me: It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me to be both bad logic and bad science. Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true statements about physical reality.’
Michael J. Behe, associate professor, department of biological sciences, Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference—a paper presented in the summer of 1994 at the meeting of the C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University, England.
Can ‘supernatural’ events occur, or not? Doesn’t science rule out the supernatural? Well, no, it doesn’t. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Laws of science merely describe things that happen, and those things would happen whether scientists have formulated a law about it or not. It is not our scientific laws that cause things to happen the way they do. Similarly, scientific laws cannot prescribe what cannot happen.
prof: The key is that because an explanation contains empirical elements, or even predictions, it does not make the theory "scientific." I can say I have empirically observed seeds growing into flowers. My theory is that invisible Flower Fairies help seeds become flowers. If I plant a seed, my theory predicts a Flower Fairy will grow it into a flower. Voila. My theory has both empirical, observable elements and a prediction. Plus, the prediction comes true! Flower Fairies must be the right explanation for the phenomenon.
me: and thusly you have opined correctly on the "problems of evolution".
prof: So, to sum up: 1. Scientific concepts and religious beliefs do not operate the same way.
me: I would argue that belief in facts and interpretation of data is consistent between rationale thinking humans
prof: 2. In science, "facts" and knowledge are seen as provisional, not absolute in the way many people, especially the religious, tend to want their facts.
me: which means you cannot with certainly believe evolution to be "true".
prof: This misunderstanding, I think, often leads to non-scientists bristling at the factual pronouncements of science, especially if they are unaware of the basis for those facts, or if those facts don't mesh with a religious belief. Finally, in my view it's not that science operates by explicitly rejecting the concept of a God, it's that the vast majority of God concepts are not formulated to be amenable to scientific inquiry, and hence they can't result in the type of knowledge science is looking for.
me: I would argue that MODERN science is antagonistic to "God".
Admits motive for anti-theistic bias
Aldous Huxley was a British novelist who wrote Brave New World (1932), and was a grandson of ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, T.H. Huxley. He was also the brother of the leading atheistic evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley (see quote: Humanism as religion), and died the same day as Christian apologist C.S. Lewis (see his quotes Materialistic Thoughts and Science began with belief in a Lawmaker), and the assassination of JFK (22 Nov. 1963). Aldous Huxley made this frank admission about his anti-theistic motivation:
‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’
Huxley, A., Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.