Seek ye learning from the best books.

[Stampede]

I was sitting in Elders Quarum and i had this epiphany.

Learning the Gospel FIRST before learning the sciences provides us an even greater understanding of the Gospel and the nature of God.

But when you learn science first it's harder to appreciate.

For instance, I believe that all of these things we discover such as evolution, particle physics, and so forth, are clues aimed at telling us the origin and nature of God.

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

In the song "If you could Hie to Kolob":

1. If you could hie to Kolob

In the twinkling of an eye,

And then continue onward

With that same speed to fly,

Do you think that you could ever,

Through all eternity,

Find out the generation

Where Gods began to be?

2. Or see the grand beginning,

Where space did not extend?

Or view the last creation,

Where Gods and matter end?

Methinks the Spirit whispers,

"No man has found 'pure space,'

Nor seen the outside curtains,

Where nothing has a place."

3. The works of God continue,

And worlds and lives abound;

Improvement and progression

Have one eternal round.

Evolution. To me, it makes sense that an entity arose through evolution to such a great state of knowlege and perfection that all things became subject unto itself.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Stampede

[DigitalShadow]

As many people here probably know, I have a strong background in science. I learned principles of science first since my dad is a Microbiologist and neither of my parents are particularly religious. I married an LDS member almost 2 years ago now and have been investigating the church since we were dating (3 years ago). I am admittedly having a hard time accepting the Gospel (any Gospel, not just LDS), and maybe this is due to what you are referring to.

I agree that learning about a religion first improves the chances that a person will accept it, but there are two ways of looking at that. One is that learning the 'answers' first helps us put the natural processes science describes in perspective. The other is that if we are first indoctrinated to a religion, our mind will try to fit everything else into that theological framework.

If you can't already tell, I'm personally leaning toward the second explaination, but I do keep an open mind :)

[Stampede]

As many people here probably know, I have a strong background in science. I learned principles of science first since my dad is a Microbiologist and neither of my parents are particularly religious. I married an LDS member almost 2 years ago now and have been investigating the church since we were dating (3 years ago). I am admittedly having a hard time accepting the Gospel (any Gospel, not just LDS), and maybe this is due to what you are referring to.

I agree that learning about a religion first improves the chances that a person will accept it, but there are two ways of looking at that. One is that learning the 'answers' first helps us put the natural processes science describes in perspective. The other is that if we are first indoctrinated to a religion, our mind will try to fit everything else into that theological framework.

If you can't already tell, I'm personally leaning toward the second explaination, but I do keep an open mind :)

First step to recovery is identifying the problem.

i have a sneaky suspicion you already have accepted it but don't know it yet. the great comforting knowlege of the Gospel bring peace and love into the home. "By thier fruits ye shall know them"

as a man of science you are far from removed from the concept of Faith. you put faith in lots of things day to day. it's the same scientific principle of placing faith in turing on a light switch as it is to place faith in God.

you have to try it. excersize that small inclination of faith to follow a simple commandment and see how it blesses your life.

[Moksha]

Evolution. To me, it makes sense that an entity arose through evolution to such a great state of knowlege and perfection that all things became subject unto itself.

Even the Q Continuum had to start somewhere. :)

[Guest HEthePrimate]

Learning the Gospel FIRST before learning the sciences provides us an even greater understanding of the Gospel and the nature of God.

But when you learn science first it's harder to appreciate.

For instance, I believe that all of these things we discover such as evolution, particle physics, and so forth, are clues aimed at telling us the origin and nature of God.

Why do you say that?

My father was a scientist. He didn't join the Church until he was doing his doctoral work. An acquaintance gave him a copy of the Book of Mormon. It sat on his shelf for a long time, gathering dust, but then one day he decided to read it. He believed it, called the missionaries out of the blue, and asked what a person would need to do to join the Church! (Imagine how the missionaries felt! ) My father studied science first, and it didn't seem to hurt his receptivity to the Gospel...

[Misshalfway]

I think science and belief in deity can and should live together in harmony. They are part of one another.

That song.....Stampede, is truly one of my favorites! One of those mind stretchers...... and a good reminder that there is so much that we don't know.

[Stampede]

Why do you say that?

