But can you agree that it's resonable (for the sake of the argument, disregard correct/incorrect) to, if you want to make a description of how the world works, observe the world first and then make conclutions based on what we actually see?
It's not a matter of trying to determine the philosophical or religious reasons things are the way they are. It's about making models that describes what we actually see. These models are indeed limited: They can't ever adress WHY things are the way they are and not differently.
Each person can on their own look to their own spirituality to find out which way they want to mix religion with science. But saying that science is wrong because it's not religion is usually a hint that a person hasn't really understood what science is all about.
™ Version 4.2
