Science and Religion

[Anddenex]

How does a member of the Church reconcile the submitted evidences which contradict the Bible and the Lord's teachings?

For example, according to mainstream science a flood which covered the whole earth never happened.

The Bible however, and confirmed by Latter-day Apostles and Prophets, confirms that a flood took place.

Science says, the earth is billions of years old.

However, the Bible doesn't seem to agree with this fact.

How old the earth is, is pretty speculative even within doctrine, thus it is easier to reconcile the two.

However, when two contradict, no flood covering the earth, verses the Bible specifying a flood did cover the earth. The question:

Is the science wrong, or is our understanding of the flood wrong - even past prophets and apostles, as well as current apostles and prophets?

[Vort]

How does a member of the Church reconcile the submitted evidences which contradict the Bible and the Lord's teachings?

There are few or no such teachings.

For example, according to mainstream science a flood which covered the whole earth never happened.

The Bible however, and confirmed by Latter-day Apostles and Prophets, confirms that a flood took place.

No worldwide flood ever happened.

Science says, the earth is billions of years old.

However, the Bible doesn't seem to agree with this fact.

The Bible is not a scientific treatise.

How old the earth is, is pretty speculative even within doctrine, thus it is easier to reconcile the two.

However, when two contradict, no flood covering the earth, verses the Bible specifying a flood did cover the earth. The question:

Is the science wrong, or is our understanding of the flood wrong - even past prophets and apostles, as well as current apostles and prophets?

Our understanding of the flood is wrong.

[Backroads]

Though apparently some geologists are rethinking the idea that castrophies never happened to shape the earth.

[Guest]

How does a member of the Church reconcile the submitted evidences which contradict the Bible and the Lord's teachings?

For example, according to mainstream science a flood which covered the whole earth never happened.

The Bible however, and confirmed by Latter-day Apostles and Prophets, confirms that a flood took place.

Science says, the earth is billions of years old.

However, the Bible doesn't seem to agree with this fact.

How old the earth is, is pretty speculative even within doctrine, thus it is easier to reconcile the two.

However, when two contradict, no flood covering the earth, verses the Bible specifying a flood did cover the earth. The question:

Is the science wrong, or is our understanding of the flood wrong - even past prophets and apostles, as well as current apostles and prophets?

Science and religion go hand-in-hand in providing us with knowledge. Science deepens our understanding of the Bible, the Bible makes sense of Scientific discoveries.

If there's a discrepancy between the two, it's either we need to adjust our understanding of the Bible or we need to make more scientific research. The main idea is that the Bible provides doctrines for our salvation. If the flood encompassing the entire earth is necessary for our salvation, then scientific discovery is not yet complete and may still show that this event is possible. If a localized flood doesn't change the doctrines of our salvation then hey, science may have provided you with a better understanding of what happened.

[Windseeker]

How does a member of the Church reconcile the submitted evidences which contradict the Bible and the Lord's teachings?

The same way most scientist reconcile their theories (evolution, global warming, etc..) in the face of contradictory evidence..thru faith.

[HiJolly]

How does a member of the Church reconcile the submitted evidences which contradict the Bible and the Lord's teachings?

For example, according to mainstream science a flood which covered the whole earth never happened.

The Bible however, and confirmed by Latter-day Apostles and Prophets, confirms that a flood took place.

Science says, the earth is billions of years old.

However, the Bible doesn't seem to agree with this fact.

How old the earth is, is pretty speculative even within doctrine, thus it is easier to reconcile the two.

However, when two contradict, no flood covering the earth, verses the Bible specifying a flood did cover the earth. The question:

Is the science wrong, or is our understanding of the flood wrong - even past prophets and apostles, as well as current apostles and prophets?

Our understanding of the flood (and many other things) is wrong. And that's just the beginning. I used to scoff at my parents when they told me not to study science and history at college -- they said I would lose my testimony.

Well, I haven't exactly lost my testimony, but it's a lot different now from what it was, that's for sure. And if my parents knew the extent of that change, they'd say "I told you so!". (they are deceased) Probably because they were totally literalist believers. Ah, perspective. Happily, I still believe in Christ and in the Church.

HiJolly

[JudoMinja]

We know for a fact that scientific information cannot be relied upon to be 100% true or accurate. Even theories which we rely upon as a basis for all science that follows could be faulty, as with more information- more experiments, more data, more understanding- we find evidences that contradict or disprove our theories and have to adapt them. Science is ever changing.

Compare that with God's word. God's word doesn't change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. While we may not always understand His word, it is always right in the end. Therefore- when in doubt we can trust God. Remember though that the bible is not written as a scientific document meant to give us facts about the universe. It is written often with allegories or metaphors, stories or anecdotes meant to bring us closer to God. Some of it's information is factual and historical, but not everything, and therefore our interpretations of it can have some leniency.

Science and religion deal with different areas of knowledge as well. They both seek to answer questions about our existence, yet science asks "How?" and religion asks "Why?" Thus, science and religion can go hand-in-hand.

When we recognize that all our scientific information is changing and growing, subject to biases and peer-review, and limited by our own capacity for reasoning and imagination, we can see that while science tells us much it won't ever tell us everything. It is limited by the tools we use as well- our ability for observations only going so far as we have the senses and the technology capable of measuring what we are observing. There is still so much more out there which we can't measure and cannot touch with science simply because we haven't the tools with which to collect any data.

So, we can trust the information provided us with science only with reservations. The answers it gives us are not "the truth" but only "the most likely to be true based on our best observations". We can then take our scientific theories and put them up against biblical accounts of the creation or historical events like the flood to try and better understand both what is in the bible and the limitations of science. And if such information appears to be contradictory- either our understanding of the bible is faulty or our science is still in need of "tweaking" before we get closer to the truth. Or both.

[Anddenex]

@Vort & @HiJolly

I appreciate your remarks, and would like to understand more of why you feel our understanding of the flood is wrong. Is it solely due to science discoveries, or through personal revelation.

The reason why I ask, is because the church has published through Ensign articles that the flood was worldwide, and this should be our stance. In this article he quotes Elder Howard W. Hunter saying,

For example, Elder Howard W. Hunter, then of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, asked, “Because modernists now declare the story of the flood is unreasonable and impossible, should we disbelieve the account of Noah and the flood as related in the Old Testament?” 3

@HiJolly - Yes, as LDS we definitely shouldn't avoid science or history. :)

[Backroads]

I, too, am curious about the "flood is wrong" idea--mostly because I've never really thought too hard about whether or not the flood was biblically literal.

[Anddenex]

Science and religion go hand-in-hand in providing us with knowledge. Science deepens our understanding of the Bible, the Bible makes sense of Scientific discoveries.

If there's a discrepancy between the two, it's either we need to adjust our understanding of the Bible or we need to make more scientific research. The main idea is that the Bible provides doctrines for our salvation. If the flood encompassing the entire earth is necessary for our salvation, then scientific discovery is not yet complete and may still show that this event is possible. If a localized flood doesn't change the doctrines of our salvation then hey, science may have provided you with a better understanding of what happened.

I would agree science and religion go hand-in-hand, and believe in the idea that it is the theories of science and the theories of religion which contradict each other. We should reject theories on both sides, or better said, accept what we know is "truth" on both sides, and contemplate other aspects without specifying they are factual.

I am actually a proponent of a "localized flood", verses a worldwide flood, however if the flood was worldwide as specified in Ensign articles, then this would fly right into the face of science, and if science is wrong on this aspect, then our knowledge of science and how the earth formed and resulted is very infant - EDIT - My opinion.

Either way, it doesn't affect my testimony, but I have been curious also, because I am not a scientific minded person, and am actually very critical of any factual evidence provided by science unless it is observable or common to all.

Example, gravity vs. evolution of a species. We all witness a ball dropping, thus we know something is exerted on the ball, we call it gravity.

