The squishy side of life
On the Nature blog “The Scientist,” Richard Grant chimes in with part 2 of his argument for why biologists should just calm down about religion:
Science is the study of the natural world. By definition it makes no comment on the supernatural. It’s not, pace Gould, even a case of ‘non-overlapping magisteria’: science doesn’t say that the supernatural doesn’t exist; rather it doesn’t even know that such a thing is possible. So to say in any way that science disproves God is nonsensical. The only even vaguely sensible question science can ask is “If there is a God and they interact with the tangible world as you claim, how?”.
But the thing that really bugs me is the supreme arrogance of biologists (and I write as one). It’s the least quantitative of all the real sciences, the squishiest of subjects and yet it’s biologists, primarily, who claim disproof of God/faith/the supernatural. Because, hey, we can explain life. As if any God worthy of the name couldn’t figure it out.
Oh, part 1 featured on Jeune Street a few weeks ago.
