Why all the antagonism toward science in some of the posts above?
I like science and although most of the posts are not saying that science is bad, but somehow some of the posts above seem to be discounting the benefits Buddhism is receiving as being not worthy. Buddhism is fully worthy of the credit it gets towards science, in my opinion.
Buddhism is not science per se and science is not Buddhism. But Buddhism can be seen as compatible with science. We don't have a creation myth. Evolution is compatible with the Dhamma. When I look at the Six Qualities of the Dhamma I see lots of compatibility to scientific method and science:
1. Svakkhato: The Dhamma is not a speculative philosophy, but is the Universal Law found through enlightenment and is preached precisely. Therefore it is Excellent in the beginning (Sila — Moral principles), Excellent in the middle (Samadhi — Concentration) and Excellent in the end (Panna — Wisdom),
2. Samditthiko: The Dhamma is testable by practice and known by direct experience,
3. Akaliko: The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence.
4. Ehipassiko: The Dhamma welcomes all beings to put it to the test and to experience it for themselves.
5. Opaneyiko: The Dhamma is capable of being entered upon and therefore it is worthy to be followed as a part of one's life.
6. Paccattam veditabbo vinnunhi: The Dhamma may be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples who have matured and enlightened enough in supreme wisdom.
(Anguttara Nikaya 11.12)
People are leaving their mythical religions and philosophies and moving toward atheism/agnosticism and Buddhism, which are all more compatible to science. So why not receive this benefit instead of denying it?