tesla writes:
Just because i believe the universe was created doesn't mean i cant be good at science.
People who believe that the creator of the universe takes an active interest in them personally, to the extent that they believe/expect particular real-world outcomes in their lives to result from God's actions in response to their prayers, must either maintain a "wall of separation" between their religious faith and their objective/science-like activities, or else fail pretty badly at science.
Maybe you're not one of those people who believe in "the efficacy of prayer", and you don't consider your creator to be an entity that actively intervenes in your life according to your expressed desires. If so, then you've passed one of the major obstructions that religion puts in the way of both scientific and personal progress.
But the ability to do good science requires more than that. An essential skill that you seem to have trouble with is the ability to consistently use terminology in accordance with accepted or specified definitions -- that is, to maintain accuracy in your usage of terms, avoiding ambiguity and equivocation.
It is worse when a scientist is so closed minded they take the position of "there is no God" instead of " i don't know if there is a God."
If you're talking about individual personalities who are commenting on their personal atheism or agnosticism, you're entitled to your own opinion that one notion is worse than the other. But if you're talking about the practice of scientific inquiry and research, it's a moot distinction.
Whether or not there is a God, science is concerned with understanding natural processes and explaining them in natural terms that can be confirmed by independent observation, without reference to any religious doctrine. This is not a matter of "anti-religious bias", as the ID-proponentists claim; it's just a very simple and effective set of ground rules for answering questions and resolving disputes: let the evidence be the guide. {AbE: And when the evidence is insufficient to guide you, get more and better evidence.}
When an explanation appeals to divine/supernatural agency, it ceases to be a scientific explanation, by definition, because it has failed to provide a fully observational basis for its assertions. You can't be good at science if you don't understand this.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (addition as noted in next-to-last paragraph)
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (fixed incorrect position of added text)
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
™ Version 4.2
