[Hajman]

Who sez so? And wouldn't that mean science actually helps create materialists if that is the 'only' thing kids are allowed to test in school?

Not necessarily. Science can't test anything beyond what we can observe, but it can theorize about that which can't be observed (it just can't prove the unobserved). Materialism assumes science can only be applied to the observed, and the observed is all there is (which doesn't even work for modern theories like Quantum Mechanics). Materialism is a very strict, limited version of science. Science can't prove things like God, but it doesn't require one to assume God doesn't exist in order to work, either. Science isn't anti-God. Materialism however, can be. It's not the definition of science which needs to be addressed in the article, but rather materialism (which is what's used when people say science can't be used for things like Creationism, because that includes God, and science can't include God. Science can't prove Creationism, anymore then it can prove deep-time Evolution, but that doesn't mean science can't be used to test certain aspects of the theory just because it needs God).

-The Hajman-

[gobucks]

"Science can't test anything beyond what we can observe, but it can theorize about that which can't be observed (it just can't prove the unobserved)."

Yes, science 'can' theorize about that which can't be observed .... but, pray tell, when it comes to intelligent design, why is it they REFUSE to theorize? They refuse to discuss reasons why ID is illogical. It is just 'wrong' a priori. How is that rational? Why are kids taught, by scientists, that to theorize about the unobserved is 'crazy'?

(IMHO it is because scientists are quite aware that all moral rulebooks, especially the sexaul one, are suddenly subject to change if ID is involved at all.) I really liked listening to what you had to say. I wish the scientists would listen to it too...

[stremba]

You are correct. Science can and does incorporate all sorts of non-material entities. (Think of field theories, for example.) The problem with incorporating God into science stems not from the inability to incorporate the nonmaterial into science, but rather from a lack of testability of any idea that tries to incorporate God. In order for an idea to be testable, there must be at least one (and for good scientific theories, many) hypothetically possible observation that would be inconsistent with that idea. If all possible observation confirm an idea, that idea can't be tested in any meaningful sense, since the idea must always pass the test. Any idea that incorporates God, by the very nature of God, is compatible with ALL possible observations. God is by definition omnipotent. Therefore, no matter what is observed, it is possible that God caused that observation to be observed. Since there's no way that an idea that includes God could possibly fail a test, it is meaningless to even perform the test. Thus, God is excluded from the realm of science. (Note that I don't say that any idea that incorporates God is necessarily untrue. I only say that any idea that incorporates God is nonscientific.)