However, no person has ever experienced or even seen a species evolve into another species, yet so many people call this a fact without any observable or testable evidence - EDIT - My opinion.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

To share another example I am aware of, however to be frank my understanding of the science behind Egypt could be wrong.

I understand according to science that Egypt was a dry wasteland when it was settled by the Egyptians, however within the Pearl of Great Price it mentions the daughter of Ham discovered Egypt while it was under water, most likely a marsh land similar to Nauvoo.

Anyone want to shed some light? This is the type of contradiction of science vs. religion I am speaking about also.

[Vort]

The reason why I ask, is because the church has published through Ensign articles that the flood was worldwide, and this should be our stance.

I disagree. We should not adopt as our stance false ideas, even if those false ideas were held by Church leaders. I understand that many Church authorities have believed and even taught such things. That is fine. Everyone is entitled to be wrong, even Church authorities. It does not lessen their divine calling.

The Bible is not a scientific treatise. It does not describe the motion of the planets in any discernible detail. If it did, you could claim (as many have) that the sun moves around the earth and not vice versa, because after all, the Bible says that the sun stood still (Joshua 10:13).

The basis of the whole "global flood" idea -- which is completely anachronistic, given that the ancient Hebrews did not view the earth as a sphere and so would never have preached or understood a "global" flood, or for that matter a "global" anything -- is based on a hyperliteralistic reading of Genesis 7:19-20, which reads:

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Obviously, this would have us believe that there were no mountains on the whole earth higher than fifteen cubits (about 20 or 25 feet).

You know, as I am writing this, I am quickly losing interest. I have pursued this conversation literally dozens of times. No one is willing to listen and actually hear what is being said. We Latter-day Saints do not believe that sola scriptura nonsense that other Christian sects hold to. We are not bound to accept every word of scripture as if it fell from the lips of God himself, and we do not. Even the Book of Mormon itself, the "most correct book, of any, on earth", freely proclaims that it is not perfect, but warns that its mistakes are the "mistakes of men" and do not damage the spiritual content of the book. Undoubtedly, the same is true of the Bible.

There was no global flood within the last several million (or hundred million) years. There is not the least little shred of evidence for any such thing -- not one -- except for an out-of-context scriptural verse interpreted with an anachronistic viewpoint.

[Vort]

To share another example I am aware of, however to be frank my understanding of the science behind Egypt could be wrong.

I understand according to science that Egypt was a dry wasteland when it was settled by the Egyptians, however within the Pearl of Great Price it mentions the daughter of Ham discovered Egypt while it was under water, most likely a marsh land similar to Nauvoo.

Anyone want to shed some light? This is the type of contradiction of science vs. religion I am speaking about also.

Egypt has been a fertile land since prehistory. The "under water" reference in the PoGP undoubtedly refers to the annual flooding of the Nile, which provides a yearly layer of fertile silt along the (very wide) banks of the river.

[Vort]

However, no person has ever experienced or even seen a species evolve into another species, yet so many people call this a fact without any observable or testable evidence - EDIT - My opinion.

This is not true, though it is to some extent a question of definition. There is abundant, overwhelming evidence of organic evolution. That it is not easily observed in a living species in real time is of no more moment than the fact that the mayfly, which lives only a day, cannot observe the growth and change of a baby into an adult. Babies really do grow into adults, notwithstanding the mayfly's doubts and scoffing.

There is an abundance of evidence of organic evolution. Indeed, it is the central unifying principle of modern biology, giving interpretive meaning to the fossil record, explaining why lions and tigers are different yet can interbreed, giving reason to the observation that the great apes look and even act so human. One popular example is the Florida soapberry bug's adaptive evolution to a new, invasive plant species.

[JudoMinja]

I personally don't form opinions about scientific things I haven't studied thoroughly for myself, so I can't help you much with the Egypt question or the flood question- though I might be able to get back to you on the flood after a little digging into the scriptures again as I do have a fairly decent geology background. Until I've formed my own opinion of it though, I'll defer to Vort's explanation as I trust his study of it.

