Science operates in the natural, not the supernatural. In fact, I go so far as to state that there is no such thing as the supernatural or the paranormal.
Michael ShermerRead
You have to know evolution to understand the natural world. And that cannot be a threat to people of faith. There's a serious problem if you are forced by your faith to reject the most well-supported theory in all of science.
Interpretation
Understanding evolution is crucial for comprehending the natural world and should not conflict with faith.
This quote emphasizes that a proper understanding of evolution is fundamental for grasping the complexities of the natural world. It suggests that faith should not compel individuals to deny well-established scientific theories, like evolution, as this creates a conflict between scientific understanding and personal beliefs.
In practice
In a debate about science education in schools, this quote emphasizes the importance of teaching evolution without undermining faith.
Science operates in the natural, not the supernatural. In fact, I go so far as to state that there is no such thing as the supernatural or the paranormal.
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.
Being deeply knowledgeable on one subject narrows one's focus and increases confidence, but it also blurs dissenting views until they are no longer visible, thereby transforming data collection into bias confirmation and morphing self-deception into self-assurance.
How can we find spiritual meaning in a scientific worldview? Spirituality is a way of being in the world, a sense of one’s place in the cosmos, a relationship to that which extends beyond oneself. . . . Does scientific explanation of the world diminish its spiritual beauty? I think not. Science and spirituality are complementary, not conflicting; additive, not detractive. Anything that generates a sense of awe may be a source of spirituality. Science does this in spades. (158-159)
But because we live in an age of science, we have a preoccupation with corroborating our myths.
I’m a skeptic not because I do not want to believe, but because I want to know.
It was because of Henderson that I stayed... It was he and he alone who kept me in Toronto and in Canada. Were it not for Henderson, I believe insulin would have been a product of the United States.
Research under a paradigm must be a particularly effective way of inducing paradigm change.
Unlike science, creationism cannot predict anything, and it cannot provide satisfactory answers about the past.
It is generally believed that our science is empirical and that we draw our concepts and our mathematical constructs from the empirical data. If this were the whole truth, we should, when entering into a new field, introduce only such quantities as can directly be observed, and formulate natural laws only by means of these quantities.
It is now widely realized that nearly all the 'classical' problems of molecular biology have either been solved or will be solved in the next decade. The entry of large numbers of American and other biochemists into the field will ensure that all the chemical details of replication and transcription will be elucidated. Because of this, I have long felt that the future of molecular biology lies in the extension of research to other fields of biology, notably development and the nervous system.
I believe that the extraordinary should be pursued. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.