On Thursday 23 August 2007 02:29:20 pm Darren J.H. Sleep wrote: > It seems worth pointing out that anyone who thinks the existence of > God can be proved through the presence or absence of physical evidence > may be lacking an understanding of both theology and science! As the > saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
That is correct, but we can say one of several things: that the observable evidence has failed to detect the presence of a deity, that the probability of detecting a deity is quite small, or that given the evidence to date, the probability of the existence of a deity is indistinguishable from zero. None of these preclude the existence of a deity, but science simply can't support the hypothesis. > > Ever notice that the folks who think that maybe there is something to > this world beyond what we can see, feel, smell, and hear are thought > to be "close minded" and the "open minded" folks think that if you > can't prove it, it doesn't exist? I'd slightly disagree. I feel that scientists would be open to the idea of a deity if they were presented verifiable evidence of the existence of that deity. I do find it peculiar, though, that many (not all) people of faith aren't as open minded when presented with the evidence in support of evolution as the driving mechanism for the extant diversity of life on Earth. > > That said, science is a way of knowing that is based on reason and > what we can measure, and its teaching should be restricted to those > things, Yes! > so I applaud the efforts to keep faith (beyond the faith > needed to trust science) out of a scientific classroom. I would disagree here and simply state that science does not require faith. This is an assertion made by those of faith who believe that you must have faith in something. Through epistemological methods, we can make a probability statement that an event will occur, and we can attach some measure of reliability to that statement. Such methodologies don't require faith (e.g., there is very high support for the claim that if I walk off of a cliff, I will hit the ground hard...and at a predictable velocity given some assumptions...with no faith required). There is a logical structure to such statements (and that logic can be debated). Further, as scientists, we can state that we don't know the answer to a problem, and we can be comfortable making such a statement. Further, we need not feel compelled to attach a supernatural explanation for an event (e.g., how life arose on Earth) for which we cannot ascribe a specific explanation. Just some thoughts to start the day, Mike > > Interesting discussion. I hope there's no need of a "holy war" in > civil discourse... > > Cheers, > Darren -- Michael W. Sears, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Zoology & Center for Ecology Soutern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901 phone: 618-453-4137 cell: 618-528-0348 web: http://www.science.siu.edu/zoology/people/sears.html
