To which you replied:
Science isn't after TRUTH. Just knowledge -- something that can be accumulated.
If I may be so bold as to refer to the one in the second person nominative, js1138, you said something important. A source of much consternation on these threads is the difference in the standard of evidence held by the parties involved.
Science, by its very nature, is conservative. Standards of evidence are strict. To questions there exist right and wrong answers. It is possible to verify these answers objectively. Vigorous investigation into the methods used to attain answers is demanded. Sources must be cited and evaluated for accuracy.
A remarkable level of confidence in knowledge is achieved because the scope of scientific investigation is carefully limited to those questions which are possible to be verified using one method or the other. Furthermore, the personal beliefs, politics, and religious views of the investigator have no bearing on the outcome because the physical world knows nothing of our faith or desires. Science is a tool, or a system of tools, for accumulating knowledge of the physical world that is reasonably accurate.
People arguing from a scientific standpoint are accustomed to being able to tell someone "I'm sorry, you are incorrect on that point" because it is possible for people to be incorrect on one point or the other. Such a statement does not constitute a personal attack any more than does a teacher marking a student wrong on a test. The standard of evidence in this sub-forum, however, is significantly different. The search for religious Truth with a capital 'T' is a whole different ball of wax, if you'll excuse the expression.
On this forum, such a statement is said to "make things personal." Why? Because the nature of the search for truth on this forum is inextricable from the theological underpinnings of the posters on it -- something that is not true in the search for scientific knowledge. Here, for one to be told they are incorrect is tantamount to being told one is in apostasy. Thus the prohibition of direct criticism of religious beliefs, the protection of certain threads from doctrinal challenges, etc. These rules have been established to prevent this topical forum from descending into sectarian warfare; a measure taken for the good of the forum to ensure some measure of usefulness and dialog. Personally, I don't have any problem with these rules. I understand the need for moderation and the desire to keep the forum both polite and vibrant.
However, when these two worlds collide the results are not pretty. The scientifically-minded group wants to correct factual errors, while the theologically-minded group wants to express their deep-seated convictions. There is little possibility of reconciling these two styles of argumentation.
It is my opinion that under most circumstances scientific threads should not be moved into the religion forum. Given the standing rules of the religion forum, it is impossible for the scientific viewpoint to be argued effectively. In sum, I am of the mind that scientific topics should generally be considered poisonous or toxic here.
Where have we heard that attitude before? Oh yes, that proven heretic, Galileo, was of a similar mind. Well, we showed him, didn't we?
Durned science! Thank God for the religion forum.
[Motive disclaimer: Nothing personal, you understand. Everyone is wonderful. I have no improper motivations.]
Sure there is. Science does not make proclamations regarding ultimate truth, the afterlife, and so forth, and religion accepts that there is a kind of useful knowledge that can be accumulated through the methods of science. St. Augustine recognized centuries ago, even before Galileo, that it is folly for religion to make proclamations about the visible world that are patently false. And the New Testament distinguishes between that which can be seen and that which cannot.
An excellent and well-written post. Thanks.