Now, not all of y'all may like this, but this web site from the United Church of Christ resonates with yours truly. I've never been a NOMA fan, because I recognize that the boundaries are messy. How can we claim that the magisteria of science and religion don't overlap, when the boundary of what science is capable of investigating is poorly-defined? No, real science is messy, and many of the consequences of religious claims are eminently testable, so there really are areas of potential overlap. The age of the Earth is an obvious example.

I think my skeptical friends might argue that while scientific explanations do not exclude the possibility of the supernatural (and thus, the free exercise of religion), that dogmatically-held supernatural claims can be 'science stoppers'. ID sympathizers would doubtless argue that a mirror dogma of naturalism holds true science hostage, but they simply won't hold their claims to the sort of evidentiary standard that will satisfy theists like myself, much less die-hard metaphysical naturalists. What I want is not negative arguments directed against the odd cases that evolutionary theory seems ill-equipped to address; I want positive arguments that admit no other possible explanation other than design.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy the web site.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing the UCC science website. I am enjoying learning more and more about how religion and science (and rationality) are not mutually exclusive. I think that gets lost in the battle between religious fundamentalism and "new atheism." I find your viewpoint to be a refreshing stance in the clamor between the "all religion is ignorant" crowd and the "Bible is the literal word of God" crowd.