Now getting into topics like the order of the creation, the life-span of the earth, evolution, Adam being the first man, etc. - I can give you more information on my thoughts, speculations, and opinons as I've delved into them extensively. Mostly, I find that science does explain things very well, and there is no reason for us to think it contradicts or debunks scripture. Often I've found that reading through the actual scriptural text covering these topics while also studying the science, they actually can coincide very nicely.

[Anddenex]

This is not true, though it is to some extent a question of definition. There is abundant, overwhelming evidence of organic evolution. That it is not easily observed in a living species in real time is of no more moment than the fact that the mayfly, which lives only a day, cannot observe the growth and change of a baby into an adult. Babies really do grow into adults, notwithstanding the mayfly's doubts and scoffing.

I believe there is overwhelming evidence of organic evolution at a micro level. I have never read any overwhelming evidence pertaining to a macro level, example, an ape into a human, or if we want to get really technical, a fish from the ocean who walked on land, and over time became a human.

I understand your point with the mayfly, however, how do we know the adult mayfly actually "doubts and scoff"?

I don't believe science should call anything factual unless they can provide testable and observable data, until then it is theory and they should represent it as such.

There is an abundance of evidence of organic evolution. Indeed, it is the central unifying principle of modern biology, giving interpretive meaning to the fossil record, explaining why lions and tigers are different yet can interbreed, giving reason to the observation that the great apes look and even act so human. One popular example is the Florida soapberry bug's adaptive evolution to a new, invasive plant species.

I have never considered a great ape looking or even acting so human. They act like animals with no remorse for their decisions. They cannot increase upon their stature, and intelligence without the aid of humans.

I remember one person I spoke with who tried to convince me that apes and humans are the same because an ape learned sign language. I am not talking the simple sign language all pi-bedals use, but the sophisticated sign-language developed by humans. Yet without human interaction, they would not have learned anything.

The soapberry bug, at least to me, is an example of micro evolution, within a species, or adaption, but not an example of a species fully evolving into another species unlike one of it primary ancestors.

I have noticed, a lot of members on LDS.net who are very scientific minded, unlike myself, and thus my questions. Trying to seek to understand.

Thank you for your response.

Ha... the pi-bedals was supposed to be bi-pedals, oopss.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Anddenex

[mnn727]

I am pretty sure to Noah, it appeared to be a world-wide flood. After all he could not turn on the Weather channel and see the world forecast. I believe something happened, but not a worldwide flood. (meteor/comet strike, etc)

I take much of Genesis as more of a primitive people trying to understand the world around them. It was after all an oral history for a couple thousand years before it was written down, so who knows?

Edited October 23, 2012 by mnn727

[mikbone]

From Evidences and Reconciliations - John A. Widtsoe

DID THE FLOOD COVER THE HIGHEST MOUNTAINS OF EARTH?

This question, really of insignificant importance, is a good example of man-made objections to the sacred character of the Bible, and therefore to faith.

The coming of the flood and its extent and duration, are described in the seventh chapter of the Book of Genesis. The account states that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Genesis 7:19-20)

A cubit, an ancient and well-known measure of length, is the distance from a man's elbow to the end of his middle finger. The Egyptians fixed the length of a cubit as 20.61 of our inches; the Greeks, 18:25 inches; the Romans, 17.4 inches; the Hebrews, 17.58 inches; and the English, 18 inches. The variation is small, from eighteen to less than twenty-one inches.

If we employ the largest of these values, 20.61 inches, fifteen cubits would be something less than twenty-six-feet. This, then, was the depth of the flood, according to Genesis.

The suggestion has been made that the flood filled every hollow and valley until the earth was a great sphere of water, covering the highest mountain peaks twenty-six feet deep, Mount Ararat, seventeen thousand feet high, "upon the mountains" of which the ark rested, would according to this view have been completely under water. It is doubtful whether the water in the sky and all the oceans would suffice to cover the earth so completely.

Another suggestion is that the earth at that time was so flat that a depth of water of twenty-six feet would cover the highest hill. There is no existing evidence of this supposition; and Mount Ararat did exist then according to the record.

