The Scientist 13[24]:18, Dec. 6, 1999
LETTER
I tend to agree with Charles Darwin. Why should his theories shock the religious feelings of anyone? Why should any conflict exist between science and religion? Steve Bunk's Perspective1 states that "... [science] concerns itself with the profane realm of that which is knowable, while religion dwells on that which is unknowable." In reality, science deals with what is natural, and theology, not religion, concerns itself with the supernatural. We still use the term natural science. Theology is supernatural science. What really is knowable or unknowable?
Thus,
the human soul is supernatural while the body is natural. Natural evolution
arises from a single act of supernatural creation at the very beginning
of nature and is punctuated once on Earth at the supernatural moment of
Adam and Eve. We can debate over other theological acts of intervention
at the instant of every human conception, or if living beings with immortal
souls exist anywhere else in the universe. The former has impact in the
abortion issue while the latter provides story lines for popular science
fiction and fantasy.
Thoughtful scientists have always recognized that their work depends on certain assumptions, and that subjective decisions are an integral part of the scientific process. Michael Polanyi, himself a successful scientist, wrote clearly about this aspect of science, how one's presuppositions have tremendous impact on scientific discovery.
Any scientist can see nonobjectivity in his or her own work. Let's say that you have a particularly elegant hypothesis for a phenomenon, but that the first few experiments that you use to test the hypothesis all suggest that it is false. Do you discard the hypothesis? You know that another experiment or two could reveal that the "falsifying" experiments were in error. How do you know when to stop doing experiments and abandon the hypothesis? The judgment involves experience and intuition, and may depend on the perceived elegance of the hypothesis that is being tested. But "intuition" and "elegance" are intensely personal concepts, so no formula exists for how to make this decision.
Other examples abound, because the process of science involves personal decisions based on nonobjective criteria that constitute in some sense "faith" (and we haven't even touched deeper philosophical issues, like how we implicitly trust that human perceptions match reality). Conversely, religious beliefs have at least some evidence to support them, so religious faith is not a trust in something without any evidence at all.
Bunk's article was about the emotions scientists feel when they observe nature, and it was interesting for that reason, but he distinguishes between science and religion in a way that is not helpful for the dialogue between these two human activities.