muse.net.nz

over on Thinking Matters there’s a whole lot of discussion around “what is science”, & “where can we draw boundaries between it and religion”. For me that nicely illustrates the difference between the two domains - science is inclusive, inquisitive, and able to be challenged, downsized and redirected - think flat earth, newtonian physics for examples of fundamental changes in the way we view the world that science has permitted and incorporated.

Specious teleologic arguments are used to imply that religion is separate, special, and should be treated outside this evidential framework. Fair enough if that’s your view, but I’ve yet to see why this is required, and why it is allowed to be used to “explain” what has already been explained by science.

evolution is the best example of where these worlds collide. Scientifically the world has accepted the Darwinian concept of evolution, despite some tinkering of how fast & how discrete the steps are by the likes of Steve Jay Gould and his opposing immovable force Richard Dawkins. The factual record is extensive & consistent. So when we review the age of the earth (6000 years give or take) from a biblical perspective, we are expected to put Occam’s razor to the side, and invoke a mysterious being (not seen for the last 2000 years in any verifiable form) who compiled all of this evidence, and asks us to ignore it.

If this approach was used anywhere else, for example in a court of law, you’d deem it unacceptable. So why put up with it here?