Science Verses Religion

[Traveler]

As a scientist and a High Priest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I have become to wonder why so many have come to believe that a knowledge of science and a knowledge of religious doctrine cannot coexist. One time I was asked how I could believe in evolution and still be a member of the Church.

It may seem odd but for the most part I have found science more willing to move forward with ideas than members that will say they believe there is more to be revealed but think that revelation comes only through religion. Let me give a small example – about 15 years ago a “super cluster” of galaxies was discovered that was so enormous that it was greater, all by itself, than what anyone believed the universe could possibly be just 100 years ago.

As we try to adjust our thinking to an explosion of information in our modern age, many have come to think that any adjustments are contrary to scripture. And yet it would seem to me that there is an explosion of information concerning scripture as well; that is bringing much adjustment in thinking to the rest of the world.

I think it interesting that 120 years ago the Book of Mormon was criticized because there was no evidence of any advanced civilizations in the Americas – today there are so many advanced ancient civilizations that it would seem impossible that all could have come from the 3 major groups presented in the Book of Mormon.

So my question – Why are so many of us so afraid to extend ourselves and learn of the things that have not been known before?

The Traveler

[fish4kitty]

Hey I'm all ears here. I feel that we will get more out of listening and pondering than argueing. I'm open to new ideas.

[Moksha]

Why are so many of us so afraid to extend ourselves and learn of the things that have not been known before?

I have noticed that not all people are able to be flexible when it comes to learning and accepting new ideas. Think how long it took for the flat earth idea to be discarded.

The major bug-a-boo of our time is the challenge for members who are able to fully embrace evolution to peacefully coexist in the same pews with those who hold a creationist view. It can be done as long as you don't discuss the subject.

I am on the side of the evolutionists and I think that evolution is one on the more effective tools in God's arsenal. I realize that this viewpoint is not shared by all of my fellow religionists, but I take heart that the LDS leadership has left open the door for further learning and understanding. Just as flat earth thoughts gave way to out current understanding, I think eventually we will all be on the same page of understanding regarding evolution. It may take a few generations, but barring unforeseen events, people generally grow more enlightened with advances in science.

[palabras_ardientes]

I have noticed that not all people are able to be flexible when it comes to learning and accepting new ideas. Think how long it took for the flat earth idea to be discarded.

The major bug-a-boo of our time is the challenge for members who are able to fully embrace evolution to peacefully coexist in the same pews with those who hold a creationist view. It can be done as long as you don't discuss the subject.

I am on the side of the evolutionists and I think that evolution is one on the more effective tools in God's arsenal. I realize that this viewpoint is not shared by all of my fellow religionists, but I take heart that the LDS leadership has left open the door for further learning and understanding. Just as flat earth thoughts gave way to out current understanding, I think eventually we will all be on the same page of understanding regarding evolution. It may take a few generations, but barring unforeseen events, people generally grow more enlightened with advances in science.

With regards to your statement that leaders have left the door open, I'm not entirely clear to what degree that can be true. For example, evolution is an okay theory for study, but statements have been made to correct the idea of human evolution. Which really makes sense to me, in that if human evolution were a viable theory it would mean Adam was a Neanderthal, right? Or would Adam be the first fully evolved man to come from the neanderthals? But then we know that in Genesis it talks of Adam being formed by God himself, not through neanderthals. So in that sense evolution had to be discredited because it would destroy the faith of millions in the Holy Scriptures. Now I agree we cannot know everything, and anything is possible with God, but I think that for a very good reason the prophets made statements against that theory. Science though, is wonderful. I agree that people are overly cautious and critical about science. Henry Eyring was an extraordinary scientist. The study of science can be one of the most faith-promoting studies in the world. I heard another scientist state that when you go down past Atoms and their constructs in the human body, the smallest thing that they have been able to identify is just light. It's amazing the things that are there to be discovered.

I do however agree that there should be respect toward anyone still with regards to their viewpoints and beliefs. I don't mean this in any ways as a contention or criticism.

[NeuroTypical]

As we try to adjust our thinking to an explosion of information in our modern age, many have come to think that any adjustments are contrary to scripture.

I see this trend happening throughout history, not just changes for the modern age. (Unless you consider Gallileo a member of the modern age, that is.)

