“Why can’t they just leave science alone?”
“Because it comes up with inconvenient answers that some folks can’t handle, so they are out to destroy several fields of science so that they can live in their own made-up world. At least that’s the way it seems sometimes.”
You answer your first question with your second answer. Although, I must say I find “made-up world” somewhat harsh. Also, I would substitute the word “contradictory” for “inconveinent.”
You need to be a little more realistic in regards to persons of faith being in science. They have been and will continue to be there. You cannot expect them to exactly conform to the classic definition of the scientific method, it just isn’t going to happen, and this is a free country. If you should decide to start dabbling in theology and make up your own religon (i.e. L. Ron Hubbard), nothing stops you. Ultimately, no one in any field, owns it. That is a reality, even if it is difficult to deal with for the scientific puritan.
“Because it comes up with inconvenient answers that some folks can’t handle, so they are out to destroy several fields of science so that they can live in their own made-up world. At least that’s the way it seems sometimes.”
You answer your first question with your second answer. Although, I must say I find “made-up world” somewhat harsh. Also, I would substitute the word “contradictory” for “inconveinent.”
You need to be a little more realistic in regards to persons of faith being in science. They have been and will continue to be there. You cannot expect them to exactly conform to the classic definition of the scientific method, it just isn’t going to happen, and this is a free country. If you should decide to start dabbling in theology and make up your own religon (i.e. L. Ron Hubbard), nothing stops you. Ultimately, no one in any field, owns it. That is a reality, even if it is difficult to deal with for the scientific puritan.
You don't like "made-up?" Without the empiricism of science, you are left with mysticism, scripture, revelation and the like as the source of this other field of knowledge.
And you don't like "inconvenient?" Well, that's what it is. Some folks like a young earth, but science has all of those inconvenient facts showing that the earth is old. Some folks believe in a global flood about 4350 years ago, but science has all of those inconvenient facts showing that there was no such flood.
As for people of faith in science, sorry--there is only one way to do science and that is by following the scientific method. When one believes that the earth is about 6,000 years old and distorts scientific fact and theory in order to make things come out that way, that is not science--it does not follow the scientific method. When one, as we have seen on these very threads, states that the highest form of knowledge is "divine revelation," one ceases to do science.
You may not like this, but science is defined by its method. Change the method and it is no longer science.
Some things stay the same, even in this relativistic age.