Sal, I do not think Townes's words support your thesis.

I think you have a point regarding that specific passage, and I stand corrected.

I'll simply leave the passage as one informative to the reader, but then defer to Townes other words for his personal belief that God helped him in the lab.

Clearly other scientists do not feel the need for God in the lab, but my point is that Townes belief that God was helping him in the lab didn't seem to hurt the progress of science.

"Did God ever really help you in the laboratory?"

And I said, "Yes, I think so."

Whether God exists is a separate issue from whether such belief in God helping lab experiments is damaging to science. I think it is hard to empirically demonstrate that this mentality is actually damaging to science. It would be hard to argue Charles Townes and Bill Phillips are enemies of science simply because they believe God helps them in their science and answers their prayers….

In that manner, I think Coyne is demonstratably wrong in his opinions.

Lets suppose for the sake of argument that there is no God and ID is false, it is another issue altogether where such beliefs in God, even if incorrect, will necessarily lead to bad science. Even supposing the non-existence of God, Coyne's claims are demonstrably false. Witness the personal views of Townes:

Sal, I do not think Townes's words support your thesis. He says that a scientist believes that the world is comprehensible. Townes likens that belief to a religious faith, but he does not equate the two. Nowhere does he say that a belief in God will lead to good science.

I fully share this viewpoint of Townes and I have had moments of "revelation." It has nothing to do with my faith in God or lack thereof.

The necessity of faith in science is reminiscent of the description of religious fiath attributed to Constantine: "i believe so that I may know." But such faith is now so deeply rooted in the scientist that most of us never even stop to think that it is there at all…
….
The esssential role of faith in religion is so well known that it is usually taken as characteristic of religion, and as distinguishing religion from science. But faith is essential to science too, although we do not so generally recognize the basic need and nature of faith in science.

Faith is necessary for the scientist to even get started, and deep faith necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must be personally committed to the belief that there is order in the universe and that the human mind"“in fact his own mind"“has a good chance of understanding this order. Without this belief, there would be little point in intense effort to try to understand a presumably disorderly or incomprehensible world. Such a world would take us back ot the days of superstition, when man thought capricious forces maniupulated his universe. In fact, it is just this faith in an orderly universe, understandable ot man, which allowed the basic change from an age of supersitioun to an age of science, and has made possible our scientific progress.

Charles Townes
Making Waves
p 161-162

The Role of Revelation

Scientific knowledge, in the popular mind, comes by logical deduction, or by the accumulation of data which is analyzed by established methods in order to draw generalizations called laws. But such a description of scientific discovery is a travesty to the real thing. Most of the important scientific discoveries come about very differently and are much more closely akin to revelation. The term itself isgenerally not used for scientific discovery, since we are in the habit of reserving revelation for the religious realm. In scientific circles one speaks of intuition, accidental discovery….

If we compare how great scientific ideas arrive, they look remarkably like religious revelation…

We cannot yet describe the human process which leads to the creation of an important and substantially new scientific insight. But it is clear that the great scientific discoveries, the real leaps, do not usually come from the so-called "scientific method," but rather more as did Kekule's–with perhaps less picturesque imagery, but by revelations which are just as real.

Charles Townes

Mike Gene had similar thoughts on the topic of Neglected Elements of Scientific Discovery.

One experiment that astonished me was the Davison-Germer which was precipitated by an accident, a lab explosion.

I remember last semester as the professor described this marvelous accident which resulted in a Nobel Prize and confirmation of DeBroglies matter hypothesis. My jaw dropped at the remarkable serendipity…

religion has had a strong effenct on my life…

Nature is such a permanent aspect of our universe, and so obviously God made.
…
I went to college in my native state of South Carolina, at a small Baptist University…..

Charles Townes
Making Waves p 192-201

I vividly recall an occasion when another faculty member, an atheist but good physicist friend who knew of my religious faith, facetiously asked me, "Did God ever really help you in the laboratory?"

And I said, "Yes, I think so." Well, that stopped him. He didn't ask the second question, "How?" I think he was too flabbergasted by my reply to continue…..

As I look back at my family history perhaps I can spot this trait in my ancestor, William Bradford, a Mayflower pilgrim…

Charles Townes
Making Waves p 192-201

Although Townes has disdain for ID in biology, Townes had this to say about ID in cosmology:

"Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real"

But lets for the sake of argument, suppose that Townes is all wrong about God and ID in cosmology, it remains evident that Coyne doesn't have a very good case that religious belief in an individual is incompatible with good science.

"I was particularly pleased with Dr. Gange's refusal of the idea of materialism, and the convincing arguments supporting that refusal.

Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner
endorsement of the creationist book Origins and Destiny by
cryophysicist Rober Gange

See: Origins and Destiny

and more recently, Richard Smalley, Nobel Laureate given standing ovation after slamming Darwinism during a graduation ceremony

Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear that [biological] evolution could not have occurred."

Richard Smalley

And Townes had a brother-in-law who also won the Nobel Prize in physics:

But the context of religion is a great background for doing science. In the words of Psalm 19, "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmanent showeth his handiwork". Thus science is a worshipful act, in that it reveals more of the wonders of God's creation."

Schawlow

and then recently when physicist William Phillips said:

"One of the first things I did after I learned that I had gotten the Nobel Prize was to get down on my knees and talk to God about it. I knew my life was going to change a lot; I was in need of some support."

