Changes

:::: Because you cannot do any proper science on the basis of an unproven assumption.  In this case, in order to base anything on the idea that 'God did it', basically, you have to assume that God actually exists. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Because you cannot do any proper science on the basis of an unproven assumption.  In this case, in order to base anything on the idea that 'God did it', basically, you have to assume that God actually exists. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::And why is this "proper scientific procedures and processes"? [User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::And why is this "proper scientific procedures and processes"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Because proper science is based on evidence, not faith. Indeed, step one of the scientific process, as taught in science classes the world over is 'examine the evidence'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Because proper science is based on evidence, not faith. Indeed, step one of the scientific process, as taught in science classes the world over is 'examine the evidence'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Especially given that scientific endeavour [[natural science#beginnings|started]] because of a belief in God [User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Especially given that scientific endeavour [[natural science#beginnings|started]] because of a belief in God [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::That's only if you define the whole of science as what most people define as 'modern science', and, even then, that statement is rather debatable, especially considering the opposition that religious authorities have had to many areas of scientific research going right back to the dawn of modern science (the article you linked to, for example, states that 'science proper' started in the 16th century, dismissing the achievements of the various ancient thinkers as being mere 'scholarship', and the first well-known conflict between modern science and religion was Galileo, who first got into trouble with the Church in the early 17th century).  I would say that modern science started as a result of people wanting to know, for sure, how the world worked, rather than relying on faith that their holy texts were correct, which quickly led them into conflict with the church. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::That's only if you define the whole of science as what most people define as 'modern science', and, even then, that statement is rather debatable, especially considering the opposition that religious authorities have had to many areas of scientific research going right back to the dawn of modern science (the article you linked to, for example, states that 'science proper' started in the 16th century, dismissing the achievements of the various ancient thinkers as being mere 'scholarship', and the first well-known conflict between modern science and religion was Galileo, who first got into trouble with the Church in the early 17th century).  I would say that modern science started as a result of people wanting to know, for sure, how the world worked, rather than relying on faith that their holy texts were correct, which quickly led them into conflict with the church. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::and is still based on assumptions (such as an orderly universe) that only have foundation in a belief in God? [User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::and is still based on assumptions (such as an orderly universe) that only have foundation in a belief in God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::The idea that someone could ONLY believe in an orderly universe due to a belief in God shows a staggering narrow-mindedness and ignorance of science, to put it bluntly.  Many of what you appear to call 'assumptions' made by scientists about the orderly systems that are in the universe were obtained through observation, examination of evidence and experimentation. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::The idea that someone could ONLY believe in an orderly universe due to a belief in God shows a staggering narrow-mindedness and ignorance of science, to put it bluntly.  Many of what you appear to call 'assumptions' made by scientists about the orderly systems that are in the universe were obtained through observation, examination of evidence and experimentation. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)