My father was a scientist. He didn't join the Church until he was doing his doctoral work. An acquaintance gave him a copy of the Book of Mormon. It sat on his shelf for a long time, gathering dust, but then one day he decided to read it. He believed it, called the missionaries out of the blue, and asked what a person would need to do to join the Church! (Imagine how the missionaries felt! ) My father studied science first, and it didn't seem to hurt his receptivity to the Gospel...

I'm not saying it's the case always. It has just been my experience with peopel who consider themselves intellectuals or scientists to be athiests because they feel they are more educated than those who are believers.

It is an elitist attitude.

[california_ave]

I think both religion (not necessarily in the organized sense) and science seek to answer the same question: "What is truth?" Religion tends to answer the "why" and science answers the "how". They both have different methods of discovering truth. Our understanding of truth can change as new understanding/observation/experience is had. Elder Oaks gave a fantastic discussion of this topic in the May EnsignLDS.org - Ensign Article - Testimony

[rameumptom]

I think President Packer gave great advice that would apply here. In his talk, "good, better, best" we can glean that there are good books, better books and best books. At the bottom of the good list would probably be fiction that can stimulate our imaginations, but not necessarily teach us good things nor lead us to Christ.

Science and other non-fiction would be in the better range, for the most part. And books that can assist us in knowing God (including the scriptures) would be in the best section.

IMO, Mormon Doctrine would be in the good section, as it has some decent stuff, but is written in a way that informs, but does not really inspire, nor does it always teach actual doctrine. Elder McConkie's Messiah series would, OTOH, be in the better or best section.

Could a scientific book be in the best section? Sure, why not? But it would have to really work hard to be there, as we should not allow so much in that arena that Harlequin romances end up being on our top ten list, eh?

[Traveler]

I have always loved science and religion. But it is my impression that both science and religion are distant subjects to most. I was considered a nerd in my youth because I loved reading manuals as much as a novel. Many of my friends thought I was smart because I knew things but for the most part the only reason I knew something they didn’t was because I had studied it. I do not know why so many in society think learning science is difficult or not exciting. I also discovered at a very early age that when someone criticizes science it is likely because they have not studied it. They grew up with some notion and for what-ever reason just can’t get past learning a better concept.

Religion is very much the same thing. Most people grow up with the concept that religion explains a divine mystery what you do not comprehend. Or in other words if there is no explanation for something then G-d did it. This notion of religion and G-d can really screw up a person’s mind and spirituality, especially in a day and age where many discoveries are explaining what we use to not understand. We get religious people that will make some concessions for some science but they fear really looking at the wonders and the explanation possibilities in science or religion. Thus you will see utterances like: I can accept some principles of evolution but not the possibility that one species ever evolves into another. The time is quickly approaching when some genetic scientist will do that very thing, genetically create a new species – then what will they say – that man can do things that G-d can’t? Then on the other hand you get scientist that thinks that G-d is not a rational possibility – like man is the most intelligent possibility. And every time someone pushes the limits of what was thought to be possible they cannot see the possibility that such things unbounded is what they say cannot be.

Science and religion appear to be very much two sides of the same coin – inseparably linked and each complementary of the other. Sorry that complementary is a scientific based term but I could not think of a good religious one. We have become so accustomed to separating the two that whenever we classify an advanced society it is always based on that societies technology. We think intelligence will create lots of nifty gadgets rather than end crime (generated by hate) through superior love and compassion. Does anyone else see the stupidity of such thinking?

The Traveler

[DigitalShadow]

First, I'd like to say that I loved your post and it really made me think. Now I'd like to present my thoughts to you, not because I necessarily disagree, but because I would like a more in-depth conversation on the subject.

I have always loved science and religion. But it is my impression that both science and religion are distant subjects to most. I was considered a nerd in my youth because I loved reading manuals as much as a novel. Many of my friends thought I was smart because I knew things but for the most part the only reason I knew something they didn’t was because I had studied it. I do not know why so many in society think learning science is difficult or not exciting. I also discovered at a very early age that when someone criticizes science it is likely because they have not studied it. They grew up with some notion and for what-ever reason just can’t get past learning a better concept.

I think that most people who really dislike science, simply don't understand its purpose. Science is meant to present a working version of what we know based on the evidence available and experiments that have been done. Many people do not realize this though and think that scientists are here to hand down facts to us and get upset and lose 'faith' in science when the prevailing theory of something changes or is slightly modified. They lament how unreliable 'science' is and why we even bother with it. They don't realize that is the strength of science, not its weakness. Incorrect theories will be corrected over time, rather than dogmatically adhered to in spite of conflicting evidence.

