This arguement between science and the creationists has been rendered mute.The BIBLE indeed teaches evolution only there its science fact.People forget what the phony church systems lie about in regards to our creation story.They would have you to believe a lie such as a snake dangling in a tree told the woman to eat a piece of fruit off the tree.The BIBLE says of every tree thou mayest freely eat.So the woman did something else right.She became impregnated by the caveman the BIBLE calls the serpant.Cain was the fruit of that union.Then she took her new found knowlegde to Adam and slept with him.The fruit of that union was Abel.There are two seperate and distinct genepools in Genesis ch4 and ch.5 The crossed in chapter six.Thats your missing link between man and animal.Too continue to argue about creationism or evolution is not only a waste of time it's also foolish. Starion P.S now you know why they were ashamed of their nakedness and sowed fig leaves together as cloths to cover their sex organs LETS GET WITH IT OUR TIME IS SHORT. STARION

If we pay attention to inventors and those who claim discoveries we find innovative, we find creative people. Creative people are those who allow the most chaos in allowing chaos to mix and merge until something new and useful pops in their heads, yes by accident. Everything is pure chaos that eventually gets triggered into just maybe something useful. I would be cautious to not confuse chaos with confusion, random is key.

Example might be someone thinking about how to make electronics more efficient. While taking this task to hand, they overhear someone talking about how a boyscout utility knife and all its utilities packaged together. Viola, an ASIC (an all in one chip that now houses circuitry that existed separately) is born. The concept begins to make more sense and someone seeing this then will design RF single chip modules. You see, it did not happen at once, never does. It is always an evolutionary process by chaos. If we restricted our thinking to what the bible says is the only truth, then we loose creative ability. Simply put, we are all very stupid creatures and rely heavily on mental chaos to create and adapt.

The more open minded, the more chaos enters and more connections by accident occur. However , chaos alone is not the key to thinking but also the ability to organize it. organizing chaos is another area both we and the universe share alike.

This alone shows that chaos is in our genes and in fact it is the very root of all evolution, including the earth and stars. The concept is simple, but very real. Humans have evolved through chaos, just as the not-so-smart thinker gets into an endless loop going no where, so did those organisms go no where.

No doubt, even religion would have never reached its heights hadn't it been for the early Shaman who used trickery into fooling people. He may have witnessed behavior in a person(s) by an unusual event, chaos enters, and then realized power or perceived opportunity to dominate. Yes, the origins of religion appeared and developed over time through chaos. Chaos is the enabler for all evolution whether it is in inventions of products, religion, God or the Universe.

In effect, if our own creations and adaptations are developed through chaos and we are part of this universe, so then is the entire Universe chaos. Chaos is the only constant throughout. It is the only single thread throughout all existence, organic and non. We are already discovering other planets that have the makings for life. This again denies our arrogant thinking of we are special.

There is no evolutionary separation that says man existed or developed from separate origins from plants, likewise cells and other. There are plants, animals and plant-animals. We all evolved through a single stage of chaos.

It is in the collision of chaos which enables inventions and theories to form in our minds. It is the natural end to organize. We are no different from the Universe, after all we are a part of it.

The stubbornness that seems to think we actually create something new out of pure genius, or nothing, is the same arrogance we used in creating a God. Those religious especially are not capable of thinking otherwise, fear becomes an obstacle.

Blocking ourselves from the reality that everything is developed through chaos is why some have to believe that it is impossible to have something from nothing. To them there must be a God.

Intelligence is merely our ability to be creative enough, which is to allow the highest volume of chaos in and then the ability to draw in organization rapidly. This ability changes from person to person and is predefined genetically. Yes, some have been fortunate to have evolved from a better gene pool. This does not mean that we can not train ourselves to improve with organization of thought, just some are naturally better.

Falsely thinking we can create products and ideas without chaos entering first is the same arrogance presented by religions. We are made up of chaos and put order to it, so has the universe. We are all the same.

I reviewed a book last year that fits your request.

It's called The Canon: A Whirligig tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science by Natalie Angier.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

Can you recommend books that teach HOW TO PROMOTE SCIENCE to friends, family, and students of all ages?

Joseph,

I don't know if you explored my website to find the Sagan review, but here's the correct link.

Sorry for the earlier typo.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

Fred,
I think the right amount and type of religion is a net positive for civilization. Getting to that point is a daunting task, however, as we precariously perch on the edge.

