If we are going to promote a separation of science-based knowledge from faith-based belief, it is equally important that the scientific community does not promote belief systems not directly supported by scientific evidence. There are limits to what science can tell us - we know of no root cause for the Big Bang, no true idea of how very complex brain chemistry creates the self-consciousness that we experience. An open-minded scientific community must not support either natural or supernatural explanations for these phenomena, as there is currently insufficient evidence for either. To say clearly that we believe what the data show and that we do not take a position on what is not known is reconcilable with nearly all religious views, save for the young-earth models and some other very literal interpretations of religious texts.
I must say I am taken aback by the efforts of some respected biologists, most notably Richard Dawkins, to actively denounce supernatural belief in all its forms. While it is true that science has so far failed to validate the existence of the supernatural (itself a conundrum since much of what is now "natural" was once considered supernatural), it is inconsistent with the principles of scientific knowledge to adopt a belief (in the absence of the supernatural) in the absence of solid proof. What I see is a strong polarization, with religious fundamentalists at one extreme and "evangelistic atheists" (including many scientists) at the other. I strongly believe that while scientists have a duty to ensure that faith-based beliefs are not falsely presented as scientific knowledge, we also have a duty to ensure that we do not officially, as a group, endorse the belief system known as atheism. To do so is to violate the basic tenets of science and is guaranteed to alienate and anger a large portion of the Earth's population, namely those who uphold religious and/or spiritual beliefs, who may otherwise be more open-minded toward the scientific community. Mark Luterra
