Incompatibility between Science and Religion
Astute readers know that "The Ten Assumptions of Science" are the most reliable guides for distinguishing between determinism and indeterminism; between progressive physics and regressive physics; between logic and illogic; between sense and nonsense; and ultimately between science and religion. It is most deplorable that mainstream scientific organizations, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, are rife with accomodationists. Those are the indeterminists, such as CEO Alan I. Leshner, who stubbornly maintain that there really is no conflict between science and religion (see my letter to the Wichita Eagle on the subject). And so there isn’t—unless you study the foundational assumptions in detail, as we have.
I suppose one could excuse Leshner a bit since he is the head of a science organization whose members depend on an extremely religious Congress for sustenance. After all, it’s not wise to bite feeding hands. That would be like the NRA attacking Smith & Wesson. Aint gonna happen.
This situation has been made quite clear by Jerry Coyne, a biologist who is a professor charged with teaching evolution at the University of Chicago. Turns out that students arrive in his course with a mess of indeterministic assumptions, the most destructive being creation, the opposite of conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). The roadblock here is akin to the belief in free will, which prevents progress in philosophy. Removing the roadblock takes up much valuable class time. Finally, he just wrote a book about it (Why Evolution is True).
Jerry’s plight parallels the one we face in confronting regressive physics. Many of the folks who oppose relativity and the Big Bang Theory believe that all we need to do is tweak the math a bit, and the whole façade will come crashing down. Others like to point out the paradoxes and contradictions without exposing the underlying fallacious assumptions. Both approaches have been tried hundreds of times—to no avail. The main problem is the widespread acceptance of indeterminism and the ignorance that nurtures it. For instance, only 15% of those in the US believe in evolution, while up to 78 percent believe in miracles. My point is: If you can reject daily reminders of evolution and still believe in miracles, then believing in 4-D and the explosion of the universe from nothing is no big deal. Without a gross failure of religion, both relativity and the BBT are here to stay until the global depression completes its historical mission.
Here is an informative 1-hour lecture by Coyne entitled "The Odd Couple: Why Science and Religion Shouldn't Cohabit." We need a similar one spotlighting regressive physics.