"Until the end of the Middle Ages there was no distinction between theology and science. Knowledge was deduced from self-evident principles received from God so science and theology were essentially the same thing"
There is another way of phrasing that...
"Until the end of the Middle Ages, science was constrained by theology. Any discoveries that were contrary to priestly interpretations of scripture were suppressed. Following the Renaissance, and during the enlightenment, a so-called scientific revolution occurred, where more and more science was free to investigate the natural world without being bound by religious perspectives. This is known as secular science, and it has always been controversial among fundamentalist religious groups, for abandoning the Word of God in pursuit of knowledge." Human 14:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
- "scientists will continue to search for a natural explanation for a phenomenon until they find one, instead of settling with a supernatural explanation." This implies they will find one. And I support the move to Physical science. --Hojimachongtalk 13:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
- How about "in the belief that they will find one" or "based on the expectation that they will find one" in place of "until they find one"? As far as the merge, it makes sense to me, will anyone ever search for "secular science"? They might link to it, I suppose, but that's what redirects are for. So I support the move. Human 13:20, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
I'll change, the sentence "based on the expectation that they will find one". But, it is true scientists never keep searching for an explanation until they find one, you wouldn't be a good scientist if you didn't.
Oh, Hojimachong, add egocentric to that (why do these people they think scientists are only out to get the Abrahamic religions?)
Secular science vs Science
Conservative, noticed that you just did this change  and claimed it to be unsupported materialism. But one dosen't need to do anything else than just write "secular science" to google and notice that it's very true what the article said. Only times when there is talk specially about "secular science" is when religion is closely linked to the subject, and even then this is usually not done by the scientists themselfs. Timppeli 20:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
- While that might be true, one dont still see them referring science as "secular science" and no matter what their personal beliefs are, their research is based on natural phenomens and supernatural is left outside off it. Timppeli 20:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
- I think that section should be added back in as it's very relevant. And to counter Conservative's claim that 55% of scientists are theists: that doesn't matter, any good scientist/human can separate their beliefs from their work to come to a valid independent conclusion. When one starts injecting personal opinions and creeds into their research the outcome may not be correct. Jrssr5 13:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
- My view is that, within a Conservative American encyclopedia, and within current norms of usage of terms, articles titled "Secular Science" and "Natural Science" respectively should not be merged so as to function together as a single, philosophically undifferentiated article. Of course, within a more-or-less secular encyclopedia, such a merger may, in many cases, naturally be required. But, even then, it is not unprecedented for such publications to feature entries, or, even, whole articles, of differing content by differing authors writing from their respective philosophical commitments. PatternOfPersona
increasingly atheistic rejection of God by scientists?
"After the Middle Ages the increasingly atheistic rejection of God by scientists led to the creation of materialist secular science"
I'm skeptical about that phrase, and the reference needs subscription. The rejection was not of God, but of the blind reading of the Bible. Instead, science was seen as a discovery of the wonderful creations and the power of God. Leopeo 07:46, 10 May 2007 (EDT)