Perhaps a chemist or hydrodynamicist could believe in creationism, but it would require suspension of reason on their parts. Some people partition their mental constructs so that what would be irrational in one context is allowed in another. A larger fraction of engineers and physicians, and other technologists accept creationism than the fraction of practicing scientists who accept it. I have known a few university level science faculty members who professed a belief in creationism. However, like folks in other endeavors, they always resorted to misapplications of scientific method, such as claims about "proof," the false dichotomy between theory and fact, and misinterpretations of particular theories like the principles of thermodynamics to buttress their positions. David McNeely
---- William Silvert <[email protected]> wrote: > Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of > interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist > could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be > more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible. > > James writes that "Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the > view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then > that bit of scripture is not literally true." Certainly not all, and I doubt > the "most". And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact. > The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid > the word "beliefs") on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical > foundation. > > Bill Silvert > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Crants" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14 > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: > [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook > > > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Science is based on fact. > >> Religion is based on faith. > >> They don't mix. > > > > > > These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly > > religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, > > particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all > > religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in > > specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even > > believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., > > that > > species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many > > people > > who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. > > > > Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible > > supermen > > who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven > > to > > be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the > > Jesuits > > have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good > > Hindu > > and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three > > growing > > seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant > > Christian > > ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole > > period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious > > beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. > > > > Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if > > scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of > > scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible > > partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for > > religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political > > influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only > > to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. > > > > Jim Crants -- David McNeely
