths of my faith I have outlined. If you can then I will believe you.
Richard - You may as well ask me as a Jew to justify the bowing in worship towards the Kabaa based on our interpretation of the Second Commandment (which in our opinion says in no uncertain terms the such a thing a sin against God). If anything, you have set your belief in the appearance of our species as a result of evolution over time as a competitor to the Creation stories of Genesis. In this context, without the chain of evidence that has led you to accept evolution, all that remains is a contrast of faith vs. faith. -- Look above at Renee's posting to see a beautiful description of how faith is used in science. I agree wholeheartedly that science is not BASED on faith, and that it does not even call for faith. However, that is not the same as science not at all using faith. It does, and in my opinion science well served by its limited use of faith and need not deny that use.
Edward - justifying bowing towards the Kaaba using the beliefs of your religion has nothing to do with the problem I have posed, to illustrate the faith of religion. And invoking the alliance of Renee will not help this lack of logic, though I wouldn't blame her if she is flattered by your praise. The stories of the Genesis are not a competitor to Evolution. They maybe a competitor to the stories of the Quran, Gaea, Purusha, Brahma etc. They are all stories to explain the creation of the Earth, the stars and us. They are all belief systems founded on faith. They never started because someone observed something and then made a guess. They started because someone said this is the truth because God told me so and you had better believe it. Science often relies on a hunch, but this hunch is based on observations and not on myths. The preconceived beliefs of myths on the other hand often stand in the way of science and scientific discoveries. The story of evolution started with a hunch from observation. Finches on Galapagos for example. Then a reluctant admission by Darwin - in his words - "I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable." The theory of evolution has been formed out of evidence, question and argument over a period of 150 years, during which time it has been refuted, confirmed and modified much like Newton's laws. It has accumulated volumes of data over this time. All during this time the Genesis has not changed nor the Quran. However because of mounting scientific evidence religions have scrambled to somehow incorporate this evidence into their belief systems. They have to explain how we and the Universe somehow came about. They need science for this whereas science does not need them. The theory of evolution is both a theory and a fact. The evidence that species evolve is so overwhelming that it can be taken as a fact. The explanation of how exactly this has come about ? natural selection, punctuated equilibrium or gradualism etc., is still "evolving" with evidence, hypothesis and argument. The truth in science is not absolute for all time - religions on the other hand declare the absolute truth for all time. That is faith - it brooks no argument.
Richard - "That is faith - it brooks no argument." So tell me: Are you willing to brook an argument that evolution is not true? Of course not, and neither am I. -- You keep moving away from my main point, which is taking care in dealing with the non-scientists on the issue of evolution. You can say that "[t]he stories of the Genesis are not a competitor to Evolution" all that you like. For someone who has been raised that the Bible or Koran is the literal truth, that is exactly how the two are perceived. To the uninitiated, Evidence may just as well be another god who is competing with "the Lord"/Jesus/Allah. Like it or not, to deal with the anti-evolutionists, you must deal with how you actually are seen, and how how you want to be seen.
Correction: At the end of my last post, I meant to write ", and NOT how you want to be seen".
Edward - you asked a question from me and then answered it for me also to try and somehow advance your theme that science relies on faith just as religion does. It does not. There have been many fascinating and valid arguments, based on the evidence available at the time and the lack of evidence against it at the time, why evolution is not true. Virtually all of these have been answered over the 150 years since Darwin first proposed his theory. So to answer your question I would be willing to listen to an argument against evolution that is based on evidence which doesn't regurgitate the arguments that have already been dealt with over its 150 year history. I may not be willing to listen to an argument that says evolution is not true because God told someone so through the archangel Gabriel or whatever. There is no further reasoning with that statement - the faith of religion. As for how a fundamentalist might perceive evolution I don't see how falsely saying to him or her - yes I believe in evolution because of faith just like your faith, and its just a competitor to your faith - would advance the cause of science in their eyes. It would be better to educate - present the evidence and hope that some at least would be convinced by it. For those who wont, they would be unlikely to be convinced by your approach above. PS this will be my last post on this subject
Richard - You are fighting a straw man here. I said that faith IS A PART of science, NOT that science RELIES on faith. Please don't confuse the two. You have faith in the truth of evolution, but I agree that this is NOT RELIGION because it is a faith born of observation, experience and judging the evidence instead of a faith born of divine revelation. It also admitedly is a faith that in principle can be challenged even if in practice we are very far from expecting any such challenge to be valid. -- I hope that this shows our disagreement to be more semantic and philosophical than practical. Beyond that, I agree with your conclusion that we must seek to educate with the evidence, and also intend for this to be my last posting on this article.
