(3) Science also addresses the “should”. Science provides values.
Simple Example: Most people will see the value of taking medicines for epileptic seizures (offered by scientists) then to exorcise an evil spirit (used by religious specialists, especially before the advent of modern science). The discoveries of science promote a “should” in the ethical and moral spheres. Science has a lot to say about good and evil morality. Religion does not have a monopoly on ethics.
(4) A person can only accept the Bible as a message from God by pure faith. Reason and evidence will not support this Biblical claim. Science does not support the Bible or any other Holy Book.
(5) Few scientists are Christian today.
A study reported in “Nature” in the late 1990’s involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in a “personal god” only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed “personal disbelief” and 20.8% expressed “doubt or agnosticism.”
Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% rejected the “human immortality” tenet, compared with 25.4% in 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed “doubt or agnosticism” on the question, compared with 43.7% in the original measurement.
Again, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.9%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields — only 5.5%
(6) skiped
(7) Intelligent Design (ID) and Creationism generally have one explanation for anything that cannot be explained by current science, namely that an Intelligent Designer or God did it (they almost always mean the God of the Bible, even though they don’t say so. I’ve had some dealings with Muslim Creationists [they are all creationists] and they mean Allah of the Koran).
In the book “The Case For a Creator” Mr. Lee Strobel’s IDer is essentially an evangelical Christian God – Jesus.
This explanation really doesn’t explain anything — it is a way of covering up ignorance and dissuades any further scientific research — they use the God of the Gaps for anything not clearly explained by science.
One good thing about ID: Science thrives on thoughtful, considered criticism. As long as ID points out specific items in science to wonder about, then scientists can be motivated to research in that area. Scientists criticize each other all the time — a galvanizing thing in science.
(8) Interesting thought:
It seems researchers that assume no supernatural realm are blessed with gigantic gains in knowledge about reality.
It would be ironic: If there is a supernatural God who rewards researchers that deny His(It’s) existence in their researches, but who withholds any rewards for those that use God as an essential part of their research.
Blessed are the naturalists,
O. Hooge
Naturalism and Religious Experience 