Should we believe the Bible or the Evolutionists ? IMHO My view that science (reason) and religion (faith) are mutually exclusive is Lutheran, and certainly not true of catholics, who at least since Aquinas, believe that truth is reason-based. And even Luther mellowed a bit in later years against his earlier harsh view of reason (as as totally which opposes faith).
But, having said that, nevertheless I hold with Stephan Jay Gould's position, that of "Non-overlapping magisteria" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria "Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and these two domains do not overlap.[1] He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."[2] Despite this there continues to be disagreement over where the boundaries between the two magisteria should be.[3] This view of "Non-overlapping magisteria", which neatly separatges religion and science, to been enormously helpful to me: 1) It allows me to ignore criticism of religion as being "non-scientific," meaning (to them, not to me) that it is false. 2) Allow me to accept the scientific findings of science (such as creation anbd evolution) theory while treating the book of Genesis as a different account of creation anbd evolution -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