I find these people to be many of the same people who latch on to a religion because it provides the answers with absolute unquestionable certainty that they crave. It seems that they would rather be unchangingly wrong, than to have to examine the world around them and be unsure of the answers. (Before anyone takes offense, I'm only talking about a small subset of religious people. I realize that there are a variety of reasons why people are religious)

As for the people who are simply not interested in science, I think that there is a certain mindset of a scientist and if you don't have it, no matter how much you study, you won't be that good at it and more importantly, you won't enjoy it. The same goes for software developers and engineers.

Religion is very much the same thing. Most people grow up with the concept that religion explains a divine mystery what you do not comprehend. Or in other words if there is no explanation for something then G-d did it. This notion of religion and G-d can really screw up a person’s mind and spirituality, especially in a day and age where many discoveries are explaining what we use to not understand. We get religious people that will make some concessions for some science but they fear really looking at the wonders and the explanation possibilities in science or religion. Thus you will see utterances like: I can accept some principles of evolution but not the possibility that one species ever evolves into another. The time is quickly approaching when some genetic scientist will do that very thing, genetically create a new species – then what will they say – that man can do things that G-d can’t? Then on the other hand you get scientist that thinks that G-d is not a rational possibility – like man is the most intelligent possibility. And every time someone pushes the limits of what was thought to be possible they cannot see the possibility that such things unbounded is what they say cannot be.

I believe that there are a lot of young minds that are ruined for science, by their parents who tell them science is of the devil because it conflicts with their narrow-minded interpretation of religious dogma. I also believe there are a lot of young minds who are ruined for religion because their parents narrow-mindedly tell them with certainty that God does not exist and all religions are a bunch of superstition.

If I had to guess right now, I would say that God (as any of the current religions perceive him) does not exist. I would not state that with any type of certainty, or flat out deny the existance of a God. Instead, I will wait for as much evidence in God as I would need to generally accept any other scientific theory.

Science and religion appear to be very much two sides of the same coin – inseparably linked and each complementary of the other. Sorry that complementary is a scientific based term but I could not think of a good religious one. We have become so accustomed to separating the two that whenever we classify an advanced society it is always based on that societies technology. We think intelligence will create lots of nifty gadgets rather than end crime (generated by hate) through superior love and compassion. Does anyone else see the stupidity of such thinking?

Science and which religion are complimentary? They vary greatly you know, and not all religions unconditionally promote good will and eliminating hate. Even Christian religions seem to generate a lot of hate by those who misunderstand its principles. Just look at the Crusades or the Inquisition or more recently when many Catholics gave a poor kid death threats for taking the consecrated host from a mass cerimony instead of eating it. I do think that science has to be tempered by morality, but I don't think that needs to come from religion.

[Misshalfway]

I think that most people who really dislike science, simply don't understand its purpose. Science is meant to present a working version of what we know based on the evidence available and experiments that have been done. .

I find these people to be many of the same people who latch on to a religion because it provides the answers with absolute unquestionable certainty that they crave. It seems that they would rather be unchangingly wrong, than to have to examine the world around them and be unsure of the answers. (Before anyone takes offense, I'm only talking about a small subset of religious people. I realize that there are a variety of reasons why people are religious)

As for the people who are simply not interested in science, I think that there is a certain mindset of a scientist and if you don't have it, no matter how much you study, you won't be that good at it and more importantly, you won't enjoy it. The same goes for software developers and engineers. that so many feel to understand the spiritual and the unseen and unmeasurable.

Isn't it interesting that people in both camps are looking for surety?

I don't necessarily have a mindset for science, but that doesn't mean I don't respect it or look to it for answers to questions. And just because I may not enjoy spending my spare time immersed in a physics text book, doesn't mean I don't completely respect and value the fruits of those who do! I do however see that science has its limits. It can't teach me how to live my life. It can't help me master my own moral and spiritual weakness. It can't tell me why I am on this earth and what my purpose is. It can't answer the inner longing that so many feel when the make mistakes and want to change their lives or when, as one of our hymns says, other sources cease to make me whole.

