I am part of the Evolution movement in the wider church and I have sent away for this booklet. This is a tremendous effort to reconcile science and religion, honoring those aspects and expressions that are valuable, while disarming and diffusing those experiences that have led to confusiion and division.
I refuse to make an idol of scripture, religious doctrine, or the fleeting dust of dogma. At the same time I am open to allowing scientific research and technological advances that help us appreciate all that surrounds us and composes our very being.
Thee are many resources that support this movement. But like anything else (according to Sturgeon’s Law), a significant portion is, well not as useful as a person might hope. But that portion that is useful is incredible.

I would agree with the statement that science and religion can be compatible. While this is not necessarily so, religion has the potential to be just as compatible with science as philosophy or literature. But just as there may be a philosophical theory or fantasy novel that doesn’t sync with scientific findings, so religion can stray quite far at times.

As I mentioned in previous posts on the subject of evolution, I can’t understand why Christians can’t accept that their god could have done his/her creating of everything here on this planet through evolution. It makes a heck of a lot more sense then the 6 day with #7 resting theory…

Paganmaster:
Please don’t talk of Christians as a monolithic group. We’re not. Not all of us are creationists. Some of us Christians do accept that our God his or her creating through the process of evolution (see, e.g., the work of physicist John Polkinghorn, a Fellow of the Royal Society (UK), who is an Anglican priest).

severton:
Should have said “some Christians”. I certainly know that all Christians aren’t creationists. I know many who accept evolution as the form of creation by their god.

As I mentioned in previous posts on the subject of evolution, I can’t understand why Christians can’t accept that their god could have done his/her creating of everything here on this planet through evolution. It makes a heck of a lot more sense then the 6 day with #7 resting theory…
Paganmaster,
I’ll tell you why—it’s because we believe the Bible is the inerrant, divinely-inspired word of the living God–that’s why!
Evolution makes more sense to you because you WANT it to, so you don’t have to believe in a God, sin, moral absolutes and accountability. Man did not evolve from animals—that is NOT scientific, and it should NOT be taught in a science class. It’s nonsense.

“Man did not evolve from animals—that is NOT scientific, and it should NOT be taught in a science class. It’s nonsense.”
|, in a sense you are right: Man did not evolve from animals. We are animals. Look at our biology; it’s almost identical with that of the other animals, some more than others, which is consistent with evolution.
What is your evidence we did not evolve from animals? The evidence we did is overwhelming. And it’s scientific evidence so evolution should most definitely be taught as a science. It is fundamental to understanding the science of biology.
“Evolution makes more sense to you because you WANT it to, so you don’t have to believe in a God, sin, moral absolutes and accountability.”
There’s no end to some believers making up claims about the thinking of non-believers. I’m can’t speak for pagansister but I believe in sin, in the sense of knowingly or very carelessly doing ill to others. I don’t believe in silly concepts like “original sin”; even if I were a theist I hope I’d reject any god that would invent a universe with something that cruel. Some believers really need to do housecleaning in their heads.
As for believing in a god, I for one would if it would do something out in the world that would convince me it exists. It could, for instance, write in a fiery finger across the sky in all languages at once that it exists and what it’s nature is and what it wants or demands of us. That should be very easy for a god that could create this incredible universe, and I dare say it would convince most other non-believers and would get most of us on the same page, religion-wise. No doubt there are all sorts of other very convincing displays of ability only a god or god-like being could do, but it would need to be very convincing. I don’t want to mistakenly worship an advanced being from another planet. But no gods seem to want to reveal themselves, and none is needed to explain the universe, so I see no point to believe in one. And certainly not in any as screwed up as those a lot of people in the major religions worship.
Or it could just solve the world’s problems. That of course would be harder but more useful. And I don’t mean by slamming an asteroid into us.

the god you pretend to understand is less than the god i experience, but never understand….carlos

Science does have a great potential to be compatible with Creation if the ego and big business is eliminated.

cknuck
“Science does have a great potential to be compatible with Creation if the ego and big business is eliminated”
OK, you’ll have to explain this one in simple terms for a Jester to comprehend.