Just taking things on faith leads to all kinds of appalling conflicts in the world. The unquestioning mindset has proven extremely dangerous.

Religion, theism, and superstition aren't indistinguishable, but they often overlap.

I enjoyed your book reviews. I was disappointed to get a "page not found" message for your link to your Carl Sagan review. His book, The Dragons of Eden was very formative in my outlook.

It has been pleasant conversing with you.

Driving to work this morning I listened to a podcast that touches upon the issues we've been discussing here. The 3/13 edition of the Nature podcast features a blurb from a former science Nobel Laureate (can't remember which one off the top of my head, it was a long drive) discussing his religious childhood and subsequent rejection of religion as his education progressed. In the past he had been combative and tried to debunk religion whenever the chance presented itself. More recently he has realized that religion has a valid place in society and can provide a meaning to life and a sense of wonder that science may not provide for some. Take a listen, it's about 1/2 way through this particular podcast.

Joe Burdo
Assistant Professor of Neurobiology
Bridgewater State College
(My bizarre and/or nonsensical rantings may not reflect the beliefs of who signs my paychecks!)

Joe,
I think humans are less religious and superstitious, too. The steps of the flow chart overlap, though I can't say anyone has discovered God yet, or ever will. I have heard of mention of a "God particle", so at least one researcher may think he/she is getting close. Or maybe it was stated in jest.

Religion, or a default mode of superstition is here to stay, at least to a degree. There are varying levels of intelligence and education within a single culture, even more so between cultures. If someone doesn't understand a scientific finding but accepts it on faith, it amounts to superstition or religion. I think civilization needs to lighten up in its views of God and worry about honest and skeptical seeking of cause and effect. I think our views have much in common.

Joseph, I don't understand what you mean when you write "Our future looks bleak right now because we are so religious." Are you suggesting that religion is necessarily bad?

I certainly think that ignoring the evidence is a bad thing, but you don't have to be religious for that to happen. Plenty of dangerous ideologues have been atheists. And conversely, plenty of religious people advocate acting based on scientific evidence. This even includes a growing number of evangelical Christians who consider global warming a threat to "The Creation."

Also, I think you need to be careful about distinguishing among religion, theism, and superstition. Your statements seem to say that they are inseparable if not indistinguishable.

I don't know if you have followed any links to books I have reviewed, but let me cite a few:

Evolving God by Barbara J. King, which presents a view that the evolution of religion has been beneficial to us as a social species. An excerpt from my review:

She carries readers along a path that begins with belongingness, which is common to all primates, and ends with the uniquely human religious practice and "emotional engagement with the sacred."

The evolutionary arc, as she sees it, includes empathy, meaning-making through interaction, the development and following of social rules, consciousness, and imagination, all of which exist in various degrees among our nearest relatives, the apes (and less so among our more distant cousins, the monkeys).

The Creation by E. O. Wilson, in which the esteemed biology professor and secular humanist speaks to the evangelical community in which he was raised about the need to preserve biodiversity.

The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God by Carl Sagan, edited by Ann Druyan, a remarkable set of lectures where Sagan shows an appreciation for religious thought within yielding on the requirement for using evidence to make sense of the universe.

If you like my reviews, consider subscribing to my monthly (or less often) newsletters by following the link on the review page.

My approach is probably close to Sagan's. I find my membership in a congregation meaningful in my life without compromising scientific principles. Unlike Sagan, my writing leaves religion completely on the sidelines except for one "Ask Dr. Fred" question on my website, namely "What is a scientist's view of creation."

In my only book that discusses evolution explicitly, Astrobiology in the "Cool Science" series for grades 4-6, I point out that life on any planet could not exist without it.

That's probably all I have to say that is useful on this thread.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

I would argue that humans are less religious or superstitious in general than we ever have been in recorded history. It wasn't even 200 years ago that the Catholic church formally denied the existence of a heliocentric universe. Those scant few hundred years are an eye-blink in the context of the tens of thousands of years of human existence, and since then we've made great progress in the promotion and acceptance of science as a tool to describe the physical and natural world. Religion per se isn't an evil entity; when the world seems too complex or scary, many people can only find comfort in believing that someone is watching out for them and will make sure their next life (afterlife or otherwise) is a better one. What's problematic is when any viewpoint or belief system, be it religious or scientific, is taken to an extreme and the believer refuses to live life with an open mind.