Many people do not realize this though and think that scientists are here to hand down facts to us and get upset and lose 'faith' in science when the prevailing theory of something changes or is slightly modified. They lament how unreliable 'science' is and why we even bother with it. They don't realize that is the strength of science, not its weakness. Incorrect theories will be corrected over time, rather than dogmatically adhered to in spite of conflicting evidence

It is interesting to me that you say this. Isn't this a mirror reflection of what some say about religion? You can't prove it, so why bother with it? I prayed and nothing happened. Religion must be bunk!

This idea is also why I have chosen to be part of the LDS church. Continuous revelation is a powerful and progressive concept. And imo, is one of our greatest strengths. We can have the knowledge of the ages, but also the knowledge that is relevant for us today and within our specific circumstances. There is no ignorant stubborn denial in such a circumstance. It is pure truth given and received....and obeyed. Just as science needs obedience to law in order to discover truth.....the same principle applies in the spiritual realm too.

Science and which religion are complimentary? They vary greatly you know, and not all religions unconditionally promote good will and eliminating hate. Even Christian religions seem to generate a lot of hate by those who misunderstand its principles. Just look at the Crusades or the Inquisition or more recently when many Catholics gave a poor kid death threats for taking the consecrated host from a mass cerimony instead of eating it. I do think that science has to be tempered by morality, but I don't think that needs to come from religion.

The question for me isn't so much about churches or the variety of belief systems. It is a question and quest toward truth. There are a lot of ideas out there in both arenas. This is where science and religion can come together for me. I for one, believe that they are all part of one big whole and we as humans are searching to find it and trying to make sense of our existence and our purpose for being here. And mankind has definitely come up with a variety of explanations....in both of these realms. Some proving to be true....and others, well, not true. It takes courage to remain open to truth -- in all of its forms and modes. It is much easier to stay with our cultural experience whether it be on either side of this debate. Mankind is so bent on being right. My way! No, my way! Ideas of man, whether they come from the scientific community or the religious one are limited or just down right false. The same principles that help scientific practice discover truths about our world, in my mind, are closer to the ways man discovers spiritual truth than one may think.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Misshalfway

[DigitalShadow]

Isn't it interesting that people in both camps are looking for surety?

Both camps are not though. Religion claims to give answers, science only claims to provide a best guess.

I don't necessarily have a mindset for science, but that doesn't mean I don't respect it or look to it for answers to questions. And just because I may not enjoy spending my spare time immersed in a physics text book, doesn't mean I don't completely respect and value the fruits of those who do! I do however see that science has its limits. It can't teach me how to live my life. It can't help me master my own moral and spiritual weakness. It can't tell me why I am on this earth and what my purpose is. It can't answer the inner longing that so many feel when the make mistakes and want to change their lives or when, as one of our hymns says, other sources cease to make me whole.

As I said, people look to religion for a variety of reasons. I never claimed science had all the answers, or that it even is meant to have 'answers'. Only that some people misunderstand what science is.

It is interesting to me that you say this. Isn't this a mirror reflection of what some say about religion? You can't prove it, so why bother with it? I prayed and nothing happened. Religion must be bunk!

Edit: misread and thought you were talking about my view of religion

You've been reading my posts all this time and you still don't understand my position? I'm disappointed I don't expect religion to be perfect. Even assuming there is some divine influence on one or more religions, anything that goes through the filter of man gets garbled. I'm only saying that there is not enough evidence to support any of the proposed God theories (religions) for me to personally accept them, not that it is bunk because I prayed and nothing happened.

This idea is also why I have chosen to be part of the LDS church. Continuous revelation is a powerful and progressive concept. And imo, is one of our greatest strengths. We can have the knowledge of the ages, but also the knowledge that is relevant for us today and within our specific circumstances. There is no ignorant stubborn denial in such a circumstance. It is pure truth given and received....and obeyed. Just as science needs obedience to law in order to discover truth.....the same principle applies in the spiritual realm too.

Can you bring up a flaw in doctrine to your bishop? Can you receive your own revelation that conflicts with what the church leaders say? Can you peer review new revelations and then reject them because of strong evidence to the contrary? Good science requires hard work and study, not obedience, there is a big difference. (Just so you don't get the wrong idea, I am not proposing that religion should have scientific review processes, I was just making a point to emphasize the difference.)

