Nina,
When you say that people turn from science to religion so that "they can
explore the sense
of wonder that the universe and its laws arouses in their heart and soul"
perhaps you are speaking of a prompting that is more "spiritual" than 
"religious." Religion attempts to define, regulate, codify, and control
what is essentially spiritual. In doing so, religion often attracts full
purses, political ideas, and makes profits, pontifs, prelates, and saints.
When I walk along the banks of the Potomac, as I often do, and notice that
the oriole sings differently in late evening than at noon, or that the blue
heron frequents the same rocks at different times each day, or that the
geese know which pools are safe for their goslings--I deeply suspect an
intelligent principle is at work, without needing a handbook to guide my
thoughts. My appreciation of science's unfoldings is reflected in my
spiritual awakenings and requires no further explanation. 

Rebecca Trussell 


> [Original Message]
> From: Nina Stoyan-Rosenzweig <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 7/1/2005 4:46:52 PM
> Subject: Re: For those interested in evolution AND Intelligent Design . .
.
>
> I have been working on a complex and thoughtful response that treats all
> respondents respectfully, but am throwing all that away to say that
> given the structure of the questions and the way science approaches
> external reality it is still not another religion!  Granted there are
> people who approach science as a religion- I've certainly known
> evolutionary biologists who approach their science with the same fervor
> as a religious fundamentalist, and who are as intolerant of other
> beliefs as anyone in ID.  
>
> But the bottom line is that the entire structure of their discipline,
> the way that science addresses problem solving means that it is entirely
> different from religions.  Science addresses how- religion addresses
> why.  People can and do the findings of science to buttress religious
> ideas, but that is going from is to ought, which is one of the most
> important no nos of science.  Scientists (although again they are human
> and fallible) should not make the mistake of reading morality into their
> results, or saying that because something is a particular way it ought
> to be that way.  People can turn to a variety of means of speculating
> about the meaning of scientific discoveries, they can explore the sense
> of wonder that the universe and its laws arouses in their heart and
> soul.  But when they do so they are moving into an entirely different
> realm of human endeavor.  They are going from science to religion.
>
> Best, Nina S-R
> PS I haven't read all of the posts, and am wondering if anyone has
> addressed the question of what processes might lead to development of
> the intelligent aliens who some might believe were responsibile for life
> on earth.  To me that simply removes the process of evolution to another
> planet!!!!!
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 07/01/05 02:25PM >>>
> What Tim says below really resonates with me.
>
> What if the notion of God, defined simplistically as a set of
> processes,
> forces, natural laws and observable phenomena that influence(d) our
> past, present and future, is what science is devoted to teasing out?
> Then science becomes another religion, and the ID/evolution battle
> becomes simply another clash in humanity's long history of religious
> wars (which were not so much about religion but about land, but that
> is
> beside the point). 
>
>
> Julia Muney Moore
> Public Art Administrator
> Blackburn Architects, Indianapolis, IN
> (317) 875-5500 x230
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Tim Gaddie
>
>
> From a metaphysical standpoint, science is like any other religion in
> that it is how some humans understand their reality. I'd argue it's
> the
> best process humans have devised to date for objectively understanding
> our reality, but I'd argue it is still flawed like many of humans'
> different metaphysical theories. One of those flaws is a propensity
> for
> dogmatic adherence to preconceived notions and a general
> disinclination
> to consider other ideas. Many of our now celebrated scientists learned
> this the hard way in their own times when they became proponents for
> ideas radical to their contemporary science.
>
> =========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
>
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
> http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
> information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
> message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should
> read "help" (without the quotes).
>
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message
> to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read
> "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
>
> =========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
>
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should
read "help" (without the quotes).
>
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).