"I don't find that Science is comfortable accepting things which cannot be explained scientifically."

A dear (Mormon) friend of mine from high school sent me an interesting video promo for an upcoming movie called Expelled.

Interesting stuff.

I replied:

Wow -- looks like interesting stuff! Certainly, the production value looks extraordinary!

Like Ben Stein, I believe in religious freedom, tolerance, and respect. You know me; that goes without saying.

Where I start getting vocal however (and I have!), is when religion begins to creep into public school science classes. I DID lose friends in the early 90's when I spoke up at public meetings against the Vista School Board which had implemented teaching creationism in our local public school science classes.

I have NO problem with private religious schools teaching that, if they want, but it has no place in public school science classes, since that'd be governed by the doctrine of separation of church and state. Though we all know that there's little real separation -- proven by Obama being challenged for NOT putting his hand on the Bible to take a government oath, even though he's a Christian. I honor and respect his desire (and statement) to keep the two separate! (But then, I honor and respect just about everything about that man!)

Anyway, are you sure you want to get me started on this? Ha ha!! But truly, thanks for sending what looks like it'll be a great movie -- one definitely worth seeing, no matter what side of the issue one might be on.

Hope all is well for you and yours!

He replied:

Thanks Carol. It's always good to hear from you.

The movie sounds very interesting to me. For me, the issue falls on, what is authenticated by science versus that which is not. I don't find that Science is comfortable accepting things which cannot be explained scientifically. And since any scientist who believes in entropy (for starters) has a hard time justifying a "big bang theory" or accidental existence, the debate is as broad and unsubstantiated as a world that was created by a higher power--or even those which lay their life's work on Darwinism.

On the other hand, how does one defer to a "higher power" w/o making it religion-specific? I think that is your debate. In other words, is it not possible to suggest that a higher intelligence had a hand in creating the universe, of which we do not necessarily understand the actual inception? There are, of course, plenty of examples of natural selection and survival of the fittest. The leap for Darwinism, however, is as controversial as "creationism." I do not refer to the Bible's explanation of creation as much as an admission that there was an intelligent origin to the order or our world. Call it God, call it whatever you like. But ultimately, the evidence of "order" is too overwhelming to dismiss it entirely, in my opinion.

Big topic, I know. No need to go on, since science and religion will continue to do that for us.

Glad to hear you're working again."

Now I adore this friend, in spite of our religious differences. And I do believe that he makes a good point about all this "order" probably not being completely random. But I have to giggle a bit at the highlighted sentence, above. I mean, really.

Let's extrapolate:

I don’t find that Geology is comfortable accepting things which cannot be explained geologically.

I don’t find that History is comfortable accepting things which cannot be explained historically.

I don’t find that Psychology is comfortable accepting things which cannot be explained psychologically.

Yup, truly interesting stuff! (Also interesting: why Blogger won't allow me to remove italics...)