The question for me isn't so much about churches or the variety of belief systems. It is a question and quest toward truth. There are a lot of ideas out there in both arenas. This is where science and religion can come together for me. I for one, believe that they are all part of one big whole and we as humans are searching to find it and trying to make sense of our existence and our purpose for being here. And mankind has definitely come up with a variety of explanations....in both of these realms. Some proving to be true....and others, well, not true. It takes courage to remain open to truth -- in all of its forms and modes. It is much easier to stay with our cultural experience whether it be on either side of this debate. Mankind is so bent on being right. My way! No, my way! Ideas of man, whether they come from the scientific community or the religious one are limited or just down right false. The same principles that help scientific practice discover truths about our world, in my mind, are closer to the ways man discovers spiritual truth than one may think.

Science and religion have entirely different methods behind them and serve mostly different purposes.

Edited July 16, 2008 by DigitalShadow

[Misshalfway]

You've been reading my posts all this time and you still don't understand my position? I'm disappointed I don't expect religion to be perfect. Even assuming there is some divine influence on one or more religions, anything that goes through the filter of man gets garbled. I'm only saying that there is not enough evidence to support any of the proposed God theories (religions) for me to personally accept them, not that it is bunk because I prayed and nothing happened.

You are right. I have been reading you. Please look at my phrase....I said "what SOME say about religion", not what YOU say. I know you keep an open mind. Forgive me for not being more sensitive to your statements.

Both camps are not though. Religion claims to give answers, science only claims to provide a best guess.

You don't think that people are trying to find surety? Isn't that why some lean on science or vice versa, because it gives them a sense of security in their knowledge?

Is it wrong to claim answers? If the answers are true?

It is very rare that I hear the above argument for science. I hear that science is infallible because it can be proved, tested, and that the same findings can be reproduced. I understand that science itself admits it doesn't know everything. But it does claim to know some things and have concrete answers about those things. And it also claims to know the way to find out truth about the universe as well.

Now, if science only gives a best guess.....why is that more reliable than religion giving its best guess? Especially if someone adds a particular religious practice or belief into their lives and change is seen by all around them.

And if you believe that science is only providing a best guess, how is that different than faith?

Can you bring up a flaw in doctrine to your bishop? Can you receive your own revelation that conflicts with what the church leaders say? Can you peer review new revelations and then reject them because of strong evidence to the contrary? Good science requires hard work and study, not obedience, there is a big difference. (Just so you don't get the wrong idea, I am not proposing that religion should have scientific review processes, I was just making a point to emphasize the difference.)

Well, it would take me too long to address the first part of this ... but with regards to the second part, i guess I see scientific process as very much a function of obedience. If I mix soda with vinegar, I get a little volcano. I obey by following the process.....and I get the same results. If I add dirt instead of soda, I am not obeying the process and won't get the same result. The earth is ordered in such manner. All of the eco-systems and weather patterns, etc. They all obey the process. And there is truth in all of it. And if you go a step further into my sphere of thinking.....I believe that a Supreme creator set all of those processes and elements in motion and that all matter obeys that creator. In my mind, God is the same as any scientist. He just has a much larger frame of reference.

Science and religion have entirely different methods behind them and serve mostly different purposes.

I agree that they have different methods.....but I don't see why those differences can't be in harmony with one another. Why is truth only confined to stuff we can discover with the scientific method? Why can't that just be one tool for finding truth? Why can't prayer be another tool? Why can't we have a whole tool belt filled with ways one can discover truth? My argument is that leaning on science alone is a limiting activity.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Misshalfway

[DigitalShadow]

You are right. I have been reading you. Please look at my phrase....I said "what SOME say about religion", not what YOU say. I know you keep an open mind. Forgive me for not being more sensitive to your statements.

I noticed that after I posted. The comment was mostly joking anyway, but I think that a lot of the people you assume take that position, are really taking the position I stated.

Is it wrong to claim answers? If the answers are true?

I never said it was wrong to, I only pointed out that science and religion make different claims to begin with.

It is very rare that I hear the above argument for science. I hear that science is infallible because it can be proved, tested, and that the same findings can be reproduced. I understand that science itself admits it doesn't know everything. But it does claim to know some things and have concrete answers about those things. And it also claims to know the way to find out truth about the universe as well.

