[BroJoeK]

from the article: "But whoever rejects the Physician, the Divine Source of life and soul, rejects His prescription, thereby destroys him or herself.
So we ought to turn back to Him right now, before it is too late."

By traditional definition of the word "science", the scientific enterprise requires a commitment to "methodological naturalism" meaning: natural explanations for natural processes.

Science cannot and is not intended to deal with spiritual or metaphysical matters.
Even if, for example, "G*d" is the best answer for a question, then science must throw up its hands and say, "we don't know" or ascribe it to some process of random chance.
That's the traditional nature of science.

And the results are exactly as the article describes -- when methodological naturalism leads to philosophical naturalism, then the soul, in effect, commits suicide and humans become, well, less than human.

Perhaps the analogy of fire will help -- when humans are in charge of it, fire (or science) is highly useful for heating and cooking, etc.

When fire takes charge, it can instantly kill us.
That's the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.

[Alamo-Girl]

Perhaps the analogy of fire will help -- when humans are in charge of it, fire (or science) is highly useful for heating and cooking, etc.

When fire takes charge, it can instantly kill us. That's the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.

That's a fascinating metaphor, dear BroJoeK, thank you for sharing it!

Problems arise when people "do" theology or philosophy under the color of science, e.g. Dawkins, Lewontin. And, no doubt, some would also say that intelligent design supporters - e.g. Meyers - are doing the same thing from the polar opposite position, i.e. pro-God v. anti-God.

In my view, it would be better for a scientist faced with an unanswerable question (e.g. origin of inertia, information [Shannon, successful communication], space/time) simply to say "it is unknowable by the scientific method" rather than to default to his theological/philosophical presupposition - whether "God did it" or "Nature did it." Both are statements of faith. And offering a statement of faith is fine, but it should not be called "science" because it was not derived by the scientific method and cannot be falsified (Popper et al.)

Science is not the enemy of Christianity, though some atheists claim that it is.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen. - I Tim 6:20-21

I would also put "randomness did it" in the same faith statement bucket since we cannot say something is random in the system when we don't know what the system "is." The total number and types of dimensions are both unknown and unknowable - so just like a string of numbers extracted from the extension of pi, something may have the appearance of randomness and yet truly be highly determined.