However, not all aspects of the natural world are amenable to investigation by the form of the scientific method just described. For example, phenomena and processes that have developed over historical time, such as the origin and evolution of life or the origin and evolution of the universe, must be investigated in a different manner. Here you must use numerous lines of enquiry, and conclusions can only be drawn after these converge to produce an unmistakeable conclusion. Thus, the theory of evolution through natural selection rests on the converging evidence of the history of life on earth gleaned from palaeontology, geology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, biogeography, molecular genetics, physiology, and so on.This is what many creationists fail to understand—it is not just the fossil record or just genetics or just anything that supports evolution. It is the whole kit 'n kaboodle. He also rightly questions whether or not the existence of God could ever be shown by using science. This is something I have argued for years. Read the whole thing.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
William Reville on Religion and Science
The Irish Times has a good post by William Reville on the nature of science and what science does to answer questions. In it, he tackles a section that is persistently misinterpreted and misunderstood by modern-day creationism: historical science. After discussing what is understood to be popular science involving experimentation and replication, He writes: