The problems and conflicts occur when many today want to hold the theories of physical science as conclusive (which quite often they are not) or to permit the physical sciences to claim to be able to answer or refute things outside the physical sciences, in the metaphysical order.For example, some scientists insist that the universe is the result of blind, random chance.Religion looks more to primary cause and to final and formal causality.Tags: is kim kardashian still dating reggie bushDirty chat rooms no sign inYahoo messenger id philippine girl webcamsigns you dating psychopathmissy elliot dating eva pigfordFree online sex chat sexaffectionate dating singles and personalsSexy cams mooms comdating sites linked to facebook
Maybe the Russians had secretly gotten to Mars before us and left it there.
But simply to conclude that there was strong evidence that the computer lab was designed and built by intelligent beings would not be unscientific. The more we learn of the incredible complexity of life and of ecosystems and their irreducible complexity, the more reasonable it seems to posit an intelligent cause to it all, or to theorize that the many necessary elements were intentionally brought together by some outside force that is intelligent or purposeful.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.
[e.g.] Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface.
Let science be science, a discipline that deals with empirical evidence from the material world. It is the nature of science to provide likely answers (e.g., hypotheses or formulas) rooted in current data.
Physical science also focuses especially on what philosophy terms “material” and “efficient” causality.
Here are some of the factors that make Earth what it is: I was pleased to learn of a recent article in the Wall Street Journal that sets forth a “rare Earth” perspective and also points to the conclusion that Earth’s perfect conditions are so astonishing as to shout “intentional design.” The article, written by Eric Metaxas, is entitled Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God – In 1966 …
The same year Time [Magazine] featured the now-famous headline [Is God Dead?
But I DO have a problem with people who idolize science as the definitive word on everything, and with some (not all) scientists who get credit for having advanced the “definitive” answer to all things.
Can we please get over this “science as a substitute for religion” obsession of the modern age?