Joe Burdo
Assistant Professor of Neurobiology
Bridgewater State College
(My bizarre and/or nonsensical rantings may not reflect the beliefs of those who sign my paychecks!)

Hi Fred. It's true that evolution doesn't have a goal. It is basically a mechanical process.

Our future looks bleak right now because we are so religious. What if this tendency to be superstitious is a potential property of intelligent life throughout the universe, at least such life in its infancy? Anyone advanced enough to set up a universe's natural laws just might be able to predict that. It's just a "What if?".

It may take life from another planet in another galaxy, even, to be the one to make contact with a creator that may be waiting. I mentioned dolphins for the very reason that humans may well blow any chance that might exist. I wonder if dolphins may even have made into the superstition phase already. One recently led two pygmy sperm whales out to safety, off of a beach. That indicates compassion to me.

Joseph Meisenhelder writes about "progression" and a "main branch of interest" as if evolution has a direction and a goal.

While it is true that evolution on Earth has so far led to increased complexity, that is a function of the way Earth itself has been changing.

When Earth becomes less well suited to life as we currently know it--probably Venus-like in 1 billion years--life will become simpler and will have a more limited physical range as well (deep beneath the surface in rocks like recently discovered nano-bacteria in the Columbia River Basalt, perhaps).

The fact that evolution has no goal is probably the main difficulty we scientists have in persuading fundamentalists. They believe that humanity is the pinnacle of (divine) creation, whereas scientific treatments of life consider humans just one species on an ever-changing, ever-evolving web of organisms.

At this point, our species' "success" is even in question. Cockroaches seem to be the best bet for endurance and persistence among living species. Or perhaps bacteria are a better choice.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

Makes sense. There are bound to be dead-end branches along the path. Hopefully the path of interest is the humans' one and won't turn out that way.

The main process is a one thing leads to another progression. It is completely natural and in accordance with scientific laws. This idea does not assume any divine intervention after the initial conditions are established. It may turn out that dolphins, for example, are on the main branch of interest, instead of humans.

primordial ooze--> simple life--> intelligent life--> invention--> television --> celebrity gossip --> simple life--> primordial ooze-->

I guess that's more of a parabola.

Religion appears to be genetically predisposed. Consider a possible flow chart: God --> scientific laws --> simple life --> complex brains --> superstition --> religion --> scientific method --> discovery of God.

I grew up with parents that held religious beliefs but were also capable of accepting science. As I grew older and learned a bit more I learned to accept the fact that there is religion and then there is Religion. The latter is rigid and closed while the former is a personal belief system rooted in "faith". You cannot reasonably analyze "faith" with science as they are too completely separate ways of thinking. With "faith" I can believe in a creator, call that construct GOD or whatever. I can believe without obstructing my belief in science. There is an interesting statement in the Baha'i Faith that says "religion without science is superstition". I cannot prove the existence of God or the "soul" or any of the other faith-based beliefs. But I don't have to prove them. These beliefs do not, in any way, impede my acceptance of evolution or quantum physics or astronomy. If there is a Creator, then I believe it's power is such that it could create in ways I can't even begin to imagine, let alone understand. It's only when you begin confusing science and faith that the walls suddenly appear. I'm content with both my faith and my science.
Harry Booker

Interesting the views popping up here - my main thing is not so much what one chooses to believe but that there should be an open forum for those who choose to voice other opinions to the majority (eg. Richard Dawkins) without violence etc. Science is about debate over theories, so it should be welcome that people bring new ideas to the table, however they need to be based on fact...

the other major one which really bothers me is the place of religion in science. It became a huge issue due to the teaching of creationism in science classes (which I am against). I believe that science and religion do not belong together - you can choose to not believe in evolution without jamming 'intelligent design' down peoples throats.

If I believe that a good force, God, for instance, always promotes my good health, then it will promote my survival in accordance with the placebo effect. Mean fitness in a large population may also increase.

Since evolution maximizes mean fitness we may therefore expect religions to evolve.

Gkm

Anonymous inquires:

I have never read anything by Dawkins saying that religion is a maladaptation which is on its way out due to natural selection. Do you have a reference for this?

I'm not citing Dawkins' writing on this, although someone with a copy of The God Delusion might have a quotation to offer on the topic.

