<link>

The link is to a short article in the NY Times titled “Roving Defender of Evolution, and of Room for God” and it describes the thoughts of evolutionary biologist Francisco J. Ayala. Much of the article discusses his position that evolution is how life was created on earth, and that there are refutations to the arguments of those who challenge Evolutionary Theory. His rejection of the Intelligent Design idea seems to leave little room for a belief in God. What is left for God to do? From the article’s title I had hoped that he would provide some explanation as to how he could reconcile his scientific views with a belief in God. But all we get is the statement:

“Nevertheless, Dr. Ayala will not say whether he remains a religious believer.

“I don’t want to be tagged,” he said. “By one side or the other.”

That is a good position to take in order to maximize his potential list of speaking engagements, but how can he really still hold open a belief in God? His only supporting statement is that:

“Science and religion concern nonoverlapping realms of knowledge,” he writes in the new book. “It is only when assertions are made beyond their legitimate boundaries that evolutionary theory and religious belief appear to be antithetical.”

I have heard that before, and that statement at first seems to be logical, but then you wonder what “knowledge” means in each case. Science uses physical evidence, lab and field testing, hypothesis, thought experiments, etc. to try and develop a set of reasons as to why a certain set of explanations and conclusions (assertions) about the physical world should be accepted as a rational worldview, which then becomes part of scientific knowledge. As a scientist Ayala has clearly used these methods in order to reach his views on the invalidity of challenges to the TOE. But then he says there is this other area of religious knowledge, which also makes assertions about how the world works. Unfortunately he provides not a clue as to which, if any, of the religious assertions he holds to, nor any reasons why these assertions should be viewed as a rational body of knowledge.

Perhaps it was the fault of the Times interviewer for not pressing Ayala on his religious views, but if Ayala had a strong position (he was a Dominican priest) as to how there is still room for god, it seems to me he should have volunteered up some better statements in support of this otherworldly realm of knowledge. Perhaps I am being cynical, but I see Ayala as acting just a tad bit too coy as to his theology.

(NB: If his book provides a better explanation then I will retract my jab.)

Well, one of the simplest 'reconciliations' would be -- 'And God said "let evolution begin" '.....and then stayed out of the actual process.

Like I speculated on another FB thread.....if one believes in evolution, then God per se is not the problem. The problem is Adam and Eve and the whole doctrine of 'Original Sin' and hence the 'need' for Divine Sacrificial Lamb.................

There are plenty of people with both religious belief and a strong grounding in scientific reality. Ken Miller (mentioned in a thread below) is one of these folks.

Lots of scientists are athiests. Lots are not.

PumpkinSeed:

<link>

The link is to a short article in the NY Times titled “Roving Defender of Evolution, and of Room for God” and it describes the thoughts of evolutionary biologist Francisco J. Ayala. Much of the article discusses his position that evolution is how life was created on earth, and that there are refutations to the arguments of those who challenge Evolutionary Theory. His rejection of the Intelligent Design idea seems to leave little room for a belief in God. What is left for God to do? From the article’s title I had hoped that he would provide some explanation as to how he could reconcile his scientific views with a belief in God. But all we get is the statement:

Evolution doesn't involved the "creation of life," or its origins. It involves changes in life over time.

Why would rejection of ID "leave little room for a belief in God?" I don't see the logic of that claim.

“Nevertheless, Dr. Ayala will not say whether he remains a religious believer.

“I don’t want to be tagged,” he said. “By one side or the other.”

That is a good position to take in order to maximize his potential list of speaking engagements, but how can he really still hold open a belief in God? His only supporting statement is that:

Nice bit of snarkiness there, but what does it mean, in fact? And why would he have to "support" his own claim of belief in a God?

“Science and religion concern nonoverlapping realms of knowledge,” he writes in the new book. “It is only when assertions are made beyond their legitimate boundaries that evolutionary theory and religious belief appear to be antithetical.”

Sounds perfectly logical to me. There's no fundamental disagreement between religion and science except in a few cases such as Biblical Literalism, which insists that the mythological description of the origins of life in Genesis are actually real and testable scientific hypotheses.