It has also been suggested that a blanket of water twenty-six feet thick lay up and down the sides of every hill, mountain, and valley. This would seem to be in defiance of the law of gravity, though under a long-continued, furious rainfall such a layer, not too thick, might roll down every slope.

The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us.

Latter-day Saints know, through modern revelation, that the Garden of Eden was on the North American continent and that Adam and Eve began their conquest of the earth in the upper part of what is now the state of Missouri. It seems very probable that the children of our first earthly parents moved down along the fertile, pleasant lands of the Mississippi valley. The great floods that have often occurred there make the description in Genesis seem very reasonable indeed. And if the historian saw the flood there, it is not unlikely that the waters covered the highest points or peaks, for there the mountains are but hills.

Great floods have visited the earth. That has been amply proved. For example, Professor C. Leonard Woolley, studying through excavations the ancient history of Mesopotamia, has found indisputable evidences of a flood in the neighborhood of Abraham's ancestral city of Ur. Whether that flood is the great flood of Genesis is not certain, for we do not know whether at that time the children of Adam had spread from their original home in what is now America into the lands now denominated Asia. (Woolley, The Sumerians)

Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which is gloriously filling "the measure of its creation." They look upon the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an immersion of the earth in water (D. & C. 88:25; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:274; Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 603; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 1:331).

Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial. When a person is baptized, it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth. The essential part of the symbolism is that he should be completely immersed.

So with the story of the flood. All parts of the earth were under water at the same time. In some places the layer of water might have been twenty-six feet deep or more; in others, as on sloping hillsides, it might have been only a fraction of an inch in depth. That the whole earth, however, was under water at the same time was easily possible under a terrific, long-continued downpour, such as is described in Genesis. The depth of the layer of water is of no consequence.

Many Bible accounts that trouble the inexperienced reader become clear and acceptable if the essential meaning of the story is sought out. To read the Bible fairly, it must be read as President Brigham Young suggested: "Do you read the scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them?" (Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 197, 198). This is our guide. The scriptures must be read intelligently.

I believe that the Earth was born, baptized, and will eventually endure a baptism of fire.

Edited October 23, 2012 by mikbone

[Anddenex]

From Evidences and Reconciliations - John A. Widtsoe

Thank you mikbone. I really appreciate the last part of this quote given by Brigham Young,

Many Bible accounts that trouble the inexperienced reader become clear and acceptable if the essential meaning of the story is sought out. To read the Bible fairly, it must be read as President Brigham Young suggested: "Do you read the scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them?" (Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 197, 198). This is our guide. The scriptures must be read intelligently.

This is why I am a proponent of a "local flood" depth verses a whole world depth also.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Anddenex

[mdfxdb]

I might suggest a few "light" reading books that can help you understand some of your questions: Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. 1491 by Charles Mann, both of those books can address some of your questions and concerns, specifically with reference to Egypt and the "desert", and provide insight to the "evolution"of society as a whole and to some extent why things are the way they are..

I would also suggest reading "Articles of Faith" by Talmage. Also "Can science be faith promoting" by Sterling Talmage

[mdfxdb]

Oh, and Egypt was the "breadbasket" of the Roman Empire. Wars were fought over it, and thousands and thousands of people died to rule it...Things weren't always as they are now...

[Vort]

I might suggest a few "light" reading books that can help you understand some of your questions: Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. 1491 by Charles Mann, both of those books can address some of your questions and concerns, specifically with reference to Egypt and the "desert", and provide insight to the "evolution"of society as a whole and to some extent why things are the way they are..

I would also suggest reading "Articles of Faith" by Talmage. Also "Can science be faith promoting" by Sterling Talmage

I enjoyed Guns, Germs, and Steel a great deal, though it was hard at first to get past the author's self-important bloviating. But I don't remember anything in that book that will help with Anddenex's specific questions. What specifically did you have in mind?

[mdfxdb]

It's been a long time since i've read the book, but it goes into detail on the middle east, how it was, and gives insight to the fertile land it once was. and yes I agree with your opinion on the author...

