But scientists are human beings with biases, even hatred that poisons science.
IF “science” doesn’t find any purpose to me that’s Godless. It’s not a bad word or evil it just IS simply Godless!
On the otherhand, if a scientist sees something differently than another and sees creation, purpose, intelligent design, that doesn’t mean they see what they see the WRONG way, it simply means they have a wholly different perspective!
The same is true of religion, history etc.
For instance...someone stated 2/3 of scientists are believers...the number isn’t important but they naturally see God in all aspects of their beings. There’s no magical switch believers turn off when they’re in a laboratory, therefore they see God in all that is in all that they do, see feel touch, experience. There’s no way to somehow REMOVE God from science therefore.
We can argue all day and forever about God’s existence, and rather or not all they see and experience and smell and do is simply imagnied, but there’s no way to really know that, as you say to prove one way or the other, so until it can or can not be proved it therefore isn’t “right” or “wrong” or “real” or “unreal” perception.
I’m sure the reverse is true for the reverse situation...no matter how hard a person tries, let’s say he can go to church, yet simply not see any possibility of God! Therefore, there’s no way to say he’s “wrong” if he doesn’t see God!
Current science isn’t some magical vacuum as we perceive it.
Put it this way, would there be “science” if there was no life to be found anywhere, ever?
Science isn’t some pristine and perfect entity with a neutral and natural mind of it’s own, it’s a tool of infallible human beings to assist in them understanding the many facets of perception in the world around them, but certainly not all, and not even close.
Science isn’t about perspective, unless you’re getting into the Theory of Relativity. Any scientist, Christian, Hindu, Atheist, or whatever, should be able to look at the same set of evidence and reach the same scientific conclusion.
Now it’s true that someone trained as a scientist who is Hindu can look at the same piece of bacteria as an atheist and assert the conclusion that he’s looking at the reincarnation of his grandmother. But he will have interjected something into his decision-making that is non-scientific.
Again, that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. That bacteria might be his grandmother. But science will not agree with his conclusion because it’s not based on anything anyone else can test or verify.
You can and must remove religion from scientific study or there is no such thing as science. Yet even that is a qualified statement. Certainly the most fundamentalist Christian and avid atheist could work together to map the human genome, because they would be problem-solving in a task-oriented project without drawing any conclusions to the task bigger than that.
But once a scientist suggests that the only answer to an unsolved mystery is God, you need to fire him. That’s not the default answer, and he could give that answer to any question posed to him. If that answer is good enough for you, then you have no need for science at all.