Science and religion: This seems like the sort of piece that might generate some discussion round these parts.

Ah, but you see, he's talking about true(R) religion. Whatever that is, it is not the religion which anybody actually believes or practices.

What I see here is another person trying too, too hard to find common ground not just with religion in general (which is a definition related issue and a seperate issue), but with the bible specifically. That is common ground that simply doesn't exist.

As an example, he tries to say that the genesis creation stories are approximately in the right sequence and therefore compatible with the geological history of Earth. But he admits that the details don't agree with what we now know to be true. Is he trying to suggest that the authors of P, J, and E actually knew something about geology, chemistry and physics and that is why the broad picture can be twisted into fitting the scientific story? Or is he saying that god revealed the story to them but got the details all wrong. All of the details in each of the three primary sources disagree with each other as well as reality. Either they made reasonable guesses and got all the details wrong or god really screwed up in passing the info to them.

The degree of accuracy he is willing to settle for makes the information in the Genesis creation stories useless. This is not common ground with science.

Science and religion are not only incompatible, they are mutually intolerable.

Science is based on faith in evidence and logic.

Religion is based on faith in the lack of evidence and the illogical.

The contest is between physics and magic.

For the believing Christian, the Bible poses as an additional source of data � not the only source. This additional data is obviously more conclusive on some matters, such as the nature of God, than others, such as exactly how long it took for our earth and all the life on it to be created.

Why should the Bible be considered "more conclusive" on such matters? The only qualifier that would make any sense of this is the he is talking about "the believing Christian," who derives his/her view of God's existence and nature from the Bible. That would be rather circular, and does not fit in well with the attempt to reconcile religion with science, which attempts to be as objective as possible in its judgments of "truth."

Jared is wrapping up his Engineering Physics degree at UBC

Salem Conjecture Alert

It's kind of weird that they would pick Henry Eyring for those quotes and to defend Creationism since Eyring believed in evolution.

"The Lord made the world in some wonderful way that I can at best only dimly comprehend. It seems to me sacreligious to presume that I really understand him and know just how he did it. He can only tell me in figurative speech which I dimly understand but which I expect to more completly comprehend in the eternities to come.

Probably one of the most difficult problems in reading the scriptures is to decide what is to be taken literally and what is fiction. In this connection it seems to be that the creator must operate with facts and with an understanding which goes entirely outside of our understanding and of our expeience. Because of this, when someone builds up a system of logic, however careful and painstaking, which gives a positive answer to this difficult question, I can't help but wonder about it, particularly if it seems to run counter to the Creator's revelations written in the rocks. At least can't we move slowly in such matters?"

Henry Eyring, Letter to Adam S. Bennion (1954)

"What, then, is to prevent us from seeking to understand God's methods of creation by any and all means available to us? Many avoid seeking understanding from science because they believe that any theory in conflict with the Lord's revelations will finally be proven false. Of course, given those assumptions, the position is clearly correct, since I don't believe that God intentionally misleads his children.

We have a dilemma, however, because God has left messages all over in the physical world that scientists have learned to read. These messages are quite clear, well-understood, and accepted in science. That is, the theories that the earth is about four-and-one-half billion years old and that life evolved over the last billion years or so are as well established scientifically as many theories ever are. So, if the word of God found in the scriptures and the word of God found in the rocks are contradictory, must we choose between them, or is there some way they can be reconciled?

The scriptures state that Adam was the first man on the earth and that he was also the first flesh. Other scriptures teach that Adam was not subject to mortal and spiritual death before the fall, and that the fall brought these deaths into the world. Also, the scriptures say the earth is passing through seven periods ("days") of temporal existence, and that it was not temporal before the fall. Each of these ideas seems to be in conflict with the scientific views of organic evolution, but are they?

The fundamental principle that has guided my religious life is that I need believe only what is true. The gospel is the truth as learned or discovered by whatever means and tools I can lay my hand or mind on. I appreciate the scriptures for their insights into how to love God and my neighbor and how to learn obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. These teachings are precious to all devoted Latter-day Saints. However, the brevity of the scriptures about God's methods of creation indicates that this may be a subject we will understand sometime but do not need to worry about for the time being: "Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things--things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof--things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven." (D&C 101:32-34.)

In the meantime, I think it is perfectly appropriate for us to study and learn as much as we can about this wonderful place God has prepared for us.

We should keep in mind that scientists are as diligent and truthful as anyone else. Organic evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to the best of their ability. From my limited study of the subject I would say that the physical evidence supporting the theory is considerable from a scientific viewpoint.

In my opinion it would be a very sad mistake if a parent or teacher were to belittle scientists as being wicked charlatans or else fools having been duped by half-baked ideas that gloss over inconsistencies. That isn't an accurate assessment of the situation,and our children or students will be able to see that when they begin their scientific studies."

Henry Eyring Reflections of a Scientist

Actually belay my comments. I had read too quickly and the author and I apparently agree.

Actually belay my comments. I had read too quickly and the author and I apparently agree.

I'm happy with any religion which doesn't:
(1) brainwash people
(2) specifically brainwash children
(3) encourage people to believe in things *despite* evidence to the contrary, and treat this as a virtue
(4) encourage people to obey authority regardless of misgivings
(5) encourage people to stop thinking
(6) encourage logical fallacies (like circular reasoning)

There are certainly many sects which meet these criteria.
Unfortunately many, even "liberal" or "open-minded" sects do one, or indeed all, of the above.