The obvious problem with the article “God or science? A belief in one weakens positive feelings for the other,” as with Adam Frank’s accusation that “creationists” are schizophrenic about science, is simply this: both take “science” to be a monolithic whole. “Do you believe in science or not? Answer yes or no, please,” seems to be the question.
But the term “science” so employed is undefinable; nobody knows where the line is that marks off “science” from other pursuits. (This is Larry Laudan’s famous demarcation problem.) Further, there is no reason to suppose that one has to swallow “science” whole. Science is in process. It has some things figured out very nicely, and it’s still working on other questions. Some important questions it cannot even touch.
Thus I can believe in God and “science” (or better, “almost-everything-’science’-says”), while questioning, doubting, or even rejecting some things “science” says; and there’s no schizophrenia in that at all.
There are very few topics on which (some of) “science” has set itself in opposition to God (origins, the soul, miracles, God’s revealing himself through his word). Funny thing: these were the same topics the “God or science” study volunteers reacted to as setting up a choice between God and “science.”
_______________
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
Science is a method of investigation that leads to the discovery of a specific kind of knowledge about reality. Nobody should reject that methodology because it works quite well. It should be obvious that a person can accept both science, the method, and God, the creator of rational, spiritual beings capable of employing the method. No conflict there at all.