No More Split Personality

The following quote is from an article which presents a pathetic vision of the situation of scientists who are also believers. We can call it, split personality.

The presupposition of the article is that real science is incompatible with religious belief. Therefore, all scientist who dare to proclaim personal faith must learn to live with a split between their mind at work in science and their heart in belief.

Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science - New York Times: "Although they embrace religious faith, these scientists also embrace science as it has been defined for centuries. That is, they look to the natural world for explanations of what happens in the natural world and they recognize that scientific ideas must be provisional - capable of being overturned by evidence from experimentation and observation. This belief in science sets them apart from those who endorse creationism or its doctrinal cousin, intelligent design, both of which depend on the existence of a supernatural force."

This is an attack on scientist holding intelligent design. It is part of a propaganda campaing by materialist scientist whose faith is that there can not be any effects denoting supernatural causes, regardless of all evidence.

What is wrong with this picture? The unspoken materialistic assumption which defines science as naturalism. The article adopts materialism as necessary for 'scientific' truth and then goes on to describe the split personality of some scientist who seem to accept it and still manage to hold faith somehow through some sort of irrational belief, as if that was the only 'scientific' option.

Truth is that if you assume at the start that only natural causes must be behind all observable effects, regardless of the evidence, you have conceded a-priori the whole foundation of true faith, and you must end up with a split personality between the truth of science and the truth of religion.

But there is another scientific option that the article dismisses by branding it as religious doctrine, (of course following the naturalistic definition and pressuposition.) That alternative is called Intelligent Design. In simple terms is an attempt of scientist to think science outside of the biased naturalistic-materialistic closed box. Naturalism is in crisis and at war against Intelligent Design. That is why this materialistic article dissmisses ID as unfounded belief which resists the true scientific method, without even a serious argument.

But, Take the evidence as it is, without the materialistic assumption that only material causes can be admitted, and it turns out that the evidence speaks loudly confirming our natural intuition that indeed there is purpose and design in nature, and the effects of an intelligent casues can be observed at many levels.

Plato and Aristotle acknowledged this long ago, and now thanks to ID scientist, it seems that finally science will be able to liberate itself from the materialistic shackels that had enslave it so badly.

Scientist will not have to take any more the split personality that materialistic naturalism imposes upon them, and will be able to recover the freedom of science outside materialistic dogmatism. But it wont be without a fight for truth.