“Obama nomination is excellent choice,” Cal Thomas, Anchorage Daily News, 7-18-09.

As far as I know I agree: Dr. Francis S. Collins is an “excellent choice” to head the National Institutes of Health because he “…led the government’s successful effort to sequence the human genome.”

But not because “Collins sees no conflict between science and faith.” Not because Collins says science and faith are “…not only compatible…but wondrously complimentary.”

Of course President Obama considered Collins’ sort-of politically-acceptable religious views in order to massage the faith and scientific miscomprehension of folks like Mr. Cal Thomas.

However, unlike many a Bush-era, faith-based appointee, Collins is actually competent in the pertinent field for which he was chosen---as judged solely by his scientific qualifications. Collins’ personal religious opinions, however, are wondrously and utterly irrelevant to the actual performance of science (other than any personal inspiration or energies he may derive from his personal views).

What Mr. Thomas does not understand or doesn’t want to say is that science is science and science is not religion and they are only “compatible“ in the narrow sense that a scientist can hold religious views of any stripe and still be a scientist---as long as he/she doesn‘t use acts of deities and intensity of personal faith to take the place of evidence, logic and proof.

It’s actually wondrously simple: When asked by hopeful science professors from religious colleges if there was “room for God in science,” Scientific American’s “Skeptic,” Michael Shermer, responded, “Sure---as long as he doesn’t do anything.”

Shermer was flippant but mercilessly accurate. No matter what happens or doesn‘t happen, anyone can say “God did it.” That doesn’t make them scientists.

While scientists may hold personal religious views, they cannot cite those views as scientific explanations of material events. Furthermore, science cannot ignore evident reality---any materially verifiable facts that are discovered must be considered and hypotheses and theories must be changed accordingly.

What Cal Thomas did was to invoke the Einstein syndrome. Some who believe in deities constantly quote Einstein’s infamous “God doesn’t play dice with the Universe”---ostensibly to “prove” that science is religion or the other way around. What they do not understand is that Albert Einstein never, ever, posited any scientific theory using a supernatural premise or proof as formal evidence to support any of his formal conclusions. He knew better.

Now, Francis Collins is an anomaly among “serious” (top) scientists in the mere fact of his belief in a “God.” However, he does not believe in a 6,000 year-old creation---and, except for the scientifically-undetermined “first cause,” he believes in evolution (a top geneticist could not be a top geneticist if he/she believed otherwise). Nor has Collins ever formally offered up his faith or any tenet or dogma of his faith in any way shape or form as a scientific piece of evidence for any formal scientific finding or conclusion. He knows better.

That is the default position of scientists who are religious.

That is also the default position of one religion (there may be more) which actually does science---the Catholic Church. A Catholic Cardinal recently restated the Church’s position that faith is “compatible” with science. The Catholic Church is very careful not to actually make the claim that religion is “scientific”---even though the Church has long engaged in true, useful scientific research---especially in it‘s sponsorship of astronomical observatories. Many examples can be found on the internet of Catholic clergy doing great science (Google "Mendel" or "Lemaître.")

The Catholic Church officially agrees with most of modern cosmology. However---and this is the crucial distinction---the official position of the Church is that God created the Big Bang. At this point the Church has shifted from science to theology. Science cannot make any final statements as to what happened before the Big Bang because it has insufficient evidence to support a scientific conclusion.

A similar situation exists regarding evolution.
The Catholic Church quietly teaches that God more or less created one-celled creatures and evolution took over from there. That explanation is most notably held by Michael Behe (“the Pope’s microbiologist”). But once again, science cannot hypothesize about supernatural deities as “scientific cause” for any events just because they have not been able to scientifically resolve the causes of those events. Scientists can speculate wildly but not within formal hypotheses and final theories.

Furthermore, it must be brutally obvious that there is no scientific validation of such religious tenets/miracles as Virgin Birth or The Resurrection. In that sense no miracle-based, faith-based, deity-based religion is completely compatible with science.

Nor is it necessarily science when a religion claims to “agree” with science. For instance, scholars of the Cabala have devised a mathematical computation to calculate the age of the Universe. They claim their total of ten billion years “agrees” with scientific estimates.

