Replies

Science cannot use God as a causation and still be science.

For that to be a non-psychotic concept, science has to assume that God can never cause anything. Not to mention that this assumption presumes an overarching knowledge of "How Things Are," and that God is not among those "Things."

You can relegate God to "faith" if you want, but in so doing, you also need to be very clear about the assumptions you're making with regard to science.

If, as you say, God played a role at some level in the creation of life, then either you're admitting a serious limitation on what science can do; or you're improperly constraining science such that it cannot reach the proper conclusion.

Science is limited, why is that such a problem for you?

Faith in God should be enough for you, for yourself, but science cannot place it's evidence in God, it cannot place it's faith in God, because it is not a tool designed for such use.

I am properly constraining science, for it cannot answer the question, what is God? Therefore it cannot use God as any sort of causation, and yes, it is therefore limited in it's scope.

It is a tool for a purpose, to add something to it that is unexplainable by it, is not just wasting it, but destroying any value that it has, as the tool that it is.

Science and human beings are limited, God is not, therefore to try and use something that is unlimited, in something that is limited, is pretty psychotic as far as I am concerned.

You can relegate God to "faith" if you want, but in so doing, you also need to be very clear about the assumptions you're making with regard to science.

I just don't see any scientific way to prove the existence of God. Can we use the Hubble telescope to see him? Can we check for the DNA of the Holy Spirit?

You can make the argument that God started the whole thing, but that's a theological premise, not a scientific one. Why would we want to introduce that debate into schools, for example?

Science has as a necessary and fundamental prerequisite, the concept of uniform natural laws. As a practical matter, most scientists assume our knowledge of these laws is incomplete, and that our statements of these laws are approximations.

Presumably, any action taken by God that is not in accordance with uniformitarianism would be perceived as a miracle and would be unexplainable by science. However, the history of science contains numerous instances of explanations for events that were formerly regarded as discontinuous. So science habitually assumes that anomolous events can be studied and understood as resulting from uniform laws.

We are al free to choose what we perceive to be miraculous and what we perceive to be the uniform outplaying of natural law. Science, however, is defined by its assumption of natural law. Without this assumption, it isn't science.