Why Science and Faith are Separate but Related!

Let’s kick-start a new thread!.. and we can use a quote from @Ashwin_s as the basis!


Let’s stick with that one sentence!

It cites the influence of Science. True!

But just because @swamidass is a scientist doesn’t mean he can’t make different distinctions when he is a man describing his Faith instead of his work.

And this site, PeacefulScience.org, is only tangentially a defense of Science-as-Science must be worked.

It’s main goal is as a theological defense of why Christians can safely adopt Evolutionary theories as a way to combine the Teleology (and thus issues of Design) of Christianity with the necessarily narrow limits of the profession of Science!


Entirely correct @gbrooks9. More people need to know this fact and that scientists as a whole are very tolerant of religious beliefs. Science doesn’t really care what we believe in heart or think outside science, as long as we play by its rules in science.


Or as long as we don’t let our religious beliefs influence how we interpret science.

Nope. That is not it. We are allowed to use our religious beliefs to interpret science. We just can’t use them as reason to challenge the rules within science. Science is secular. It is silent about God.


I’m sorry if I miscommunicated. I was referring to whether the scientific method is appropriate or not.

Science, for example, has very strong evidence that the universe is old, and that the Earth is in space, unsupported by anything else. To say that a 6000 year old interpretation of the OT was correct (or, if I were from another faith–that it is on the back of a turtle) if I would ignore all the evidence might be a mistake.

I heard once that apologetics comes from the position that “I believe in my faith is true. However, I will engage with facts in an honest manner. If they disprove a given tenet, I will reconsider the tenet in the light of truth.” Is that a reasonable one? Thanks.


The scientific method IS the method best suited for Science.

Peaceful Science does not seek to change that.

The same cannot be said for ID proponents.