"O ye men of science, ye men of science, leave us our ancestors in paradise, and you may have yours in Zoological gardens."

I like that concept, it makes more sense than prolonging a "war" between science and religion.

why is the only space you allow for God the gaps in the process? This is a very very strange thing.

analogy:
where do you look for Dyson in a Dyson vacuum cleaner? is he somehow running around inside creating the suction? Fulfilling some gap in the mechanism? He's not in there is he! Yet once you have a full scientific explanation of the process this by no means exclude the fact that Dyson designed it?

You are confusing purpose with process.

Looking for a God-in-the-gaps is as silly as looking for a Dyson-in-the-gaps as if he is some tiny little guy running round a vacuum cleaner.

Science is all about gathering observations until they reveal statistical realities. There are no cracks for God to fit into in science. Science says nothing about that which cannot be measured.

The practice of religion, on the other hand, is easily observable and has shown itself for what it is, a human tool to control groups and instill common beliefs that bind the group together and increase the chance of survival.

And you should be looking for Dyson in "Darwin Among the Machines" not in a vacuum cleaner.

I, for one, agree with Shermer. Obviously, there are many religious claims that directly conflict with science--the 6,000 year old earth and 6 day creation for example--but these aren't accepted by all religious people. While science is agnostic re the existence of deities and other supernatural entitities, making consideration of their existence nonscientific, their is room for one who believes that G-d exists to seek knowledge of the Creator through scientific knowledge of creation. "Study creation and you shall know me." has been taken seriously by many believers throughout the centuries, some of whom have been the greatest scientists in human history. A person who takes this commandment seriously would also presumably be careful to avoid the "G-d of the gaps" nonsense that impedes the pursuit of knowledge about creation. "G-d of the gaps" is, in my humble opinion, neither good science nor good theology.

Forgive me, but that should read "there is room". These comments things should offer grammar/spell check.

Just a thought:

I've been moaning and groaning about this way of thinking since I started this blog. Guess this is because I do think science and religion are at war.

Yes, I agree that science and RELIGION are at war but I don't think science and theism are necessarily at war (or incompatible).

And of course, the stronger your theism is (in the philosophical sense, i.e. the more it entails), the more likely it is to be incompatible with science. Religion is a form of theism that is incompatible with science.

Doing some stuff online tonight (I was going for stuff related to 'post-democratic'); this came up in my search: the Society for Secular Humanism. This piece by Paul Kurtz (used to teach at SUNY Buffalo) is a bit dated (2000 it seems) there is some interesting currency to this blog generally and perhaps this conversation (esp the last section) ... for those with time, and interest:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_25_1.htm

The war between religion and science is really just the collective ego's war with itself- a paradox between reality and actuallity. In some ways religion and science are quite similar; they both are dogmatic in how they want to control the "how narrative" of human unfoldment(consciousness).
The three major religions cling to an anthropomorphic God that is detached from "creation", watching from a far to exact judgement at some "future time". Science, on the other hand, after freeing itself from the dogma of the church, dogmatically took on the protocals Newton, in terms of observing and explaining phenomena, but distanced itself from Newton's "belief" that consciousness was absolutely present in all things detectable and undetectable by sensory perception.
For the sake of brevity, let it be stated that both science and religion, in their present expressions, need "a beginning." For without a beginning, nothing can be explained! And,of course,in our present state, we need those who explain and those who follow explanations! No, this is not about the "Steady State Theory". This is about the "Cyclical Universe".
It simply comes down to the question of whether absolute zero and One can co-exist in the UNI-VERSE? Can something come from absolutely nothing? If so, that makes "nothing" something! The failings of religion has been historically obvious. But science has this unnecessary emnity with religion, when it knows that Man has a limited frequency response to all phenomena. And yet, science does not want "to know" or even acknowledge, that religion maybe a flawed extant quest to access a part Man's perceptual contruct that operates outside the sphere of mere empiricism.