Can science study anything that isn't a natural occurance? Can you point to anything in physics, biology, astronomy, geology, or chemistry that isn't the result of assuming that phenomena are regular?
Big Bang, Anthropic Principle, the first organism and DNA, consciousness from mindlessness… and I will say again that it is only recently in the history of science that ID has been excluded.
But you are missing the bigger picture here… if “natural” science is now proclaiming itself as the ultimate truth, than what is wrong with what Dawkins’ is saying, “Catholic morality demands the presence of a great gulf between Homo sapiens and the rest of the animal kingdom. Such a gulf is fundamentally anti-evolutionary. The sudden injection of an immortal soul in the timeline is an anti-evolutionary intrusion into the domain of science.” Dawkins goes on to say:
“There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain of science. On the one hand, miracle stories and the promise of life after death are used to impress simple people, win converts, and swell congregations. It is precisely their scientific power that gives these stories their popular appeal. But at the same time it is considered below the belt to subject the same stories to the ordinary rigors of scientific criticism: these are religious matters and therefore outside the domain of science. But you cannot have it both ways. At least, religious theorists and apologists should not be allowed to get away with having it both ways. Unfortunately all too many of us, including nonreligious people, are unaccountably ready to let them.”
I suppose it is gratifying to have the pope as an ally in the struggle against fundamentalist creationism. It is certainly amusing to see the rug pulled out from under the feet of Catholic creationists such as Michael Behe. Even so, given a choice between honest-to-goodness fundamentalism on the one hand, and the obscurantist, disingenuous doublethink of the Roman Catholic Church on the other, I know which I prefer.
Religion and science are separate? Really? It seems science has bullied religion into some obscure place in society and now pokes at it for fun. The God gene - memes - The Tower of Babel - etc… How often do we see Bible verses quoted by atheists here to ridicule Christians yet if a Christian quotes Darwin they are immediately labeled dishonest and the atheists interprets the Darwinian scripture as only ‘they’ can do…
The term ˜creationist” is thrown around not as some useful label but as an insult. If you believe you are the result of intelligence rather than mindless mechanisms then you are ‘called’ a creationist. But what does it actually mean for science to proclaim that there is no intelligence behind our existence? It seems current science has created an either/or situation. It seems that you are either a creationist (if you see any intelligent agent acting at any time) or an atheist (if you believe no intelligent force ever acted). You might say, “Ah, but I believe the intelligent force behind our existence will always be invisible to us’. Fine, but evolution states that it never had a target and we are a transitional species just like all life. Or again, as Dawkins states, “Such a gulf is fundamentally anti-evolutionary. The sudden injection of an immortal soul in the timeline is an anti-evolutionary intrusion into the domain of science.” Who are you to intrude into the domain of science? Science tells you who you are – you are a creationist (and all that implies). Dawkins, being the intellectually fulfilled atheist, is being honest in regard to current science. Heaven forbid you actually believe some miracle from the Bible – this goes against the teachings of current science and is blasphemy.
Look, I love science but we all know it is wrong about many things just look at history but I see intelligence behind our existence. So now the big question: “What do we do and how do we find common ground?”