There are more questions than answers

May 26, 2009 Letters

Dear Editor,
Mr. Stanley Permaul wants answers to deep and penetrating questions which unfortunately a letters column in a newspaper cannot adequately address (Kaieteur News May 20).
I strongly recommend he reads Richard Dawkin’s book, “Climbing Mount Improbable” as a start in the quest to understand how evolution relates to life.

While I admire Mr. Permaul’s openness in these issues, I do think he is wrong to say that both religion and science “include theory, experimentation and verification.” Religion uses faith and so does not allow the heresy of questioning what is believed to be established by God.
Religions do not experiment and do not seek to verify beliefs as such acts would vitiate the meaning of faith. Science, on the other hand, uses the scientific method – observation, prediction, experimentation, hypothesis, and theory establishment. Science works with provisional knowledge obtain through this method.

Keeping an open mind that things could always change, scientists rely on that which is presently proven most probable. Religion deals with that which is absolute – God, who is beyond questioning.
Has science “closed the deal” in relation to the formation of life? Of course not; science is a work in progress and it has only been in practice for about 200 or so years. The scientific enterprise is ongoing because scientists know that there are more questions than answers.
Religion though, has been around from time immemorial with Hinduism being the oldest known to mankind. Coincidentally, many of the principles of Hinduism coincide with the discoveries of science. Hinduism recognises the wisdom of uncertainty because devotees know they cannot ever fully comprehend the mind of an omniscient God.

It is only some types in the Abrahamic faiths – fundamentalist Jews, Muslims and Christians who feel absolutely certain that they know the mind of God and these now find themselves in conflict with
modern thought and up-to-date knowledge. Sensible adherents to these belief systems actually understand how scientific knowledge enhances their understanding of how God works. The Catholic Church, for instance, endorses evolution.

“How can chemicals suddenly decide to become alive?” Mr. Permaul asks. The misleading words here are “suddenly” and “decide”. Scientists posit that the actions of the four basic laws of the universe – the weak and strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism – acting in concert over billions of years can organise complex chemical structures to exhibit the qualities Permaul regards as life. These structures were basic and primitive at first but became increasingly complex in reaction to forces in their environments.
Are the fundamental laws God? Scientists do not think so. They argue that these laws are the results of what is the nature of the universe. Then, is nature god? Some religious people think so; they think everything that exists is a manifestation of the supreme. But others think not.

I suggest that Mr. Permaul browse amazon.com for evolution books. He will undoubtedly find the answers he is looking for there. The newspaper letters column is not a physics, chemistry or biology text book and cannot address Mr. Permaul’s questions in the details it deserves. This page should not be a religious tract either but you’ll try in vain to get a fundamentalist to respect that.
Justin de Freitas