I would say new facts about the world are not contrary to scripture. They might be contrary to our interpretations and understandings of scripture. And conclusions drawn from the facts may or may not be correct, and may or may not contradict either scripture, or our interpretation of it.

There is also the continually pervasive misunderstandings about the difference between facts, beliefs, conclusions, hypotheses, truth, good science, bad science, leaps of logic, leaps of faith, and logical fallacies. When they make me emperor, I'll fix this somehow, but until then, I guess we're stuck with some people accidentally misrepresenting beliefs as truth, and fallacies as facts.

With regards to your statement that leaders have left the door open, I'm not entirely clear to what degree that can be true. For example, evolution is an okay theory for study, but statements have been made to correct the idea of human evolution.

What statements would those be? I'm aware of various church leaders tossing their opinions into the general debate, but a "statement" from a church leader can either be opinion or doctrine, inspired or not.

Which really makes sense to me, in that if human evolution were a viable theory it would mean Adam was a Neanderthal, right? Or would Adam be the first fully evolved man to come from the neanderthals?

No and no. From what I can tell, the current most-widely accepted theory has Neanderthals existing from around 130,000 yrs ago, dying out around 24,000-ish years ago. Homo Sapiens (modern humans) also first appear around 130,000 years ago. So, depending on how you think of the Biblical timeline and where the Garden of Eden was located, there's absolutely nothing forcing us to think Adam had anything at all to do with Neanderthals.

But then we know that in Genesis it talks of Adam being formed by God himself, not through neanderthals. So in that sense evolution had to be discredited because it would destroy the faith of millions in the Holy Scriptures.

It's all about how you choose to interpret the scriptures. Is the creation story in Genesis a literal account? Is it symbolic? How symbolic, and symbolic of what? There are plenty of ways to interpret Genesis that do not conflict with evolution.

I think that for a very good reason the prophets made statements against that theory.

Are you claiming these statements are inspired? What makes you think so? (Actually, I'd like to see what some of the statements actually are in the first place, if you have any handy.)

I do however agree that there should be respect toward anyone still with regards to their viewpoints and beliefs. I don't mean this in any ways as a contention or criticism.

Oh absolutely - me neither. A good lively discussion is good for the blood!

LM

[HiJolly]

Before I begin, I want to say I have enjoyed your previous posts very much, p_a.

With regards to your statement that leaders have left the door open, I'm not entirely clear to what degree that can be true. For example, evolution is an okay theory for study, but statements have been made to correct the idea of human evolution.

I'm sure it IS true. The door is open.

Correct in what way, exactly? As far as I know, the only such 'correction' is a direct emphasis on the teaching that man is literally and absolutely the direct offspring of God, in His/Her image. Which I and most other scientifically minded LDS agree with. The FP statements do not state that the physical tabernacle of man could not have been developed through evolution.

And the GA(Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R McConkie, Boyd K Packer) statements that evolution and atonement cannot co-exist is personal opinon, not doctrine, even though stated from the pulpit. We know this thanks to the Church's statement on Doctrine of the Church of May 4th, 2007 (see on www.lds.org, newsroom, commentary).

Which really makes sense to me, in that if human evolution were a viable theory it would mean Adam was a Neanderthal, right?

No, it wouldn't. Mankind does not come through the Neanderthal, according to current scientific theory.

Or would Adam be the first fully evolved man to come from the neanderthals?

See above. No.

But then we know that in Genesis it talks of Adam being formed by God himself, not through neanderthals. So in that sense evolution had to be discredited because it would destroy the faith of millions in the Holy Scriptures.

Bad logic, I'm afraid. The Bibles does NOT say that Adam was not formed through the Neanderthals. OTOH, it's clear to me that the scientific theory and the Bible do agree, insofar as your speculation regarding the Neanderthal goes. Nothing of the kind happened. Do you see how you may not understand just what science DOES say, regarding Neanderthals?

I do however agree that there should be respect toward anyone still with regards to their viewpoints and beliefs. I don't mean this in any ways as a contention or criticism.