[BadWolf]

To share another example I am aware of, however to be frank my understanding of the science behind Egypt could be wrong.

I understand according to science that Egypt was a dry wasteland when it was settled by the Egyptians, however within the Pearl of Great Price it mentions the daughter of Ham discovered Egypt while it was under water, most likely a marsh land similar to Nauvoo.

Anyone want to shed some light? This is the type of contradiction of science vs. religion I am speaking about also.

Egypt's Easy:

The way Egyptian time was measured (in part) was by inundations (also by whomever happened to be ruling, and stars... Just as an example... There were a couple weeks every year that belonged to NO year. Similar to our Feb 29th, it kept the calendar going).

Saying that they arrived while Egypt was underwater is like saying they arrived in a snowstorm. (A pretty way of saying Winter). There was typically more than ons inundation of the Nile every year, so its more of a descriptive (like snow)... That described what was going on than a calendar reference.

ALSO (geek'ing out here)...

- Egypt was known as 'Black Land'. The surrounding wastes were known as 'Red Land'. Egypt wasn't the rectangular country we think of today... But JUST the narrow strip bordering the Nile. The desert was reserved for the dead (by and large, mining etc also happened, but the 'nation' of Egypt was the Nile. And the Nile flooded. Rayher a lot. :)

- When it rains in Egypt... It POURS. That's how archeologists have found many if not most tombs. It rains so hard (couple times a year) that the rain causes mudslides, imprints rainarkings on soft soft sand stone... And floods the Nile. Big time.

- Prehistory the Sudan & the Sahara & Norghern Africa in general were quite habitable. The whole region was a LOT wetter than today. We're not talking green fields, but we are talking ground water and smaller deserts (more easily crossed). As the deserts expanded whole covilizations were wiped out or absorbed (as they moved to regions with water)... But KMT (Egypt, was still 'The Nile'. Split into Upper & Lower from time to time, with outposts or conquered nations paying tithe and tax to the rulers of Egypt... But KMT = Black Land = Nile

- Lower Egypt (northern, the Nile delta) IS one big pestilential swamp. Back when, it was probably even larger (today it's about the size of Oregon). Swamp to the north, wastes to either side, cataracts (rapids) along the course of the Nile), inundations, flooding from torrential rains. Quirky place :)

[BadWolf]

How does a member of the Church reconcile the submitted evidences which contradict the Bible and the Lord's teachings

Science v Religion is harder. For me, its easy. It's not knowing about other people that makes it hard. I have something of a perpetual queasy fear about being stoned or burned at the stake. (Ahem. I've got both Catholic & Jewish in my background... Which comes along with a super power: I can feel guilty about almost anything.)

For Me'self:

Science and Religion don't conflict. Because they're answering 2 different questions.

How?

&

Why?

Or FAR better spoken:

"The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together." - Carl Sagan

"We are all connected.

To each other, biologically.

To the earth, chemically.

To the rest of the universe, atomically." - deGrasse Tyson

((Ahem. That's is usually my signature line on forums. My phone won't let me edit my profile, though. And my computer is getting fixed. Still. Or so they say. I am beginning to doubt.))

"If you want to bake an apple pie from scratch... You must first... Invent the universe." - Carl Sagan.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka” but “That’s funny...” - Isaac Asimov

"There is much to be learned." - Carl Sagan

TO ME... One of the most exciting things about science is glimpsing g-d. Seeing how something works, might work... Using that knowledge for the betterment of all (The Adam has to toil, section, as well as the entire concept of being on Earth to begin with... To learn) figures rather strongly in this sense of wonder & privilege.

But that's just me. And I worry that my excitement in 'What IF?' and the stunning beauty, intricate and subtle, the explorations and adventures, coming to know, striving for better understanding, etc... The diverging of two questions...how each adds to the other, instead of competes against each other...isn't generally held. To me, my science and my religion are completely intertwined, but don't conflict.

If I don't know the how or the why... Given enough time... Everything makes sense. Through discovery, revelation, or both. If that makes sense?