My statement was my interpretation of a recent radio interview in conjunction with Dawkins' U.S. tour to promote the paperback. He was asked about whether a belief in God is an evolved trait. Since he calls belief in God a delusion, he clearly doesn't consider it a beneficial one.

Anyway, my statement was vague and not well supported. I usually am better about comments like that.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

Evolution is simply another word for "change over time." That's all it is. The problem with the "debate" is that people who do not understand the term "evolution" often ascribe too much to the details and the "gaps," they ascribe some subjective determinism to the theory, which evolution in no way implies - ironicaly, they ascribe religiousity itself to the theory. Evolution is not determinitive, it is not a religion, and all of the minute details throughout the past (and even the present and future) will never be known. If we are to have a civil discussion on the subject, we should at least state what evolution is and is not.

Jersey McJones

JMJ

Kevin:

I think that's a great attitude. The problem is that as scientists, many of us are uncomfortable stepping out of our role as logical thinkers. For years we've been dealing with cold, hard facts, aspects of the natural world which are measurable. Ephemeral concepts like faith and belief are difficult for many of us to talk about since we can't put our hands (or our scientific instruments) on them. The NAS book I blogged about earlier (and was originally mentioned by Fred Bortz) may be an interesting read for you.

Joe Burdo
Assistant Professor of Neurobiology
Bridgewater State College
(My bizarre and/or nonsensical rantings may not reflect the beliefs of who signs my paychecks!)

I have never read anything by Dawkins saying that religion is a maladaptation which is on its way out due to natural selection. Do you have a reference for this?

I can't speak for Dawkins but personally I believe it is probably a "good" adaptation in that it provides benefits for the believer, which are passed on to their descendants. However, that does not mean that religious belief is in any way "true". It simply means that those with the inclination to believe the same nonsense as the other members of their group have had a greater chance of surviving, succeeding and producing more offspring.

If Dawkins believed that natural selection would correct this problem I suspect he would not be so outspoken and pro-active in trying to reduce the problem through education.

His "little engines that have since disappeared without a trace" theory is completely whacked! He has to invent a non-existent process in order for his precious "evolution" to be palatable even to himself!

Anonymous writes,

Dawkins can only be considered disrespectful because people feel, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that religion is "good".

Is religion "good"? I'd say the answer to that question is far from conclusive, scientifically speaking, which is why I cited the speculative yet very scientific book by Barbara J. King, Evolving God: A Provocative View of the Origins of Religion. Of course, it depends on what you mean by "good."

It's possible that any belief, whether it is scientifically justified or not and whether it is correct or not, can be of benefit to a person or a society.

I'm not going to argue that religious fundamentalism is good, though its many adherents would argue in its favor.

I'm willing to argue that a literal interpretation of any religious scripture is not supported by the body of scientific evidence, though the counterargument is likely to be that I don't know how to interpret either the scripture or the science.

But does that give me the right to call people delusional because they choose to believe a myth? I'd rather judge such persons by their actions rather than by what I think is going on in their heads. That's what I mean by giving them respect.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

Some of us would love dialog. I know I would, and most people would define me as a Christian fundamentalist.

Not many people want to dialog about evolution, though. They just want to debate it. Instead of a friendly exploration of the various possibilities, they want a winner-take-all fight to the death in which I have to weigh everything I say in case it might be used against me later.

It's also sort of a conversation-stopper if someone assumes I'm too stupid to understand them simply because I hold fundamentalist religious beliefs.

My main point is, I'd bet there are more people like me out there, ready to talk. It's us, not the Dawkins's of the world, for whom dialog would valuable.

Kevin Megill

Dawkins can only be considered disrespectful because people feel, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that religion is "good". Dawkins tone in showing the blatant falsehoods of religion is precisley the same as the tone used to debunk the claims of astrologers. Consider, mentioning the Emporer's clothes is always the height of "rudeness".

Interesting comments, NeuroJoe.

I don't have much hope for persuading fundamentalists on either side of the divide.

As much as I like the scientific writings of Richard Dawkins, I find his contention that the belief in God is a delusion disrespectful of a large portion of the human race. He may see religion as a maladaptation that is on the way out as evolution progresses, but I prefer the assessment of Barbara J. King that it has value for us as a social species.

Of course, Dawkins' antipathy to religion pales in comparison to Christopher Hitchens' assessment. Still, when it comes to the divide that you speak of, I see them as holding viewpoints that are as rigid as the religious fundamentalists on the other side.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)