[Economist_MA]

but it would be able to say "we don't know" until the solution was found.

Indeed it would, and in fact it should - forever.

The scientific definition of reality relies on natural causes, and so far has proven extremely useful and should therefore be defended against religious types who try to change it to fit their beliefs. The answer "because God wanted it" or "because God did it" has no place whatsoever in a science curriculum. And this is independent of whether the actual statement is true or false.

[ArGee]

The scientific definition of reality relies on natural causes, and so far has proven extremely useful and should therefore be defended against religious types who try to change it to fit their beliefs. The answer "because God wanted it" or "because God did it" has no place whatsoever in a science curriculum. And this is independent of whether the actual statement is true or false.

I agree as far as the scientific proof goes. But I have no problem with a Scientist saying, "because G-d did it," out of his personal faith. I don't think Einstein proved himself an idiot when he said, "G-d does not play dice with the universe."

But science should never feel wrong about saying, "We don't know. If you want to believe it was G-d, you go right ahead."

Shalom.

[r9etb]

The scientific definition of reality relies on natural causes, and so far has proven extremely useful and should therefore be defended against religious types who try to change it to fit their beliefs.

The scientific definition of reality is what, exactly? You seem to be saying that it does not include God. Can you provide us the scientific justification for such a claim?

The answer "because God wanted it" or "because God did it" has no place whatsoever in a science curriculum. And this is independent of whether the actual statement is true or false.

Oh, really? Let us suppose for the sake of argument that something is true "because God did it." Are you seriously proposing that a science curriculum should deliberately ignore such a fact? How very unscientific that would be!