Science vs. religion (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 15:48 (5546 days ago) @ John Clinch

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."
 - 
> 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..... Remember that science deals with likelihoods and probabilities and is constantly being revised. It is a method, not a set of facts.
 
Here I have to disagree. It is specifically because science deals in evidence and probabilities that the issue of origin of life can be debated. Given the finite amount of scientifically accepted time in which life appeared (between 700-900 million years) and the calculable odds against the formation of coded protein molecules from inorganic molecules, the probabilities against chance allow the debate. - > 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. - I would not call dhw pessimistic,for the reasons given above, but he requires absolute proof of a loving God, and all religions indicate that is impossible. That requires the willingness to accept absolute faith, the same faith that you have in science's abilities. Do you expect science can go beyond the wall of quantum uncertainty, a la' Heisenberg, and Bell's Theorem to the contrary?