Quote "Science is, by its nature, universal. The Scientific Method is universal. Scientific hypothesis – and Theories – stand or fall on their own merits. Biology does not work differently in Kentucky to the way it does in New Hampshire – or London, Paris, Beijing or Riyadh. The underlying principles are the same: that’s the point of science, to describe the observable universe in a manner that has general applicability. The fact about evolution, in the context of science, is that there are no other relevant ideas that compete with it. Given the weight of evidence supporting it, the weight of observed phenomena and practical applications that simply lack explanation without it, combined with the complete lack of any alternative scientific hypothesis that fits all the available evidence, evolution is as near “fact” as one dare declare anything in science – or at least in the biological sciences – to be. As for evolution being “atheistic, nihilistic, materialistic” – like it or not, science seeks to describe the universe in terms that are within its remit, and that remit is unavoidably and entirely restricted to the realm of the natural. It does not and cannot include or entertain metaphysical speculation. So the same goes about any statements we can make about reality based on scientific inquiry – they are by their very nature secular, grounded in a naturalistic philosophy, and do not admit or even discuss the possibility of any supernatural root cause. Nor should they: such metaphysical deliberations are not universal, even within Christianity let alone outside it. In that respect, at least, you really can’t mix religion and science." End quote. themattwalshblog/2013/09/13/christianity-has-done-more-for-science-than-atheism-ever-could/comment-page-4/#comment-22420 Excellent comment that refutes a rather intelligible arugment for religion and science that a blogger posted.
Posted on: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 22:35:12 +0000