I'm sorry - what about my reply above doesn't respond to your response?

In fact, scientists loathe unverfiable assertions. And NONE of the things you list were unverifiable. In fact, we've discarded or verified most of them.

M Solange, still awaiting your reply to previous response.

I'm simply addressing the words you used. You're the one that said, 'unverifiable assertion'. Anyway, as you know, Directed Panspermia was espoused by Nobel winner Francis Crick who, after being faced with the stunning complexity and order of the DNA molecule, was willing to assert that aliens from other worlds planted life here. This idea is still taken seriously today by scientists such as Richard Dawkins (anything and anyone other than God, I guess). Moving on. If spontaneous creation was disproved, why did Stephen Hawking defend it in his latest book, The Grand Design? And why is it currently espoused by other scientists as well? In your estimation, are these scientists 'dealing with facts on the ground and changing models as needed?' Next. No matter how much you couch it in scientific terms, multiverse is an untestable assertion (one that fails Occam's Razor quite badly by the way). On to evolution. And yes, excuse my error, you're correct, I meant to say evolution in general for cosmology and macro-evolution for biology. Is the whole idea of the universe going from simple to complex by random, unguided forces not an evolutionary one? Yet, as we know from scientific observation, random unguided forces can't tie their own shoes if they had to, much less organize a law-abiding, complex system like the universe. Before we get to macro-evolution in biology, let's deal with these, if you don't mind.

No, it doesn't. Scientists generate conjectures, try to turn those into hypotheses which can be tested, and eventually try to develop theories (models) to explain observations. Those theories are always accepted as provisional, subject to revision as new observations or new models come to light. That's why it's science - it deals with the facts on the ground and changes its models as needed. Religion can't and won't.

And anyone who things macroevolution is not a testable hypothesis is simply and utterly ignorant of evolutionary biology. And macroevolution has no connection whatsoever with cosmology.

The multiverse is actually a natural consequent of the mathematics of certain interpretations of quantum theory.

And science disproved spontaneous creation over a century ago.

uhuh. Science never accepts unverifiable assertions? Panspermia? Spontaneous creation? Multiverse? The majority of Macro-evolution for cosmology and biology? Good ole science and it's testable ideas.

I'm saying their standards for evidence are fundamentally different - that's what's incompatible.

You would agree then that history and science are also incompatible since their standards of evidence are fundamentally different? Science ultimately relies upon experimental data and evidence that is either repeatable or mathematically predicted, but there is no way one can "re-view" history or let it play out again running a certain test or use mathematical formulas to predict specific outcomes.

I'd say history and the physical sciences are both valid ways to figure out truth, they just use different methods and are viewing slightly different sides of reality. (Like on viewing the belly of an elephant and the other the head.)

Well, they could [agree], but generally they don't.

In actuality, I have yet to find something that the Catholic church holds/teaches that is in direct contradiction to something confirmed by the physical sciences.

That depends on how you're using the term, "truth". Science is the only method we've got right now to establish verifiable truth about the world.

Truth is truth is truth. Truth simply means coming to know reality the way it actually is. You may be biased towards scientific truth, but that doesn't make other truth less valid. I know it is true that my mother loves me. I can't put her under a microscope and run a test, but she has shown through actions and words that she does. This is a valid truth of reality that is not scientific truth.

Of course we can use experiment and logic to distinguish ad hoc assumptions - I'm not sure what you're getting at here."

This is getting at the fact that we are able to throw in certain assumptions into our scientific theories to save their plausibility and it isn't a scientific experiment that tells us if this is an absurd assumption--its reason. Reason determines if something is causally relevant.

As a silly basic example, think of a American Indian museum of history. Every time someone walks in that knows the Indian language, Inuit, they do not speak it in the museum. We have a perfect correlation and we could keep observing this over and over again. But this does not mean that this museum causes them to not be able to speak the language anymore. We know this through reason that a museum, as such, does not have the casual power to cause someone to not be able to speak an old language anymore. Science doesn't tell us this, reason does, the same reason we use in formulating philosophical theories based on experience.

Ric Machuga's, "Life, The Universe and Everything", does a good job at explaining this. I highly recommend it!

From what I'm gathering, it seems like you argue that science does not accept philosophical and religious evidence, therefore science is in conflict with religion and/or philosophy.

I'm saying their standards for evidence are fundamentally different - that's what's incompatible.

I actually don't think that conclusion would follow. It is perfectly possible to say that science uses X evidence to come to Z conclusion, while philosophy and/or religion uses Y evidence to come to Z conclusion. They can both come to the same conclusion using differing methods.

Well, they could, but generally they don't.

The only way this would be an issue is if one also held that the scientific method is the only way to come to actual truth about the world--but it doesn't sound like you would argue for this.

That depends on how you're using the term, "truth". Science is the only method we've got right now to establish verifiable truth about the world.

Now if there is a true difference in conclusions then one has to work out where the issue is.

Ah, but here is where science has the advantage. It has verifiable evidence; this makes determination of truth much simpler.

Good scientific theories avoid ad hoc assumptions, but there is no purely logical or experimental way to distinguish good assumptions from ad hoc ones. In the end, both science and philosophy, when done properly, can discover objective truth about the cosmos.

Of course we can use experiment and logic to distinguish ad hoc assumptions - I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Hey Solange,

From what I'm gathering, it seems like you argue that science does not accept philosophical and religious evidence, therefore science is in conflict with religion and/or philosophy.

I actually don't think that conclusion would follow. It is perfectly possible to say that science uses X evidence to come to Z conclusion, while philosophy and/or religion uses Y evidence to come to Z conclusion. They can both come to the same conclusion using differing methods.

The only way this would be an issue is if one also held that the scientific method is the only way to come to actual truth about the world--but it doesn't sound like you would argue for this.

Now if there is a true difference in conclusions then one has to work out where the issue is.

-----
As an interesting aside, in actuality there is no hard line between the methods of both science and philosophy. There is no such thing as pure scientific proof--both come down to the fact that they rely on good judgment, which can't be examined under a microscope.

Good scientific theories avoid ad hoc assumptions, but there is no purely logical or experimental way to distinguish good assumptions from ad hoc ones. In the end, both science and philosophy, when done properly, can discover objective truth about the cosmos.

Sure. I agree. Science can inform certain categories of decisions, but it does not make certain decisions. No one is disputing that.

If we stick to science for the information, we still need a framework in which to interpret the facts it provides, and to provide direction on how to use the information we gather

What does this have to do with materialism? That's the confusing part.