if i could split the middle here, i believe gilberto is saying valuable in his
last post. >if< science is an accurate method for studying the obervable
universe (by whatever methods of observation, including abstract thought) >and<
the universe itself exists to glorify God, by being a place for
On 11/21/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Discussing how some people try to impose religion on science (by
things like young-earth creationism) or impose science on religion (by
things like reading scientific discoveries into religious texts]
Gilberto:
> I feel like if
> people s
On 11/19/05, Benjamin La Framboise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Gilberto,
>
> I think another option (I'm not suggesting you only think there are two; in
> fact, I know you've already acknowledged there might be other stances or
> responses [when you said, "at least two..."]) would be that t
"I don't think that is necessarily the motivation. I feel like ifpeople strongly believe in a certain religious text and they areconfronted by the discoveries of modern science they will have atleast two different stances. On the one hand, they could try toreconcile their text with modern s
