It doesn't involve religion till the end. Why insist on working backwards?
The question that's asked it, 'How did the universe begin?'
But then he demands that only answers that involve materialistic processes be considered.
That kind of response immediately shuts down open minded inquiry since one of the possible casual explanations for the origin of life is that an intelligence could have played a role.
Ruling out the possibility of intelligent design before examining the facts stifles intellectual and scientific inquiry.
And it happens far too often.
I don't think it's right to invoke a self-serving rule that says only naturalistic explanations can be considered by science. Science should employ methodological rules that actually foster the unfettered seeking of truth.
Scientists and individuals should be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads... even if it leads to a conclusion that makes some people uncomfortable.
Even if it leads to God.
But then he demands that only answers that involve materialistic processes be considered.
That kind of response immediately shuts down open minded inquiry since one of the possible casual explanations for the origin of life is that an intelligence could have played a role.
Ruling out the possibility of intelligent design before examining the facts stifles intellectual and scientific inquiry.
And it happens far too often.
I don't think it's right to invoke a self-serving rule that says only naturalistic explanations can be considered by science. Science should employ methodological rules that actually foster the unfettered seeking of truth.
Scientists and individuals should be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads... even if it leads to a conclusion that makes some people uncomfortable.
Even if it leads to God.