Showing posts from April, 2011

On Science and Religion, part 3

This response is a bit delayed, but I’m finding myself requiring more time to digest everyone’s comments as this discussion progresses. This whole process has been immeasurably informative for me, so thank you to all those participating. Thank you also for the book recommendations. I’ll revisit this topic in the future after some much-needed mental-digestion.
I think that a scientist’s lack of knowledge of religious texts can be equally problematic as the Christian’s lack of knowledge of evolutionary biology. My understanding of evolution and science is clearly much more nuanced than my understanding of scripture. My misinterpretation of some of Heidi’s points is evidence of that.  I recently heard the statement: “the best of science is always compared to the worst of religion.” I think this is generally true of religious debates. I’m definitely not portraying the worst of religion in this discussion, but Emi and Heidi are right that I am giving a bit too much credit to scientists. I w…

On Science and Religion, part 2

Rather than respond to some of the previous wall comments with more comments, I thought I’d start a fresh post so I can expand my thoughts relating to your discussions. This post is based entirely on the discussion found in the comments here.
Justine- Thanks for your thoughts. I don’t think that science functions as a religion, and those who treat it as one propagate the confusion underpinning the clash between faith and science. Good science requires no leaps of faith, and is not in the business of explaining on faith that which cannot be studied. Connecting logical sequential gaps with leaps of faith is fundamentally unscientific. The scientific method cannot answer some things (staunch rationalists would add the word “yet”, but not me), and does not pretend that it has absolute answers for them. Quantum physics sometimes creates hypothetical scenarios in order to derive “real” theories from them and test current hypotheses against them (i.e. imaginary numbers in math, multidimension…

On Science and Religion, part 1

Hi Folks. This installment has nothing to do with traveling. It is an outlet for my own thoughts. I’m trying to understand issues of faith, and not belittle those who choose to believe in God. If you are offended by anything I'm writing, then enjoy the photographs, leave a comment, and tune in next time.

To a Theist, the entire world is proof of God's existence. Here is a conundrum that my friend and I have tried to understand on many long walks: Two groups of people can look at exactly the same evidence, and come to wildly different conclusions based on it. This Creationist Birding site was particularly poignant to me, because they believe that birds are ultimate proof of God’s handiwork, whereas I look at the same birds and see the ultimate display of evolution.

Fossil evidence shows stepwise divergence of birds from dinosaurs, the transition from solid to hollow bone structures, from toothed jaws to beaks, and selective advantages of having feathers before powered flight …