Chief,
Thanks for taking the time to actually read my posts

I want to start by adding this disclaimer- in no way is anything I will write a personal attack on yourself personally or your belief system. I have the utmost respect for everyone's right to believe what he/she wants. My discussion before and now is more dealing with what science IS and what science IS NOT, and how it has been misapplied by both sides in this particular debate.



I have to disagree with you a little, but not necessarily what you say, but what I think you mean- which is a difficult thing to do via the written word.

By definition the "naturalistic view" you refer to is the "scientific view" since science seeks to explain the natural world in testable, repeatable manners. To do so requires an ABSENCE of a supernatural component. Science is not seeking to explain away the possible role of a "supernatural agency" but to explain the natural world in terms of the natural world. One problem (among many) for science in allowing a supernatural explanation is that it limits/prevents new discoveries. They way science works to answer seemingly unanswerable questions in absence of a supernatural explanation is to formulate hypothesis, test those hypothesis given our current models (theories) and interpret the data to see if our theory matches the outcome. Often this is done in very small incremental steps before large breakthroughs are made. If science allowed the supernatural explanation, when we arrive at the difficult- seemingly unanswerable questions (such as where did life come from) the explanation would be that the supernatural (i.e. God) was responsible. That would be the end of the search for answers. This line of reasoning severely limits the scope and depth science can explore. It also limits science to a particular group of people- those who happen to share the same belief in the supernatural.




As I stated earlier- science and religion occupy 2 different spheres, the natural and supernatural respectively. While some questions that we have remain very murky (i.e. the origins of life) and both views could propose equally valid answers (valid on a personal level), an answer that relies on the supernatural is a much less scientific answer than an answer that relies on the natural world. Each side is not equally philosophical, because one side IS philosophical. Religion requires faith and conviction because the personal experience with god can not be measured or quantified. That same willingness to take something on faith, which is a definite strength in the religious realm, is actually a detriment in the scientific realm because science requires skepticism- the need to seek evidence for oneself, or at the very least to objectively evaluate the evidence for ones self to determine if it indeed fits the accepted explanation or theory. Science is not some much the answers to questions (because there will always be more questions to ask) but the pursuit for those answers that uses only what is allowable in the natural world.

To summarize- Science is a focus on natural processes devoid of supernatural explanations. If one felt compelled to balance an understanding and acceptance of science and a deep seated religious world view (and many do) it can be framed in this way:

Science studies HOW God operates through the natural world.

This thought process requires no changing of the science to meet religious views. Many Christian scientists that I know feel that the more they know about science (Evolution included) the more their faith in God is reinforced. They feel that by studying how science works (in naturalistic terms) it allows them to see how God himself worked.

That being said, it would be very difficult to completely reconcile a belief in MANY currently accepted scientific theories and a literal interpretation of the Bible. Those who do live in both realms probably live a more segmented life applying different world views when they are in different roles.