I have to fundamentally disagree with the authors' overall premise, though perhaps not their more targeted one. There IS a fundamental conflict between science and religion (Coyne's often baseless historical assertions not withstanding). While I cannot nor wish to deny that one can be a person of faith and an exceptional scientist (the article does a fine job demonstrating this to be true), the best scientists are not those who get their science from the Bible. Clearly, if that were the case, they would be, in a deluge of cases, terrible at their jobs given how often the two find themselves at odds with each other. The scientist of faith who believes, say, the Genesis story literally, examines the evidence for evolution, and then changes his or her mind, is being a proper scientist. The scientist of faith who believes the Genesis story literally, examines the evidence for evolution, and discards it because it conflicts with the Bible, is not. And therein lies the tension too many people who purport no inherent conflict continually overlook. When evidence and the Bible conflict, which one wins out? If the evidence wins out, there is no difference between a scientist of faith and a scientist of no faith--both are simply following the data where it leads, regardless of bias or presupposition. But if dogmatic interpretations win out, in the face of contradictory evidence, that person is, at a very fundamental level, betraying what makes science the most powerful tool for getting at truth that humans have ever uncovered. If the authors work in a world where the former is true, I am sincerely grateful for it, but outside the lab and the halls of scientific academia, where most people of faith (or lack thereof) live, they align themselves decidedly with the latter.

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/10/21/twisted_history_jerry_coyne_on_science__religion_106729.html

Reply · Report Post