It is sometimes hard to respect opinion when it does not understand the actual beliefs of the opposing viewpoint. But congenial conversation is important, I agree.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

I thought that this review might be helpful, at this point:

History of the Official Position of the LDS Church on Evolution

David H. Bailey

14 August 2006

With regards to the Church's "official" stance on evolution and related scientific matters, I have prepared the following summary of this history, which as far as I am aware covers the important facts. Feel free to draw your own conclusions from this information.

In 1909, the first presidency published a lengthy statement on the "Origin of Man," which dealt with several topics including, for instance, the existence of a Heavenly Mother. The following text appeared in this statement:

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was 'the first man of all men' (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."

A few months later, the April 1910 issue of the Improvement Era commented as follows:

"Origin of Man. 'In just what manner did the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve come into existence on this earth?' This question comes from several High Priests' quorums. ... Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere .; whether they were born here in mortality, . are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God."

Pres. Joseph F. Smith (with Edward H. Anderson) was listed as editor of the Era, so it is highly likely that he personally reviewed this doctrinal comment, which appeared in the Priesthood Quorums Table (a forum for official instructions to local Priesthood leaders), although there is no way to know for certain.

In December 1910, the First Presidency wrote, as part of their annual Christmas message:

"Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy; but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men, we do not accept nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense. But everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us no matter where it may be found."

In an April 1911 article in the Juvenile Instructor, Pres. Joseph F. Smith addressed the controversy that arisen at BYU regarding the teaching of evolution. While Pres. Smith thought it unwise for BYU instructors "to introduce controversies relative to evolution" at the time, he added "The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world."

In 1925, during the period of the Scopes Trial, a national news organization requested the LDS Church's position on evolution. The First Presidency chose to send a shortened version of the 1909 statement as "Mormon View of Evolution." In this version, the above-mentioned passage ("It is held by some that Adam.") was dropped.

Evolution, pre-Adamic life and related issues continued to be a source of controversy among general authorities. Elder B. H. Roberts, for instance, argued that we should accept the reality of life and death on earth for millions of years, including a race of "pre-Adamites" (see for example his book "The Way, the Truth, the Life"). Elder James E. Talmage taught that simple forms of plant and animal life were succeeded by others more complicated over eons of time, in accordance with the findings of geology (see for example his article "The Earth and Man," published by the Church in 1931). On the other hand, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith argued against the possibility of evolution or any pre-Adamic life (see for example his book

"Man: His Origin and Destiny"). Details of this debate are given in Richard Sherlock's article, "'We Can See No Advantage to a Continuation of the Discussion': The Roberts/Smith/ Talmage Affair," Dialogue, vol. 13 (Fall 1980), pg 63.

This debate was ended in 1931, when the First Presidency sent a letter to all general authorities stating that none of the competing points of view was to be taken as the Church's doctrine, and concluding:

"Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church."

In 1954, in the wake of the publication of Joseph Fielding Smith's book "Man: His Origin and Destiny," Pres. David O. McKay sent letters to several private individuals who had inquired, saying (in one typical letter):

"On the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position. The book 'Man, His Origin and Destiny' was not published by the Church, and is not approved by the Church. The book contains expressions of the author's views for which he alone is responsible."

In 1959, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, in his book "Mormon Doctrine," concluded at the end of a lengthy discussion that there was "no harmony" between evolution and revealed religion. However, this material was specifically listed among examples of controversial material by Elder Mark E. Petersen and Elder Marion G. Romney, two apostles whom Pres. McKay assigned to review the book after its publication. They recommended that the book not be republished due to these problems (although a few years later it was republished).

In 1988, Elder Boyd K. Packer gave a talk at BYU on the creation that was openly critical of evolution. However, when this talk was finally published by BYU (in 1990), it was preceded by a strongly worded disclaimer, including the text: "The author alone is responsible for the views set forth therein. They do not necessarily represent the Church."

In 1992, when the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was being compiled, three drafts of an article on evolution had been proposed, one of which was 4500 words long. These drafts disagreed markedly on how the topic should be approached. The oversight committee, consisting of two members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, referred the matter to the First Presidency. After some consideration, Pres. Hinckley personally sent to the editorial committee the excerpt mentioned above from the 1931 First Presidency letter, together with a few items highlighted from one of the drafts, which he wanted in the final article. The resulting EOM article thus briefly mentions the 1909 and 1925 statements, and then concludes with the passage from the 1931 letter: "Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research ..."

