OK, I'll state up front that I consider myself a scientist, and I do not
have a belief about God one way or the other. I would like to address the
topic of whether or not science is a belief system. I think we can all
agree that religions are belief systems. Many people object to putting
science and religion on an equal footing, because they believe science is an
objective way of studying the world, and religion, fundamentally speaking,
rests on faith. Therefore, according to this way of thinking, science is
not a belief, but a system of facts (and many people take it further to
state that facts belong in schools and beliefs or religions don't).

Although I practice science, I consider this a conscious choice, similar to
selecting a religion. I DO think that science is a system of beliefs; and
the validity of those beliefs is not any more provable than religion.
Please let me explain this before you jump all over me :-). To me, science
is a particularly logical, structured, and internally consistent belief
system that appeals to those who feel the need to study and explain the
world in this way.

Why do I think it's not provable? There is a long-standing tenet of both
philosophy and science that self-referential systems cannot be proven. In
other words, if you are part of the system you are trying to study, you
cannot see it objectively and there is not a single unique solution to how
the system works. It doesn't matter how internally consistent it appears to
you, you are still seeing it as part of the system. A well-known example is
the Flatlanders, 2-dimensional beings that live on a plane. In their
studies of the world around them, they can only conclude that it is
2-dimensional and that movement can only occur along a plane. They are
incapable of seeing more dimensions, even if they are really there.

Because we see the world through our own specific physical and mental
processes, we are limited in the types of systems and rules we can perceive.
I was privileged to attend courses at Caltech taught by Roger Sperry, a
Nobel-prize winning neurobiologist, on the whole issue of whether brains and
the thought process they give rise to can even really be studied due to this
problem (this from a leading scientist who studied brains and neurobiology
all his career). Similar problems occur in quantum physics; when you get
down to a certain fundamental level, it is impossible to study a system
without affecting it. The basic problem then is, we are part of the system
we are studying and cannot be sure of our objectivity with respect to it.
Other solutions than those we have devised are possible. This basic
scientific problem of self-referential systems is one reason why we have not
been able to develop a model for how consciousness emerges, and have been so
far unable to conceptualize how an artifical intelligence might be created.

In order to be absolutely right, therefore, about whether the religious or
scientific belief structure is correct, we would have to be studying the
system from outside it, not within. Since we can never do that, we should
be clear that we are making a conscious choice about what to believe. To
give an example of this, let me address the specific issue of creationism
vs. evolution. Here are a variety of thought constructs that could explain
the data we have:

1. There has never been any external creative influence (i.e., God) involved
in the creation of matter. Matter in our universe has always existed and is
continually evolving through natural processes, some of which we understand
and all of which are amenable to study. All life on earth evolved from
single-celled organisms through internally consistent physical, chemical,
and biological principles.

2. God created the universe, complete with the physical, chemical, and
biological principles we observe through science. Evolution is part of
God's plan, or a natural result of the rules He created for the universe.
Studying science gives us a greater appreciation for the intricacy and
beauty of God's creation.

3. God created man and the other species as described in the Bible.
Consistent with other stories about God in the Bible, God (or the devil) has
also placed a variety of temptations, false evidence, and other distractions
on earth to test the faith of his followers. Because God is all-powerful,
there is no way for us to know the truth, and it is our adherence and belief
in the Word of God (the Bible) in the face of all temptations and evidence
to the contrary that proves our faith and ensures a better life after death.

4. The world is an illusion, created by our collective consciousness. It
has no independent reality, but it is what we perceive it to be and is
shaped by our collective belief. Under this system of thought (common in
many Eastern religions), the physical world is irrelevant and study of it is
fruitless. It is only self-improvement and pursuit of inner perfection that
will release us from the imperfect world we have created for our temporary
existence. Under this system of belief, anything could be realized in the
physical world if we believe it to be so. For example, the world could have
been flat until enough people conceptualized it to be round.

5. Not to trivialize the actual belief systems presented above, but this
Star Trek analogy is equally possible: We are all in a giant holo-deck, in
a virtual world programmed by an alien race. They are entertained by our
attempts to study our world, and work hard to create ever more complicated
rules for our world before we "discover" them. They have other
civilizations living in other holo-decks, that have different physical
rules. They are studying which set of physical rules gives rise the most
interesting or most successful society.

My point here is that none of these propositions can be proven. The sooner
we realize that we all choose our belief system, the sooner we can stop
trivializing others' beliefs or thinking our own to be superior.

When I really think about it, I am about equally divided between systems 1
and 4. When I feel tempted to denigrate Creationists or any other belief
system that I personally find unlikely, it is instructive to remind myself
that none of these systems can be proven, and that the vast majority of the
world believes in either 2, 3, or 4 above. I feel it is a waste of time to
argue about it, since we can't really know. I look forward to finding out
someday, when my physical existence on this earth is no longer necessary.

In the meantime, I appreciate your participation in Tweeters whether you are
marvelling over the intricacies of evolution or delighting in the beauty
that God has created. Why does it matter? Why do so many people feel
compelled to force their systems on everyone? Or prohibit others from being
discussed or practiced? Sigh...

- Teresa Michelsen