Re: Evolution and Creationism

[Glenn Knapp <kahuna@VCN.COM>]

At 09:44 AM 22/08/99 -0500, you wrote:

>In other words, the 'refusal' to study religious phenomenon scientifically

>IS scientifically illogical (at least for religious scientists) unless it is

>clear (from previous experimentation or more deeply held scientific beliefs)

>that such work would be fruitless.  However, the very same 'religious

>scientists' who should be anxious to pursue the study of religious phenomena

>might be very hesitant to study other 'strange' phenomena which might

>seriously conflict with their belief systems.  Ultimately what I'm

>suggesting here is that if there really is insufficient scientific testing

>of religious claims, then there is nobody to blame but religious scientists.

>To their (minor) credit, the so-called 'scientific creationists' at least

>attempt to do this--badly if we can judge from just the examples that have

>appeared on this list--but attempts nonetheless.

>

>Rick

Rick,

Is religion a suitable thing for scientific investigation?  Science deals with rational thought, and the observable aspects of nature.  Religions deal with things beyond the scope of science.  They deal with miracles and deities which not only defy the laws of physics but in fact are believed to have created these very laws.

The purpose of science is to discover universal truths, to find more and better laws of physics. 

Among the many purposes of religion are these: to establish the place of human beings in the universe, delineate the meaning of life, provide a moral framework for life, and to furnish information about what will happen after death.  Aren't these things are beyond the scope of science?

Can science really be used to prove or disprove a religion?  Since science proves or disproves things based on whether the thing violated a law of nature, religious claims would seem to be outside the area we can investigate.   Religious events such as miracles, by definition, violate these laws all the time.  Thus, the religion cannot be proved.  Believing in religion requires faith.   If you believe that there is an all powerful God who, quite easily, created a universe that looks like it's 15 billion years old or so in six days, what could a scientists do to convince you otherwise?  "Look, here's a fossil that is 125 million years old." You could tell this person.

"Yes, God created the world so that people might think it was real old.  God can do anything."  Might be the reply.

So, again, I wonder, is religion something that science can investigate?

Glenn

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Physics Kahuna
Kahuna Physics Institute - on the flapping edge of physics research.