I have heard that before, and that statement at first seems to be logical, but then you wonder what “knowledge” means in each case. Science uses physical evidence, lab and field testing, hypothesis, thought experiments, etc. to try and develop a set of reasons as to why a certain set of explanations and conclusions (assertions) about the physical world should be accepted as a rational worldview, which then becomes part of scientific knowledge. As a scientist Ayala has clearly used these methods in order to reach his views on the invalidity of challenges to the TOE. But then he says there is this other area of religious knowledge, which also makes assertions about how the world works. Unfortunately he provides not a clue as to which, if any, of the religious assertions he holds to, nor any reasons why these assertions should be viewed as a rational body of knowledge.

Religious gives knowlege of the spiritual - the nature of God(s), the proper form human behavior should take, morals, ethics, beliefs about an afterlife, etc. The assertions made by religion do not overlap with those made by science. One is natural, the other, supernatural.

Perhaps it was the fault of the Times interviewer for not pressing Ayala on his religious views, but if Ayala had a strong position (he was a Dominican priest) as to how there is still room for god, it seems to me he should have volunteered up some better statements in support of this otherworldly realm of knowledge. Perhaps I am being cynical, but I see Ayala as acting just a tad bit too coy as to his theology.

Perhaps you should explain why you DON'T think there's "room for God" in a rational Universe, or why religion and science SHOULD overlap. I'm at a loss as to why you can't understand Ayala or why he's "coy." That seems unnecessarily accusative, to me.

(NB: If his book provides a better explanation then I will retract my jab.)

"Perhaps you should explain why you DON'T think there's "room for God" in a rational Universe, or why religion and science SHOULD overlap."

Ayala is pretty much saying God did not make or design the world, or interfere along the course of the evolutionary process. What then does God do for Ayala, or for you?

"Lots of scientists are athiests. Lots are not."

I agree, but what is it that God does if he did not design or make the world, or interfere during the course of evolution? What is left for God to do?

Why does God have to "do" anything? Why can't you just let God "be"? God is the universe, and the universe is God.

"Well, one of the simplest 'reconciliations' would be -- 'And God said "let evolution begin" '.....and then stayed out of the actual process."

Since the process appears to still be going on, is God then doing nothing but waiting around to see what happens? What else does he do?

"Like I speculated on another FB thread.....if one believes in evolution, then God per se is not the problem. The problem is Adam and Eve and the whole doctrine of 'Original Sin' and hence the 'need' for Divine Sacrificial Lamb................."

WIthout the rest of this post I am not sure exactly what you are saying, Do you have a link?

"God is the universe, and the universe is God."

But that makes God a Beethoven symphony but also a big pile of cowpattiy. The question then becomes, does this cowpatty care about humans? In what way? That also makes me God, cool. When do I get an offering of some virgins to sacrifice enjoy?

Virgins are overrated, in my experience!

Guess I will just have to sacrifice them afterall. Lol

I haven't read Ayala's book, but I would imagine what he's saying is that there is no evidence that God interferes with the course of the evolutionary process. That's not exactly the same thing.

“Science and religion concern nonoverlapping realms of knowledge,” he writes in the new book. “It is only when assertions are made beyond their legitimate boundaries that evolutionary theory and religious belief appear to be antithetical.”

SINCE WHEN IS RELIGION A REALM OF KNOWLEDGE? SORT OF BUGGERS THE WORD KNOWLEDGE TO DEATH DON'T IT? SURE, WHEN YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT PARTICLE PHYSICS, THAT'S WHERE YOUR SCIENCE COMES IN HANDY. WHEN YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT UNICORNS THAT'S WITHIN THE LEGITIMATE BOUNDARY OF RELIGION. IN OTHER WORDS HE'S JUST ANOTHER BIG PUSSY THAT CAN'T CUT THE APRON STRINGS BECAUSE THERE REALLY MIGHT BE A MONSTER IN THE CLOSET.

I agree, but what is it that God does if he did not design or make the world, or interfere during the course of evolution? What is left for God to do?

Is there any reason to think that an omnipotent God would need to intervene in the world in order to make it the way it is? A God worthy of all the attributes ascribed to him could have designed the Universe in the right way that the unfolding of natural processes would yield us and anything else He wanted. As a matter of fact, a God who acts solely through natural processes is the only kind of God worthy of the name, as a God who has to act through miracles - to tweak or improvise - is a God whose original design needed correction.

Looks like a plant to me.