- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
From talking about supposed holes in evolution evidence to outdated ideas about consciousness, this guy makes the same mistakes that non-scientists often make when they criticize science. Of course we're not going to find every single piece of the puzzle, of our past. The world's messy and not everything survives. If there were an uninterrupted chain of evidence I would actually believe in God, because it's hard to imagine how everything that needs to be preserved actually is.
Darwin and God can get along but science and God cannot. There is no room for something you cannot describe. Science isn't knowledge, but the system of finding out about nature through nothing but a rigorous routine of formulating hypotheses, designing and running experiments, and throwing out any idea that is contradicted by facts.
Templeton Foundation among others have tried to prove effectiveness of prayers, etc, but no evidence so far has been found in anything other than religious holy texts. Isn't that strange?
90-95% of eminent scientists, those who produced substantial contributions, ie. peer-reviewed papers, do not believe in God. If there were really any evidence for it, the numbers wouldn't have been so lopsided.
It's always the religious people who try to say whether science is compatible. Scientists usually just wish to get back to their work.