At about the same time (in 1992), there was debate among BYU faculty and officials as to what material should be given to students at BYU who inquired about the Church's official view regarding evolution. After much discussion, a number of statements were included. This packet was then reviewed by the BYU Board of Trustees (including the First Presidency). They decided to limit the packet to four items from the First Presidency:

(1) the 1909 statement,

(2) the December 1910 statement,

(3) the 1925 statement, and

(4) the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on evolution.

The Encyclopedia article was included because of its quotation from the 1931 First Presidency letter. The packet is available online at either of these URLs:

http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolutio...ustees1992.html

http://whitinglab.byu.edu/PDF/Evolution%20Packet.pdf

Subsequently the packet was distributed to all teachers in the Church Education System, with the instruction that they were to refer students to this material when questions were raised as to the Church's official view on evolution.

The general topic of the creation and/or evolution has been mentioned occasionally in articles and talks by various LDS Church leaders in the past two or three decades, but usually only in brief references of a sentence or two. A more detailed recent treatment was in the April 2000 general conference, where Elder Russell M. Nelson declared "Whether termed a day, a time, or an age, each phase was a period between two identifiable events -- a division of eternity." Nelson added, "The Creation did not happen by chance. It did not come ex nihilo (out of nothing)."

In 2000, the Priesthood/Relief Society manual mentioned the 1909 statement, and quoted the passage ("It is held by some that Adam.") mentioned above. In 2002, the Ensign published the entire 1909 statement, as "the Church's doctrinal position on these matters." In neither case was there any mention of the more recent statements. However, I have learned that in both instances, the material was prepared by staffers and editors with minimal oversight by general authorities, certainly not by anyone in the Quorum of the Twelve and/or the First Presidency, and so it is not clear that either of these articles, as they stand, had official imprimatur.

In 2005, during the debate in Utah over proposed legislation for high school biology instruction, the Church again referred to the BYU packet, specifically mentioning both the 1909 statement and the 1992 Encyclopedia of Mormonism article:

"According to Randy Hall, assistant superintendent of the LDS Church Educational System, seminary teachers are told to refer to church statements included in what is known as the 'BYU packet,' a collection of four official statements on evolution made between 1909 and 1992. The statements are somewhat vague but do include sentences such as 'Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes,' and 'Adam is the primal parent of our race.' The packet does not include more clearly anti-evolution -- and oft-quoted -- unofficial statements such as those made by Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve in 1988. 'We ask our teachers not to go beyond those (official) statements,' Hall says, 'because then it gets into private interpretation, and that could as easily be misunderstood as understood.'" [Deseret News, 19 March 2005].

[palabras_ardientes]

What a beautifully sound walloping I've received. It really was wonderful, though, especially when you can learn so much by it. Ignorance may be blissful, but informed knowledge is so much better. Thank you all, especially for that last post. The history is something that I probably would never have encountered otherwise. And of course I'd heard statements from the church which apparently aren't quite as straightforward as I once thought, such as "The Origin of Man" and the book, "Man, His Origin and Destiny". So thank you for taking the time to respond. You're all correct, so there isn't really anything to rebut. Thanks for informing me. This is something that I'll put back on the shelf until God decides to give us more.

[NeuroTypical]

Woo-hoo! 3 cheers for this board!

Man, 10 years ago, I would have given my left pinkie for a place to come ask questions like this.

[MorningStar]

Woo-hoo! 3 cheers for this board!

Man, 10 years ago, I would have given my left pinkie for a place to come ask questions like this.

I love this board!

I think science and religion go together quite nicely. I see God as the ultimate scientist and us silly mortals only know a tiny fraction of what He knows.

[Traveler]

I will extend the question - Does any one believe they are a different type of creation (created differently) than was Adam and Eve? If so - please take this opportunity to explain both how and why.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

In 1988, Elder Boyd K. Packer gave a talk at BYU on the creation that was openly critical of evolution. However, when this talk was finally published by BYU (in 1990), it was preceded by a strongly worded disclaimer, including the text: "The author alone is responsible for the views set forth therein. They do not necessarily represent the Church."

