Nancy Melucci, Ph.D.,Cranky Exploited Adjunct and defender (not worshipper)
of the scientific process states:
>- Because all world religions in their purest form strive to encourage
>ethical and compassionate behavior, they need to be valued in their own
>realm. This is the foundation of NOMA. Science and religion do not overlap.
> We can be religious, and we can be scientists. We will not use religious
>explanations in the science classroom; we will not hold spiritual beliefs to
>some type of concrete "proof."
Those last three sentences are really three very different claims. I can
most easily agree with the second. It is implied by the first, but does
not imply the first. With regard to the 3rd, I do not use religious
explanations in the classroom as _scientific_ explanations, but I do use
them to generate scientific hypotheses, in the classroom.
Ian Barbour, the recent recipient of the Templeton Prize in religion and a
pioneer in religion-science scholarship has identified at least 4 different
approaches:
1) Science & religion are antagonistic
2) Science and religion are completely separate domains
3) Science and religion can benefit from interaction
4) Science and religion will eventually reduce to the same conversation
Secular folks like E.O. Wilson are in favor of (4), but many religious
folks also view (4) favorably. Most folks on this list seem to be taking 1
(Jim Clark), 2 (Nancy Mellucci), or 3 (linda woolf & I & some others).
-Chuck
ref:
Barbour, I (1997). Religion and science: Historical and contemporary
issues. San Francisco: Harper.