But it doesn’t take long to multiply a few scriptural “thousand-year days” by other numbers in the sacred texts to come up figures in the billions. It’s not science because nothing was actually measured.

Religion can’t tell science how to produce it’s findings. However, once those findings are determined and technologies are enabled by those findings, religion may certainly weigh in on their “moral” use by the society. Unfortunately, too many religions love the high-tech weaponry produced using scientific findings---but exert little moral restraint in their use against peoples of competing religious views.

Okay, but what about those scientists who have faith; who write about and hypothesize about faith; who are personally religious? Especially those who make specific (but personal) statements regarding the role of a deity in science?

The fact is that no modern scientist has ever produced an acceptable scientific theory based on the existence of and effects caused by a supernatural deity. This includes Einstein who was way too great a scientist to ever formally postulate such a hypothesis or theory.

In other words, some scientists may hold fervent personal religious beliefs and opinions---but none of these beliefs or opinions have ever reached the status of an acceptable hypothesis or a true scientific theory in modern times.

Mr. Thomas’ atheists-versus-believers controversy is a false contest as far as science is concerned---"just another religious "straw man." Sure, aggressive, adamant atheists are no more scientifically correct in their disbelief than aggressive, adamant believers are scientifically correct in their belief. But that issue does not concern science---the atheist-scientist can entertain his skeptical views on the side just as the religious-scientist can entertain his faith-based views on the side---neither one’s personal views having any bearing whatsoever on any real scientific cause, proof or conclusion.

So there you have it. Science doesn’t deal with spirits, ghosts, devils, angels or gods because they are materially undetectable. While there are many anecdotes and arguments for the existence of such beings there is no hard, factual, material evidence to show that any material manifestation was ever caused by a non-material being. For similar reasons science also does not deal with the non-existence of such hypothetical entities.

That’s why the one is called “faith” and the other is called “science.”

Yes, by the way, I do have “faith”---faith that the best science comes from science and from a consensus of many scientists. This view is completely and unequivocally “compatible” with science. And if the science “changes” with new evidence and new findings then I will have “faith” that this is the best available science at the time. This is the difference between fixed, absolute views and the more adjustable, intellectually more disciplined, scientific method.

<<<<<>>>>>>

SCIENCE-RELIGION RESPONSE:

Great commentary on the “difference between science and religion.” And good, courteous dialogue between the commentators. Way to go!

To GoBadgers: I was quite explicit and careful to state that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of any supernatural entity and therefore [science] cannot use supernatural references to serve as scientific evidence or scientific premises. No way was it my “premise” (scientifically or personally) that “there is no God.” My premise was that science simply offers no opinion on the existence of God one way or the other because it cannot, in accordance with it‘s own rules, use any reference to a deity to explain anything.

To clarify: My other “premise” was that deity-based religions are more or less “all the same“ only in the sense that science does not consider supernatural acts as scientific “cause“ or evidence. [There are other forms of spiritual awareness than the deity-based religions---notably the more esoteric forms of Buddhism (Tibetan, etc.). These religions/philosophies are not necessarily “scientific” either.]

I was very careful to make it quite clear that science doesn’t know how life began and therefore has no “findings“ on that specific event or series of events.

I agree: “Miracles are by definition outside of scientific explanation. 2) Miracles, like any events are witnessed, they are validated by testimony, not science.”

To Atunam: Thanks for your response. Of course the Catholic Church recognizes a dynamic, ongoing God. However, in doing formal science, the Church is properly careful to limit the role of acts of God to those things that are still a mystery to science. Scientifically-speaking that is the definitionally-correct thing to do. (No such word. I know.) [Personally, I feel awe at the wondrous mysteries of even everyday existence.]

To toklat2: Thanks for understanding where I am trying to come from.

To TheSdog): I will be addressing the science “behind global warming” in a future piece. Some thoughtful stuff.

Thanks, all of you, for your comments. The biblical scholarship dialogue was fascinating. I didn’t understand some of the Darwin/evolution/archaeopteryx references---however, a most civil discussion of some controversial topics. - Rudy W.

PS: On Afghanistan---I feel terrible about not responding to decent comments on my Afghanistan piece---especially after previously pontificating about not getting comments worthy of response. So, I will have a proper response in a few days.