But for those lesser scientists like PZ Myers, these developments were intolerable. Consider what PZ had to say about Townes:

Pious frauds are a dime a dozen, but pious frauds who have won a Nobel prize [i.e. Charles Townes]? They're worth a million and a half dollars.

Coyne's comments show similar prejudice. But it is just that, prejudice, the evidence of history and the words of scientists greater than Coyne refutes Coynes claims that religion must be destroyed for science to advance….

What I see in PZ and Coyne is not objectivity but outright hatred…

Your self-assured certainty is not equivalent to truth. See this press release about synthetic biology: here. Notice a certain ID sympathizer by the name of Cees Dekker in the picture. If synthetic biology is the redesign of existing design, then it is a form of systems biology in that one must understand the original design in order to redesign it"¦..

A tenuous connection to Systems Biology to a guy who once had "sympathy for the possibility of Intelligent Design, although more recently he distanced himself from it."

They do it unwittingly"¦.. witness the complaint described here

As I mentioned before: Isn't it sad that the best ID research done in the world is done by scientists that a) are evolutionists, b) do so unwittingly and c) are not even smart enough to realize that they are doing ID research.

Salvador:

Are you so sure? [no ID sympathizers in systems biology]

hrun

yup

Your self-assured certainty is not equivalent to truth. See this press release about synthetic biology: here. Notice a certain ID sympathizer by the name of Cees Dekker in the picture. If synthetic biology is the redesign of existing design, then it is a form of systems biology in that one must understand the original design in order to redesign it…..

You insinuate that the Systems Bio Departments across the country are doing ID research

They do it unwittingly….. witness the complaint described here

His most recent, "Stand up for evolution" (Evolution and Development 7 [July 2005]:273-275), advises biologists to police their own language when describing biological systems. As Raff writes:

"¦let us not play into the hands of ID propagandists. For instance, be careful about using teleological words to describe biological entities in our teaching and writing. Calling cells "machines that do X," or describing biological structures as "well designed to do Y" will be duly cited in ID propaganda as one more biologist-supporting design.

hrun writes:

Why should anybody take your opinions on Systems Bio seriously, Sal?

I never argued that any should take my opinions seriously. You're welcome to presume I'm a person of no consequence….

Speaking of Dekker in Wiki:

Dekker is a christian and has been an active participant in the discussion about the relation between science and religion. He expressed a critical position regarding neo-Darwinism, and showed sympathy for the possibility of Intelligent Design, although more recently he distanced himself from it. He co-authored and co-edited three books about the relationship between science and religion, which were criticized by some leading members of the Dutch academic community. Dekker himself is an active member of an evangelical church community, and thinks christian beliefs and science do not oppose each other.

I think Dekker is a far more accomplished scientist than Coyne. Coyne is in no position to judge Dekker's scientific competence.

Another more accomplished scientist than Coyne is Henry Fritz Schaeffer (who successfully refuted the the work of a Nobel Prize winner). Schaeffer accepts ID, is a Christian, and director of computational quantum Chemistry research at his university. Schaeffer also gave his endorsement to form APL JHU physicist Lee Spetner's pro-ID book Not by Chance. Schaeffer was even listed as one of the ID villains in Barbara Forrest's book Creationism's Trojan Horse.

Bottom line: Coyne doesn't have much empirical evidence to argue all religion and science are incompatible, especially in light of the fact there was as fairly recent Nobel Laureate in the person of Richard Smalley who rejected Darwinism and was arguably a more accomplished scientist than Coyne.

You've already given your response. Why don't you let others state theirs? I'm truly interested in them. I'll be glad to have further discussions with you"”but not on this subject.

I'm going to keep on responding when I see fit - especially when you accuse me of giving a non-answer.

Besides - 'let others state theirs'? The great thing is, I can both respond -and- other people can. You'll get your poll, and I'll get to point out your inaccuracies as I see them. It's a win-win.

I'm truly interested in them.

As long as you don't call me a liar or a tard…. I'll answer:

Probably true.

You've already given your response. Why don't you let others state theirs? I'm truly interested in them. I'll be glad to have further discussions with you—but not on this subject.

Having been surprised by nullasalus's non-answer, I'd like to poll everyone else who wanders into this thread.

You're bad at this, olegt - but if you want to accuse me of not answering the question, I'll gladly spell things out for you further.

Do I believe in evolution? Sure I do - I can even take a so-called 'naturalistic' OoL if the evidence points that way. I've said in this and other threads I believe in common descent as well. Do I believe said development from earlier species entirely explains human beings' development? Of course not - even many mainstream, non-religious biologists can accept as much. Culture, complex language, math, senses of morality - the capacity for all these and more enable us to develop in ways animals can't even dream about.

I outlined precisely why I could take the responses I did to that question, and why I feel the subject isn't very black and white for some people. Hell, Fifth Monarchy Man threw in his view, and it really resonates with what I've already said. Apparently, you can't handle a response that surprises you - you balked, and are playing the 'I'm not talking to you, but I'll keep referring to you indirectly' game that's oh so common among forum warriors.

There's that open-mindedness and lack of emotional investment when discussing subjects I've heard The Rational have such a monopoly on.