That was really a wise disclaimer. It will become increasingly inconvenient for the Church to be boxed in by absolutist statements from the past - especially when the writing of science is already visible on the wall. The Catholic Church suffered for a long time by having the ghost of its errant reaction to Galileo present and anchored by such decrees that the Earth was the center of the Universe and all things revolved around it. Elder Packer is welcome to his opinion, but it would have been wrong to drag the Church along with him.

[Guest AutumnBreez]

Because of the issues my husband and oldest son bring up when tv (discovery channel ) is on....

I bought this book at Borders :

Over at the Religion section- The Case for a Creator

by Lee Strobel

A journalist investigate scientific evidence that points toward God.

"My road to atheism was paved by science...but, ironically, so was my later jouney to God." -Lee Strobel

Interviews with scientist....very good read so far.

[Deborah]

I think science and religion go together quite nicely. I see God as the ultimate scientist and us silly mortals only know a tiny fraction of what He knows.

That is my thought. I also think that man may interpret the "scientific" evidence incorrectly or there may be some information that is missing. God has revealed many things to us, but he hasn't always told us how they came about. We can speculate all day long but in the end the science of how it happened will be explained and when we come to that moment we will realize how limited our understanding in mortality was.

[LatterDaySaint]

The origin of all science is the desire to know causes, and the origin of all false science and imposture is the desire to accept false causes rather than none; or, which is the same thing, in the unwillingness to acknowledge our own ignorance.

-- William Hazlitt

The progress of science is often affected more by the frailties of humans and their institutions than by the limitations of scientific measuring devices. The scientific method is only as effective as the humans using it. It does not automatically lead to progress.

--Steven S. Zumdahl

Copying extensively from one source is plagiarism; copying extensively from several is research.

--Author unknown

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I've found it!), but "That's funny..."

--Isaac Asimov

[Guest prnldsfrms]

Since the Gospel of Jesus Christ automatically incorporates all truth, it seems to me that pure science ---- things we know to be true --- ARE religion. I think the science v. religion debate started over the theory of evolution, and we tend to forget that what science KNOWS today, is not necessarily what science KNEW yesterday. In many areas we may still not have arrived at the true understanding of nature or the planet or things that are under the world, etc. (This may also be an accurate description in religion, we do not yet KNOW all truth, and there are plenty of examples where there is at least the possibility that we preached something as true that might not have been exactly what God intended.)

Sometimes we can get spiritual confirmation of certain truths: a good example is that however God may have used evolution as a tool, HE created human life and made Adam and Eve the first.

But often we have to simply be humble and open to learning new things and adapting our understanding as we learn that what we know in science or in religion (an example here would be how often we used to say that the WofW prohibits caffeine, when we do not know exactly why God doesn't want us drinking coffee).

[Traveler]

The classic point where science and religion parted ways is when Galileo published his now famous book about tides based on a sun center rather than earth center solar system. Many of the notions that defended the abstract concepts of the religious universe are still present in religious thinking.

So I will ask a question about the 400+ years since Galileo: Has science had to make more adjustments (more radical adjustments) to the models created from math and physics or has religion had to make more adjustments from their models created from interpretation of scripture?

The Traveler

[jadams_4040]

As a scientist and a High Priest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I have become to wonder why so many have come to believe that a knowledge of science and a knowledge of religious doctrine cannot coexist. One time I was asked how I could believe in evolution and still be a member of the Church.

It may seem odd but for the most part I have found science more willing to move forward with ideas than members that will say they believe there is more to be revealed but think that revelation comes only through religion. Let me give a small example – about 15 years ago a “super cluster” of galaxies was discovered that was so enormous that it was greater, all by itself, than what anyone believed the universe could possibly be just 100 years ago.

As we try to adjust our thinking to an explosion of information in our modern age, many have come to think that any adjustments are contrary to scripture. And yet it would seem to me that there is an explosion of information concerning scripture as well; that is bringing much adjustment in thinking to the rest of the world.

I think it interesting that 120 years ago the Book of Mormon was criticized because there was no evidence of any advanced civilizations in the Americas – today there are so many advanced ancient civilizations that it would seem impossible that all could have come from the 3 major groups presented in the Book of Mormon.

