E.Sykes,
You’ve come out with this banal statement, “There is no truth, the world is too complex.” Can’t you see how such a statement nullifies and undermines anything you might say which follows? There is no possibility of continuing after that.

I think a number of people here have missed the boat in interpreting the discussion as science versus religion, as if the two were in competition. They seem worried that religion will supplant science in the science classroom. I don’t think that was Baker’s idea at all.

I think he was recognising that science and logic never operate in a vacuum. There is always the human element. Our scientific traditions and methods didn’t fall into our laps from heaven. They were the culmination of centuries of ideas and threads from philosophies and religions. Science is the flower, and dependent on its roots, stems, and leaves.

Flowers die pretty quickly once removed from the stem. Likewise science will die if removed from the philosophies and traditions that have undergirded it.

As I said earlier, you can’t ask a student to learn the periodic table if you’ve first told them “There is no truth, the world is too complex.” That is self defeating. The child will (rightly) answer, well, why should I bother?

E.Sykes,
Science was invented by religious people. Religious people from the Judaic tradition, which had a very particular worldview. Your attempts to resolve everything to being created by man is a pathetically transparent red herring.