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"

"Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould 
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 
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 
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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to