You are obviously talking to the wrong people then. Science is a method for gaining knowledge about the world around us by making testable predictions, and then putting those predictions to the test. Science provides working answers, but nothing is absolute and no experiment is perfect, which is why even 'proven' theories are sometimes re-evaluated or thrown out all together. Any scientist who says that science is 'infallible' is not a very good scientist. You most likely picked up that meme from the media, not from anyone with an understanding of science.

Now, if science only gives a best guess.....why is that more reliable than religion giving its best guess? Especially if someone adds a particular religious practice or belief into their lives and change is seen by all around them.

And if you believe that science is only providing a best guess, how is that different than faith?

Scientific theories are peer reviewed and supported by evidence and experiments that you could reproduce yourself if you had the equipment. While this doesn't make them infallible, I personally find it is more reliable than someone saying "God told me so" and then having that confirmed by a feeling. Especially when God seems to tell a lot of people conflicting things. I believe scientific theories as far as I've seen good evidence and reasoning behind them, I don't see how that relates to faith. You're assuming that someone has to have faith in something, when many people (including me) are completely fine with simply saying "I don't know for sure."

Well, it would take me too long to address the first part of this ... but with regards to the second part, i guess I see scientific process as very much a function of obedience. If I mix soda with vinegar, I get a little volcano. I obey by following the process.....and I get the same results. If I add dirt instead of soda, I am not obeying the process and won't get the same result. The earth is ordered in such manner. All of the eco-systems and weather patterns, etc. They all obey the process. And there is truth in all of it. And if you go a step further into my sphere of thinking.....I believe that a Supreme creator set all of those processes and elements in motion and that all matter obeys that creator. In my mind, God is the same as any scientist. He just has a much larger frame of reference.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You can mix whatever two materials you want. There are documented reactions between certain materials when you mix them, but there is nothing there to obey or disobey. It's not as if you will be punished for not 'obeying' and mixing the right materials.

I agree that they have different methods.....but I don't see why those differences can't be in harmony with one another. Why is truth only confined to stuff we can discover with the scientific method? Why can't that just be one tool for finding truth? Why can't religion be another tool? Why can't we have a whole tool belt?

Science and religion are two entirely different tools, which many people do in fact use in harmony with each other. The problems come when people try to use the wrong tool for the job.

[azazel420]

There are certainly outspoken critics of religion within the scientific community. Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan come to mind. This doesn't mean that learning science will make it harder to build faith. Faith is exactly that, it's faith. It's not based on scientific predictions or evidence. They can harmoniously co-exist but they cannot build upon one another.

Good science is an (as far as is humanly possible) objective measure of the universe around us. You observe and document and build conclusions consistent with the body of observation. Once a single piece of verifiable evidence contradicts the conclusion then one is forced to revise the conclusion to be consistent with the current body of observation.

Religion is a different beast. With religion the conclusion is implicit and unchanging. Jesus died on the cross for you or Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon with divine inspiration. The conclusions are inseperable from the body of evidence, you either accept the conclusion or you don't.

There is no scientific approach to faith, faith is an antithesis of science. That doesn't mean that can't harmoniously coexist but scientific discovery doesn't build religious conviction, you have to have the religious conviction on it's own merits to build it.

[azazel420]

You don't think that people are trying to find surety? Isn't that why some lean on science or vice versa, because it gives them a sense of security in their knowledge?

People who don't understand science and it's limitations might. Science is basically about model building. We devise a reasonable model to explain the current evidence with the idea that the model is most likely flawed and will require revision. Then we devise more in depth tests to revise the model in the right direction, over time we get closer to a comprehensive model. That's how science grows and has been it's strength. If we ever thought we had scientific truth then science would cease.

[Tough Grits]

I was sitting in Elders Quorum and i had this epiphany.

Learning the Gospel FIRST before learning the sciences provides us an even greater understanding of the Gospel and the nature of God.

But when you learn science first it's harder to appreciate.

For instance, I believe that all of these things we discover such as evolution, particle physics, and so forth, are clues aimed at telling us the origin and nature of God.

Evolution. To me, it makes sense that an entity arose through evolution to such a great state of knowledge and perfection that all things became subject unto itself.

I agree!

I love astronomy, I always have, ever since my dad would climb up on the roof of the house with me and teach me about the stars and the constellations.

However, knowing the gospel now (I converted in 1998 at the age of 24) I am even MORE excited about science and astronomy in particular.

Things just seem to have a grander perspective!