Replies

What difference does it make which God we're talking about? If I were suggesting that we teach kids specifically in the public schools that Allah from the Koran or Yahweh from the Old Testament, or Zeus or Kali created the universe you'd have a point. All I'm suggesting is that science remain open to the possibility that the billions of people who believe there's more to life than natural processes which work simply of their own accord not be dismissed on a tautological technicality (i.e., "We've defined science in such a way as to exclude the possibility of the supernatural, therefore only purely naturalistic explanations for our origins and development are potentially true").

You're correct, science can't test the supernatural, so therefore it can neither determine nor disprove its existence. So it should not operate on the sole assumption that it doesn't exist.

I could understand you fellows getting upset if Christians were demanding that a big chunk of science education be composed of religious teaching. But all that's usually asked for is a simple suggestion that maybe there is a God and maybe He had something to do with all this, or as in Georgia a sticker asking kids to keep an open mind. The hysteria that erupts over such usually modest requests is what leads many of us to think there's an agenda behind what you're doing.

What difference does it make which God we're talking about?

Method and motive. Whether or not a single deity should be considered or if multiple are allowed into the mix.

All I'm suggesting is that science remain open to the possibility that the billions of people who believe there's more to life than natural processes which work simply of their own accord not be dismissed on a tautological technicality (i.e., "We've defined science in such a way as to exclude the possibility of the supernatural, therefore only purely naturalistic explanations for our origins and development are potentially true").

That's not how science is defined. Religious assumptions are not dismissed as "false", they're simply not claims that can be considered with the scientific method. Science can give no answers that rely upon supernatural explanations or assumptions. That's not the same as saying that such explanations or assumptions are false.

You're correct, science can't test the supernatural, so therefore it can neither determine nor disprove its existence. So it should not operate on the sole assumption that it doesn't exist.

Science does not operate on such an assumption. It simply cannot address the supernatural. If there ever is an observable event that has a supernatural cause, science will never be able to give an explanation for it. That doesn't mean that it has no cause it all, it simply means that the cause lies outside of the realm of science.

But all that's usually asked for is a simple suggestion that maybe there is a God and maybe He had something to do with all this,

But that isn't science. It isn't a scientific consideration and is fundamentally worthless to scientific inquiry. Believing it is fine, but trying to push that view as though it has any relevance to science is lying.