You are absolutely free to introduce aspects of various religions if they can fit within a scientific framework. I believe there have been experiments to study the effects of prayer, for example.<quoted text>
Which demonstrates a presupposition that religion WILL NEVER have anything relevant to science.
Meanwhile falsification is an effective method of verification; therefore by disproving religious assumptions you can learn fact.
And they are what?
Trying to "keep those things out of science"?
It is interesting that you mention "philosophy of your choice"; because you must admit in honesty that you espouse philosophies in science too: Realism and Determinism...
May I point out to you that THERE IS A THING CALLED PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE.
Did you know that one of the main individuals advocating that scientific claims should be falsifiable was a philosopher of science?
" Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions concern what counts as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the PURPOSE of science." [wikipedia.com]
So whats your point exactly?
I do not need evolution theory to fail for God to work!!!!
What I mean by keeping religious beliefs out of science, I mean that if you believe something from your personal doctrine (say, about the age of the universe) and science provides evidence that contradicts that, if you try to block the scientific answer from being taught, you are using your religious beliefs to interfere with scientific progress. When you want the things taught to you by your religion to replace, circumvent or block scientific evidence, there is a problem.
I would also use the same argument against atheists. Richard Dawkins has every right to say that he does not believe in God as part of his personal philosophy. But the moment he says science says no God, then I question that because science does not say that. Science takes no position on the existence of God, for or against.
Yes, there is such a thing as the philosophy of science, what does that have to do with what we are discussing?
The point of quoting the clergy letter is to contravene the idea that Evolution is somehow in opposition to God or religious belief. There is no conflict in believing in God and accepting the scientific evidence for Evolution.