So my question – Why are so many of us so afraid to extend ourselves and learn of the things that have not been known before?

The Traveler

And there is an agreeable alterenative to both sides of this debate, its called "Divine evolution".

[JohnBirchSociety]

And there is an agreeable alterenative to both sides of this debate, its called "Divine evolution".

Nope.

Evolution never happened. God create all things in the beginning as is. Of course, over the brief time the world has existed there have been mutations, but no trans-species evolution.

[NeuroTypical]

Evolution never happened. God create all things in the beginning as is. Of course, over the brief time the world has existed there have been mutations, but no trans-species evolution.

Could you cite your authoritative source for this notion, please? Keep in mind that church leaders expressing opinions, does not an authoritative source make.

LM

[Traveler]

Nope.

Evolution never happened. God create all things in the beginning as is. Of course, over the brief time the world has existed there have been mutations, but no trans-species evolution.

When we observe myosis in a single living cell we will observe what scientist call differentiation as the cell begins to unwind its DNA and separate the cell into two parts. As this process continues the cell will eventually divide. When the division has taken place there will be two cells as different from each other as from the original cell. This is evolution and it takes place millions of times each day in every human. It is not just a theory but an observable event. Once the division is complete there are two possibilities, disassociation which results in the two new cells completely separating and going their separate ways. The second is integration; this is when the cells form symbiosis relationships with each other which will define a higher life form. From a single cell of a single kind or type will come enormous numbers of different KINDS of cells for bones, eyes, heart, lungs, skin and every other part of a human being. This process is evolution pure and simple and it exists and can be observed by anyone willing to see it for themselves. It is evolutionary adaptation through regeneration of life. There is no evidence that there ever has been any other method for genesis of life that exists so abundantly. Every known living thing springs from this architecture. To deny evolution is to deny new life and creation. To say the evolution process exist to this, the arbitrary point defined by men as that of the species and then no longer occurs, is to me a mockery of what little knowledge the Almighty grants us. How silly are we to assume that the Almighty deceives us in what he shows us in nature or that we can make up in our own ignorant minds to a better understanding of that which he openly displays to all that will look upon his wonders.

Has the creator ceased to create and put an end to his creative power? Does evolution disprove a creator or what the scriptures tell us? If people of faith allow this to become a definition we make a serious mistake. Is understanding of a principal a denial of the Almighty? If we learn a thing - does that mean that the power of the Almighty is no longer active in that thing? Not to me - I believe we should acknowledge him for all his works, including what little we have learned, and then seek to learn more of him and his works.

I cannot see any difference in having faith in the truth of G-d and having faith in any truth - no one should be afriade of any truth or to seek to learn more of it.

The Traveler

[HiJolly]

So I will ask a question about the 400+ years since Galileo: Has science had to make more adjustments (more radical adjustments) to the models created from math and physics or has religion had to make more adjustments from their models created from interpretation of scripture?

The Traveler

That's a tough question. In science, there is NO "final" word -- only the latest word. I don't remember who said that. But here's one where I do have the credit---

Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute

rejection of authority.

-- Thomas Henry Huxley

I think Mr. Huxley has a good point here, and it's interesting to me how contrary it is to the way we obtain spiritual knowledge. OTOH, there are similarities there as well. As in, the Buddhist "Kill the Buddha" saying.

Anyhow, in my view it's easier to correct erroneous views in the realm of science, since it is in essence focused on impirical or quantifiable evidences -- aside from theoretical physics like string theory and so forth.

Interesting!!

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Nope.

Evolution never happened. God create all things in the beginning as is. Of course, over the brief time the world has existed there have been mutations, but no trans-species evolution.

You do no one any favors by persisting in ignorance. The Holy Ghost can lead you to ALL TRUTH -- unless you don't allow yourself to be taught...

HiJolly

[Fischr]

imho, science only explains and simplifies. It cannot truly create.

I think that both sides are partially right and wrong. Hopefully people will stop being stubborn.

[Moksha]

The Holy Ghost can lead you to ALL TRUTH -- unless you don't allow yourself to be taught...

HiJolly

To add to this, as St. Augustine said, "All truths are God's truths".