Debate about science and religion continues

As a chemical physicist I have followed both chemistry and physics for more than 40 years. In recent years, I have noticed a gradual change in the language of physics. Physicists now are more willing to accept that our knowledge may be limited and to admit that we will probably never be able to answer the major questions of existence that also fall in the realm of religion. In fact, some modern physics theories are beginning to require a certain belief system of their own and could be criticized as to whether they remain science (Burton Richter discusses this in his Reference Frame in Physics Today, October 2006, page 8 ). This change has been noteworthy and has provided for a healthier self-analysis by many physicists. However, I was a little shocked by the Opinion piece by Murray Peshkin, a theoretical physicist. It indicated, unfortunately, that the old arrogance of physics is still very much alive. It appears that a theoretical physicist is needed to present both Darwin’s theory of evolution and religion to the general public to help resolve any conflict and emphasize that the theory is supported by extensive experimentation. Peshkin apparently has never read Fred Hoyle’s book Mathematics of Evolution (Acorn Enterprises, 1999), which severely criticized the theory and outlined its limitations. Many chemists and physicists have great trouble with Darwin’s theory, especially if one tries to extrapolate it to higher life forms or modify it from an evolutionary concept to one of creation. If scientists cannot agree no wonder the general public is confused. I am still amused that even NASA justifies some of its programs in the belief that creation of life forms is some simple mechanism and with luck will be easily found somewhere else.

To extrapolate from nothing to the incredibly complex DNA-replicating molecule takes an even greater leap of faith than any religion. If I give a talk to a general audience, I emphasize the severe limitations of science and our lack of true understanding. We have good models and theories and have made great advances, but we still confuse data and the accumulation of knowledge with true understanding. Moreover, because of our apparently superior knowledge, some people now accept science as their religion.

The older I get, the more I recognize the great commonality between the sciences and the arts. In reality, science is no more than the technical branch of the arts. For example, who was more talented: Albert Einstein, Ludwig van Beethoven, Leonardo da Vinci, or William Shakespeare? Each discipline requires ingenuity, creativity, and insight. One would hope also some wisdom but that is an area that still needs more emphasis and is not taught or easily acquired.