"Islam and science – unhappy bedfellows", an excellent article by MIT-trained Pakistani physicist, Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy.

http://www.globalagendamagazine.com/2006/Hoodbhoy.asp


These attempts to seek scientific justification for religious beliefs remind me of Procrustes. Procrustes is a robber in Greek mythology who forced his victims to lie on a very long bed and then stretchedthem to fit it. He also had a very short bed and to make the victimfit this, he would simply cut off their legs. The aim in both cases was to make the victim "fit the bed".

The so-called "religious scientists" adopt same kind of strategy in their discourses. They will *DELIBERATELY* pick up certain passages from their holy books which -- with a certain effort ofhair-splitting and verbal manipulation -- can be proven confirmed by science. But that's not the end of the story. These very same"scientists" *DELIBERATELY* put to back burner those other passages in their holy books which have been contradicted by science.

This game of *DELIBERATELY* putting forward "scientifically correct"passages and *DELIBERATELY* overshadowing "scientifically incorrect"passages (to be fair, the number of "scientifically incorrect"passages is far greater than that of "scientifically correct"passages in almost every religion's holy book), and then claiming that the whole scripture is scientifically valid is nothing but agrotesque example of intellectual dishonesty.

A good research requires a dispassionate detachment from the object of study. A *professional* researcher first observes, studies,analyzes and then comes to a certain conclusion. What "religious scientists" do is that they already have a pre-determined conclusionin their minds and their whole effort is directed at collecting evidence to support their conclusion and *DELIBERATELY* ignoring the other pieces of evidence --no matter how sound and strong they are-- which contravenes their "faith-based" conclusion. And mind you, Hindus, Christians and others also have their clones of HarunYahyas and Maurice Buccais. If you go through their writings, they also appear DAMNED convinced that their religions are scientifically valid. In India, previous BJP government had launched a vigiourous drive to introduce "Vedic" science, mathematics and astronomy inIndian universities but Indian academics, to their eternal credit,vehemently opposed this attempt of intellectually forgery.

The mental attitudes of religion and science are not just different but mutually hostile. Religion is based on faith i.e accepting something without doubt and question. While science requires constant doubting and questioning. Scientists never claims that a certain theory is *true*, but "given the evidence we have, this theory seems most acceptable and if we get stronger evidence in support ofanother theory, we will embrace that and abandon what's in voguetoday". Science is humble enough and confident enough to confess that it *can be* mistaken and there is always a room for rectification and improvement. If religion allows such kind of intrsocpetion, it would vanish away in moments. Try refuting a religious belief with a sound evidence; the maximum"reward" will be a fatwa on your head. On the other hand, tryrefuting a scientific theory with a sound evidence; the maximum"penalty" will be --- what they call -- Nobel Prize.