I wrote: > > The scientific method is based on experimentation, but what I got from > > what John was saying is that there is an intersection of scientific > > "truth" and religious "truth," not necessarily an intersection of the > > methods the groups use to get to the truth.
Erik replied: >What is scientific "truth"? Scientific "truth" in this case would be the things that we believe to be true based on data collected by the scientific method. For example, a scientific "truth" would be that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. I put truth in quotes because these scientific ideas are continuously being refined by experimentation and collection of additional data. To expand on what I was saying in my first post above... Most scientists believes that the universe is about 12 billion years old (give or take five billion or so). There are some scientists that believe it's much older, some that believe it's much younger. There are some religious folk that believe the universe is only a few thousand years old. There are others that believe that Genesis is a poem and was never meant to be a literal description of what happened, but rather a figurative, symbolic one. As such, it reads very much like descriptions of the big bang, and the time frames are very much open to discussion. This second group of religious people have no trouble with the big bang theory, or evolutionary theory or any of the rest of scientific thought. They believe that much of the old testament is meant to be read as symbolic truth rather than literal truth. This would be a point of intersection between religious belief and scientific belief, or religious "truth" and scientific "truth." Does that make this any clearer? Reggie Bautista _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
