ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

>  As centers for science education, shouldn't we come clean about the
atheism inherent in science? 

As you see by the various responses, "No."  
Actually not just many scientists, but science itself is mute on the subject
of "God working through nature," or of "God making up the original laws."
All that science says, is if there is a god, then that God must be working
in such a consistent way that the equations *are* accurate.  This may
eliminate God's free reign, but it does not mean there can not be a god.  

Look at your own terminology: you say that "science remains safely
atheistic" Doesn't this suggest that you do have an agenda in your own
thinking (the 'safety' of atheism)?  In reality we all have agendas, so you
have rightly disclosed yours.

Interestingly enough, some people think that God works within the chaotic
probabilities of Quantum mechanics.  Then these small "chances" could give
rise to the realm in which either God or free will could work.  Yet Feynman
(an atheist), rightly points out that in a practical manner, that isn't even
required for God or for freedom of choice (it's in his lectures on quantum
if I remember correctly).

Remember, science *never* concluded that supernatural entities didn't exist
-at least not anywhere that I've seen.  Now if they do exist, then their
very existence does not destroy science either.  If proof of a supernatural
entity was found, then I believe science would attempt to classify and
quantify these supernatural entities and to use experiment to come up with
the rules governing these entities as well.

The brilliance of science is its self correcting nature, let's not try to
restrict it by our beliefs and perhaps by our own definitions of what is or
is not a part of science.

-William "the rambling" Katzman

William Katzman			[log in to unmask]
Director of Exhibits			(828) 322-8169 x307
Catawba Science Center		(828) 322-1585 (fax)
"Try not to become a man of success, but rather to become a man of value"
-A. Einstein




-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Stoller [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: Evolution, Creation, can we please move on?

ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related
institutions.
****************************************************************************
*

> Lisa Jo Rudy wrote:
>  
> but...  if one accepts the notion that the divine can work through  
> natural agencies, which many people do, then why must science and god 
> be  mutually exclusive??


That is not a notion that science can accept. Science has long concluded
that supernatural entities do not exist, and on a very fundamental level
science relies on that fact. In the event science ever finds evidence of a
supernatural agent who can effect the natural world, then science will have
invalidated its own existence (for all practical purposes). Statistics would
be meaningless. Observations could not be trusted. Creating equations would
be pointless since at any moment the mathematical constants could change
without notice. And knowing the probability of something happening now would
not give you any insight into the probability a moment from now. Lucky for
science, no scientific investigation has yet come close to finding such an
entity, so science remains safely atheistic.

Remember though, as I stated previously, there is a difference between the
facts of science and the beliefs of scientists. Science doesn't demand that
you agree with everything it says. To the contrary, it demands that you
question even its most basic premises. It doesn't pretend to be the whole
story. So technically a scientist can conceivably believe in supernatural or
divine forces while still doing science. Many do. However, in practice it
can sometimes be difficult to maintain those beliefs without corrupting your
science (take a look at the Discovery Institute, for instance). I suppose
the same could be said of any belief strongly held by a scientist, but I
think that because religious beliefs tend to invoke a strong emotional
response and deviate so dramatically from scientific conclusions, the danger
of corruption is somewhat grater than normal.

As centers for science education, shouldn't we come clean about the atheism
inherent in science? Should we couch that by pointing out you can still hold
onto your religious beliefs when you study science? How much can we
emphasize the latter before we negate the former? Or should we just keep
pretending that science has nothing to say on the subject?
--
Jeremy Stoller
Senior Graphic Artist
California Science Center
(213) 744-2532
[log in to unmask]
www.CaliforniaScienceCenter.org

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at
http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the message
SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]