Letter: Science has answers beyond those of religion

The In Theory response by the Rev. Bryan Griem seems to lack an understanding of what underlies science.

Griem states science is “hyper-naturalistic.” He claims science is full of “speculation” and that it views some things as “postulates rather than possibilities.” He claims evolution is “unobservable.”

I take it he has never heard of fossil evidence. He uses the term “creation science,” sometimes referred to as intelligent design. More than a dozen recent court cases have held it has no scientific basis, but is based upon religion and therefore unconstitutional to teach in school because of its violation of 1st Amendment separation of church and state.

Science is a process of discovery that allows us to link isolated facts into coherent and comprehensive understandings of the natural world. That process includes evaluations using evidence from the natural world. When such explanations don’t fit, the evidence is rejected or modified and tested again. Scientific claims are subject to peer review and replication. Theories are central to scientific thinking. They are supported, modified or replaced as new evidence appears. Theories give scientists frameworks within which to work.

The main issue asked was “why is there a division between science and religion?” Griem could have answered that religion is centuries older than science and it attempted to answer many questions about nature before very much was known.

As a result it got many things wrong that science has since corrected. He could have cited Galileo’s struggle to get church authorities to accept his astonishing discoveries about the universe, but instead ended up with a fateful trial before the Inquisition for heresy. However, he didn’t and his best effort, if I understand his logic, was that science “leaves little room for spiritual variables such as God.”

Richard Bennett

Glendale