Science is about trying to get rigorous answers
to questions about how nature works.
And it’s a very important process that’s
actually quite reliable if carried out correctly
with generation of hypotheses and testing
of those by accumulation of data and then
drawing conclusions that are continually revisited
to be sure they are right.
So if you want to answer questions about how
nature works, how biology works, for instance,
science is the way to get there.
Scientists believe in that they are very troubled
by a suggestion that other kinds of approaches
can be taken to derive truth about nature.
And some I think have seen faith as therefore
a threat to the scientific method and therefore
it to be resisted.
But faith in its perspective is really asking
a different set of questions.
And that’s why I don’t think there needs
to be a conflict here.
The kinds of questions that faith can help
one address are more in the philosophical
realm.
Why are we all here?
Why is there something instead of nothing?
Is there a God?
Isn’t it clear that those aren't scientific
questions and that science doesn’t have
much to say about them?
But you either have to say, well those are
inappropriate questions and we can’t discuss
them or you have to say, we need something
besides science to pursue some of the things
that humans are curious about.
For me, that makes perfect sense.
But I think for many scientists, particularly
for those who have seen the shrill pronouncements
from extreme views that threaten what they’re
doing scientifically and feel therefore they
can’t really include those thoughts into
their own worldview, faith can be seen as
an enemy.
And similarly, on the other side, some of
my scientific colleagues who are of an atheist
persuasion are sometimes using science as
a club over the head of believers basically
suggesting that anything that can’t be reduced
to a scientific question isn’t important
and just represents superstition that should
be gotten rid of.
Part of the problem is, I think the extremists
have occupied the stage.
Those voices are the ones we hear.
I think most people are actually kind of comfortable
with the idea that science is a reliable way
to learn about nature, but it’s not the
whole story and there’s a place also for
religion, for faith, for theology, for philosophy.
But that harmony perspective does not get
as much attention, nobody’s as interested
in harmony as they are in conflict, I’m
afraid.
My study of genetics certainly tells me, incontrovertibly
that Darwin was right about the nature of
how living things have arrived on the scene,
by descent from a common ancestor under the
influence of natural selection over very long
periods of time.
Darwin was amazingly insightful given how
limited the molecular information he had was;
essentially it didn’t exist.
And now with the digital code of the DNA,
we have the best possible proof of Darwin’s
theory that he could have imagined.
So that certainly tells me something about
the nature of living things.
But it actually adds to my sense that this
is an answer to a "how?" question and it leaves
the "why?"
question still hanging in the air.
Other aspects of our universe I think also
for me as for Einstein raised questions about
the possibility of intelligence behind all
of this.
Why is it that, for instance, that the constance
that determines the behavior of matter and
energy, like the gravitational constant, for
instance, have precisely the value that they
have to in order for there to be any complexity
at all in the Universe.
That is fairly breathtaking in its lack of
probability of ever having happened.
And it does make you think that a mind might
have been involved in setting the stage.
At the same time that does not imply necessarily
that that mind is controlling the specific
manipulations of things that are going on
in the natural world.
In fact, I would very much resist that idea.
I think the laws of nature potentially could
be the product of a mind.
I think that’s a defensible perspective.
But once those laws are in place, then I think
nature goes on and science has the chance
to be able to perceive how that works and
what its consequences are.
