imageIn a Religion News Story (via the Huffington Post) Chris Lisee tells us that . . .

[Pictured: Arizona State University theoretical physicist Lawrence M.] Krauss says science isn’t trying to disprove God. Rather, data only have to offer an explanation for the universe that would make a divine creator redundant. When English physicist Peter Higgs proposed the Higgs boson in 1964, it helped codify an incomplete model of the universe. This model was shown accurate through experimentation culminating in July 4’s discovery.

Krauss said further experimentation will lead toward a "unified theory" of the universe that accounts for everything from quarks to galaxies.

"That’s the difference between science and religion," he said. "We don’t require the universe to be what we want — we force our beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality."

Others might say limit instead of force.  And then ask why and what. Then I think about the Shroud of Turin, which is such an extraordinarily different problem of “. . . conform[ing] to the evidence of reality."

And then I think about Colin Berry’s statement:

. . . Any real blood on the Shroud of Turin that still responds to tests for “blood”, e.g. porphyrins, albumins, physiological electrolytes (Na, K, Ca, Mg,P etc) is unlikely to be medieval blood, far less 1st century.

And I wonder if some scientists even know what reality is. Was the blood painted on recently? Is history part of reality? What is Colin thinking?

Oh, I know. It’s an “ad hom.” So sorry.