There seems to be a lot of rigidity here between concepts in religion, spirituality and science. Less archaic theories like the string theory and other recent developments seem to have blurred at least some of the lines between spirituality and science, as they have opened windows into questions that were previously unexplained and not even deemed valid questions by the scientific community at one time. However, religion on the other hand is simply a set of scientific /spiritual beliefs that define the community of people who are followers of those beliefs/practices. A lot of theories apparently explained by the beliefs of a particular religion or the other, have been proved "wrong" over time by the scientific community, and the counter explanations based on scientific evidence are today widely accepted to be true universally by a majority of people of most religions.
Most religious communities have already come to an understanding that their beliefs over time may be disproved and newer more relevant explanations are available as alternatives to the once inexplicable situations that were left to God to handle. I think the time has come for the scientific community to accept that spirituality is no more a pile of non-factual delusions, and "scientific" explanations for the same may exist or come into existence in the future. Darwinism is now increasingly close to becoming a religion in itself, with Darwinists getting more and more removed from the reality of the "*evolution *" of science. The inability to accept that there may be a half truth or a middle path to some of the theories provided by Darwin, as he came with the limitations of the time period he belonged to, is equivalent to the fanatic behavior of most religious radicals today. Juthika. On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Jogesh Motwani <jogeshmotw...@gmail.com>wrote: > We acknowledge this renowned racist's birth with a few critical essays.Thank > you Thomas for the references. > > > Zestalternative Desk. > > > The Church of Darwin > ------------------------------ > Phillip E. Johnson > > This article is reprinted from the *Wall Street Journal*, August 16, 1999. > > > > A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent > fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of > evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks > over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common > ancestor as Darwin's theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American > scientists, he wryly comments: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the > government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."