If a scientist did an experiment that proved there was some sort of 'higher consciousness' would the scientific community believe it? I think not. If scientists started by admitting they actually 'know' very little (but understand a lot) I think the general public and indeed the religious community would engage with it more readilly. I believe I have performed such an experiment and hope to report on it soon......
"If a scientist did an experiment that proved there was some sort of 'higher consciousness' would the scientific community believe it?" For the experiment to be scientifically valid it would need to be repeatable. This would imply this so called 'higher consciousness' responds the same way every time the experiment is performed. In the case of physical phenomena, I cannot imagine how such a predictable action would imply consciousness. You may as well call gravity 'higher consciousness.' Perhaps you have God's phone number, but how can you enforce him to pick up the phone for every sceptic that wants to confirm this?
Hi Robert, As a scientist, I am well aware of the requirement for peer review. I think you underline part of the problem, however. You have prejudged the results already and assign human characteristics (quite understandably) to the 'intelligence beyond'.You are presumably of the view that we humans are the only sentient beings in the universe and that science is a pure and incontrovertible way of understanding it? Have you heard of Heisenberg?
My GCSE biology teacher told us about evolution as expected by the National Curriculum. Then he told us he had been obliged to do so, but felt that none of it was true. He was a Christian creationist who believed the earth was 6000 years old. Not being a Muslim country does not guarantee unbiased science teaching. Years later, I was astonished to discover that a Muslim colleague who altered mouse stem cells to create gene knockout mice in the study of gene function, and with whom I had previously discussed the threat from avian flu potentially evolving to infect humans, did not believe in human evolution. It still puzzles me that a person can become so versed in genetic techniques whilst believing that each human is given their own set of genes by god. My parents, one atheist and one tending towards Christianity, encouraged me to investigate different religions and science and to draw my own conclusions. Very few people in the world are lucky enough to have such freedom of thought presented to them by those they love and respect. Perhaps with devout parents I too would have acquired knowledge of genetics without believing in it. I think it is almost inevitable that a child offered both true freedom of thought and a decent education will "believe" in science. This is why so many religious people will not offer their children that freedom. For those above discussing whether scientists have "faith", please consider reading Hitchen's "God is not great" - even if you don't agree with his view afterwards, you will understand the objections to the word in association with science.
An intelligent but indoctrinated person could continue to believe what he was taught to believe as a child, though the examples you have given are quite extreme and one hopes relatively rare. The indoctrinated person blanks out in his mind any evidence that is contrary to his "faith" and beliefs and cherry picks evidence that supports it. Because it is illogical, religion often leads people to illogical and irrational behaviour. It is because of this, the faith that has the the biggest and most efficient indoctrination machine is to be feared the most. Freedom to believe entails freedom from indoctrination during childhood. The closure of religious schools for children would be a major way to tackle this, though it would not tackle indoctrination by parents at home which could be countered by education at school. Like Lord Palmerston I believe "Taking a wasps' nest... is more effective than catching the wasps one by one"
I can name governments that have been happy to shut down not just religious schools but also the religions themselves: the Soviet Union (and its client states), the "People's Republic" of China, Cambodia under Pol Pot, and other repressive Communist states. Those governments are or were not known for encouraging freedom of thought or a freedom to believe in anything other than Communism. -- There is no "freedom to believe" if you cannot choose your beliefs, be they scientific, political, religious, or whatever. More importantly, a universal freedom to believe also gives people the freedom not to believe. The later often frees people from the "indoctrination" of their childhood. In science, the freedom not to believe is especially important, since scientific advances often come from those who choose not to believe in the current paradigm and show others a better paradigm. Darwin's replacing the previously well-accepted principle of the immutability of species with the theory of evolution is only one example of this.
