Science vs. religion (Introduction)

by John Clinch , Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 13:14 (5751 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: "Science cannot prove that life was not the result of a deliberate act, and it is not the scientist's place to say that it was the result of an accident." - Well, technically the first part is right, but only philosophically. Formally, science cannot disprove the statement "The world was created five minutes ago, complete with memories and fossils". It might have been created with all the appearance and proof of extreme age. Vanishingly small though the possibility is, formally we cannot know otherwise. - I take issue with the second part. On the contrary, it is very much the scientist's place to say that, on the basis of the evidence presented thus far by our world, life on Earth is likely to have arisen accidentally - a result of chance, the playing out of the Drake equation, the Goldilocks effect or whatever reasons she advances. Remember that science deals with likelihoods and probabilities and is constantly being revised. It is a method, not a set of facts. - If you recall, this is where I came into the discussion last year. We have different views about abiogenesis and you take the pessimistic view that science will never be able to explain it. - As you know, my opinion is that science one day will, and I go further to say: yours is the classic argument to ignorance. You say "science can't explain this so science can never do so." I disagree. I say it suits you to be pessimistic about the ability of science here because, for your own religious reasons, you want to leave room for God. You're a formal agnostic but a wannabe theist.