After all, when anybody becomes stupid or arrogant enough to speak on matters outside his expertise as if he is, he is bound to make a logical (or rhetorical) errors:

In the June 2009 issue, Jeffery Winkler treats us to a cute refutation of the dominant view that the universe was created. He first equates the word “magic” with “impossible.” This is an example of begging the question, since Webster makes no such association. He next asserts that Christians believe the universe was produced by an act of “magic.” I’ve never heard it put that way and doubt any Christian would agree with this formulation of his belief. Nevertheless, it provides a convenient straw man which Winkler has set himself up to vanquish. One assumes he was writing with tongue in cheek.

If we agree not to insult each other with sophistries such as arguing that if you haven’t lost horns, you must have horns on your head, it’s quite clear why scientists cannot speak on matters of religion (except as an ignorant layperson, as I am) and clergy cannot speak on matters of science (except as someone not quite so familiar with scientific methods and latest developments).

As for creation, that is clearly outside the realm of scientific theories. Of course, I am not saying, as Stephen Hawking claims that the Pope did at some point, that scientists are forbidden from speaking of what may have happened before Big Bang or what may have caused it. What I am saying is that currently accepted theories cannot describe the events of Big Bang as we approach t = 0. The consensus is that our theories will begin to break down (or rather, become unified) at such energy densities. There is a singularity there that we do not yet understand and I doubt anyone can devise an experiment which can shed some light on this issue (before the end of the human civilization, anyway). Where experimental evidences are silent, we are silent—sure, theorists are free to speculate, but without experimental evidences, they remain speculations.

Of course, there are overlaps between matters of science and matters of religion. History is one. If some artifact is discovered which might be significant to religion, of course science (such as carbon dating or any other forensic methods) has a role to play in analyzing its physical aspects. If religion makes claims on our physical world, such as the age of Earth, of course science has a role to play. But the truth is, when it comes down to the really fundamental question, such as the existence of a Creator (especially one that supposedly exists outside our universe), there is no such overlap.

And where there is no such overlap, scientists should shut up lest they sound stupid.