I agree with Emma and think her's is the best entry so far. Science is the best we have, but has so far failed to prove anything either way. Having recently been to a lecture by Kip Thorn though, I am still 'boggled' and cannot dismiss the idea of something bigger than us and our feeble brains. I thnk this informs my politics; since we do not know the answer the only solution is complete freedom for everyone to find one. Darwinism will see to the rest. Great discussion chaps. Life affirming!
Science and Religion are very compatible for the Buddhist. Once you are aware that you and all humans share the same RELATIVE reality, science can be used as a tool to make life easier for us, but at the same time you must be aware that the only real truth lies in the moment..
I don't see how naming governments who shut down religious schools and tried to shut down religions provides an argument for not shutting down religious schools that indoctrinate children. The one good thing that the communist regimes did was to shut down religious schools. I could say the same for Kemal Ataturk and Turkey. There is a large secular population now among the citizens of those countries that counter religious extremism, after the fall of communism and after Attaturk. For all their faults, these totalitarian regimes did counter militant religious totalitarianism, which also seeks to curtail human freedoms - freedom to education, thought, behaviour, dress, social customs etc. Unfortunately they didn't go far enough in this direction, except for Albania, which now sends troops to fight the Taleban in Afghanistan. Of course removal of freedom of any sort is to be deplored, but shutting down religious schools for children would not curtail freedom - it would enhance it. Freedom of thought is important for children. And they are very susceptible to indoctrination. I'm glad that the Buddhist doesn't see any incompatibility between his religion and science. Many religious people, including Christians and Muslims don't. The Taleban also think that science is a tool to make life easier for them. Easier to build roadside bombs and rocket launchers. What I object to is the Buddhist's (and other religious adherents) absolute certainty on scientific matters, such as solving the mystery of time ? the only real 'truth' lies in the moment, an inscrutable statement indeed, based on nothing more than the teachings of their religious master. True and immutable for all time.
Hmmmmmmmmmm. I agree that religion is to be discouraged since it encourages a 'them and us' attitude. To me religion is the 'politics of God' and God is a name for the infinity we all observe and struggle to interpret.
Hmmmmmmmmmm. I agree that religion is to be discouraged since it encourages a 'them and us' attitude. To me religion is the 'politics of God' and God is a name for the infinity we all observe and struggle to interpret.
Every one to his own taste.However,there must be problems between religion and science,for there are so many debates.I think the philosophers can answer that.In fact,I have no religion.
Hannah this is a very informative study- thanks. Being a muslim scientist myself and having lived for some years in Pakistan, I find this article very interesting. Given the cultural/regional diversity of Islam, I believe there will be multiple and differeing opinions on this topic based on individual experiences and background (as shown by this study). Having said that, my very personal opinion and understanding of the Koran is that the Koran has always encouraged the exploration/research in the sciences to better understand the world in which we live (Historically, it was this very idea and notion that led to the flourishing of scientists and discoveries during the middle ages in the present day middle east area).
It is interesting that you feel that the Koran encourages research in sciences. Research in sciences proceeds with observations and hypothesis, which are further tested to reach theories. How then does the Koran in this way deal with the creation of the world, man and animals? What would your opinion be that man has evolved from ape-like creatures, share common ancestors with apes and indeed pigs, dogs, reptiles and all creatures living and dead? How is this opinion of yours been shaped by your understanding of the Koran and your understanding of science independent of the Koran?
It's too bad that RIchard is not getting any response to his last posting. IMO, the last two questions are good ones. (The first one is so rhetorical and the answer so obvious that it need not be dealt with.) Seeing how others perceive the view that we are descended from "ape-like creatures" (or an ancestral ape under my way of stating this) and share ancestry with all creatures living and extict, and also how those views have been shaped would be good information for those interested this topic.
Quran has discussed Astronomy, Physics, Geography, Geology, Oceanology, Biology (in general), Botany, Zoology, Medicine, Physiology, Embryology and General Science... If anyone is interested they can have a look at a booklet "Quran and Modern Science -compatible or incompatible: Downloadable from http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/quran/qms.pdf free of cost. I hope you will find it interesting. Cheers :)