Attempting to Arrive at 'Neutral' Statements

It's hard to find one presentation of international news which all viewers will agree is unbased. Similarly re religion/science. Even among those who agree that science should be neutral regarding religion, there will not necessarily be agreement as to what constitutes a neutral position. Similarly, the law requires public schools to reflect separation of religion and state, but of course this does not mean favoring atheism, and what is taught in public schools as 'neutral' is viewed by many religious people as 'atheist'.
Often in order to create statments which satisfy two radically different positions one needs to use such neutral terms, and terms which have different meanings to the different sides, so that it is essentially an empty statement. I am looking to formulate statements regarding science and religion, eg regarding ID, which can be viewed by both sides as neutral, and which nevertheless have content.
What is an 'objective' statement of science re the big bang and evolution? A possibly neutral treatment of the issue can be something like the following:
To the extent that 'scientific' means 'provable' then atheists and religious people have to appreciate that their beliefs in the non-existence or existence of God are equally 'non-scientific'.
Religious people should admit that when one seeks naturalistic explanations for the universe and humanity, one is led to something like the theories of the big bang and evolution, and that from the scientific perspective the holes in a theory do not point to the necessity for accepting te lack of a naturalistic explanation, only to the need for a better naturalistic explanation. The atheist should admit that although it seems untenable to them, to most people including to many scientists it seems logically possible that the universe could have been created by God as a big bang designed carefully to produce humans via evolution; also, if there is a soul, it is a spiritual entity and not physical and could not evolve and so God could have implanted in humans separately from the process of evolution, when the human body/brain evolved to the complexity sufficient to become capable of associating itself to that soul.
Science should not take sides and deal with whether or not there is a God or a soul or if the universe was created or emerged on its own - science's mandate is to attempt to arrive at better and more accurate naturalistic explanations, honestly confronting the difficulties in theories, and when stuck, not to give up but rater to attempt to overcome all obstacles, revising theories or paradigms as needed until a more satisfactory naturalistic explanation is found.
It would be interesting to test the above statements on people on either side, and based on the responses to hone them so as to produce statements which are acceptable to both religious people and atheists.


Back to Science & Religion homepage
Back to Home Page: Physics, Philosophy, International Politics, Economics, Biblical Studies, Religion & Science,