THE concept of spirituality is in mainstream science’s opinion unscientific because they can’t explain or physically measure it.
In the ongoing debate about intelligent design, the Christian evangelist Randal Rauser properly complains about modern scientific dogmas.
Science shuns any concepts not based on established and approved models. Intelligent design, Rauser says, can only be recognized as a valid ‘scientific’ explanation “if bound by the laws of physics.”
On this basis, he says, “if God is any part of the proposal, it is by definition unscientific” —and all claims of legitimacy or illegitimacy of Intelligent Design or God must be disregarded, because science has an inherent bias.
“If therefore we don’t know the hidden or as yet undiscovered laws of science, then we don’t know whether an explanation conforms to them or not.“
Theosophists agree. Any honest analysis of the controversy by science should acknowledge merely that the concepts do not conform to the “laws of physics as presently understood,” or the laws “as they ultimately are” — not dismissed out of hand.
Mme. Blavatsky insisted that science was intentionally limited, because unwilling to follow the evidence wherever it leads—a standard science admits, but does not follow.