Mystery poster of 1/10/08 at 1:57 AM:
First, it is pagansister, not pagan master.
“Evolution makes more sense to you because you WANT it to so you don’t have to believe in sin, moral absolutes, and accountablilty.”
As a matter of fact, I am moral,(yes people are, even without the belief in your higher being) and I am accountable, but not to your god. To my family, friends, the world I live in.
“Man did not evolve from animals…etc. Shouldn’t be taught in science class. That’s nonsense”. Where did you get your science education? (I know! The Bible). WE are animals and share much of the same biology (as said above by nnmns) as many animals.
Fortunately your version of science ISN’T taught in school…as the U.S. is already too far behind the rest of the world in science.
As to the Bible being the “inerrant, divinely- inspired word of the living God”….that’s because you WANT to believe it is and to me, that is nonsense.
nnmns: GOOD POST!

Simply put jest most science is driven by and for big business, its for the rich. most developments in science is in the long run harmful to the earth and people, do some research. so if people would take out the greed, element in scientific development then the benefit would be greater.

“Simply put jest most science is driven by and for big business, its for the rich. most developments in science is in the long run harmful to the earth and people…”
There’s something to that, cknuck. But we long ago grabbed the tail of the tiger and if we tried to let go now, tried to get along without science, our civilizations would crash.
And anyway you can say the same about not just science but banking, about industry, about journalism and about politics. So please don’t blame science for what’s apparently inherent in our society and quite likely in us.

nnmns:
“Man did not evolve from animals. We are animals.”
Exactly – I am reminded of this whenever I think about our more unpleasant bodily functions. There’s nothing god-like about the digestive & excretory systems…yuck.

“We have met the enemy and he is us” – Pogo
cknuck, et al,
Sure the system is corrupt. But I want to hear you curse science next time you take medication for anything from a headache to a sniffle – or worse. O’ and you probably won’t want to drive a car or ride a bike. And you might have to take of your shoes. Your clothes might be OK, and so should some of your food. But don’t use a refrigerator or a cooler.
You see we have all in some way bought into the advancements that science and technology allow. Some groups do try to avoid it – like the Amish (they their own rules get fairly convoluted). In its purest form, science accomplishes a great deal. Like most artists and athletes, very few scientists get rich from their work. Most are in it for the love of the work. The few that do profit are usually not scientists but entrepreneurs who take advantage of patents or fund specific projects.
If you want to survive a current you have two choices. One (and usually the best) is so sit back and ride it out. The problem is you have no control over where you land. The second (and much harder) is to try and go faster than the current and so steer your way out and land in a place of your choosing. In some ways I see religion as an attempt to steer through the currents of development. It neither denies the current nor fights it. It uses the developments and helps humanity determine the way science is applied. But you cannot stop the flow.

There is nothing to reconcile.
If evolution is right (which it is – open your eyes!), then religion can not be and just has to be ignored.
If evolution were wrong, there are way too many religious views competeing, which suggests none of them is right, as the Truth can be only one.

The words “controversial” and “debate” have been used to describe the injection of religion into science curriculum for years now. But the problem with these words is that they’re being applied to something that is neither “controversial’ (evolution) nor a “debate”.
A debate is when two sides argue a point of view on a given subject. When it comes to teaching Intelligent Design/Creationism in school neither side is debating much of anything. ID supporters are deliberately making themselves, and anyone else they can get to listen to them, stupid. While science couldn’t care less. The “controversy” was over before the “debate” ever started. But I guess it is nice to see some scientists playing along.

Thanks for the wisdom jest but I do fine.
Many discoveries aren’t from former scientist many of the discovery but Afro-Americans that we use were invented way before Afro-Americans were even recognized as people before we were allowed in colleges. Many medications were in use and discovered by people who were considered savages. so while I don’t completely curse science and scientists yet I remain completely aware of whom it serves and the effects of some advancements; like the fact I have a filter for my drinking water as well as the fact I now have to filter my drinking water.

I’ve always been curious how fossils (material evidence) are “explained” by creationists… If they think the carbon dating process “must be wrong”, that would mean dinosaurs roamed alongside the early Bible patriarchs, right? I ask, why aren’t these creatures; dinosaurs etc., mentioned in the Bible? It seems to be a rather large ‘oversight’. Surely, God was as proud of these creatures, as of all the rest… why would He have edited them completely out of the “divinely inspired Word of the Living God” purportedly found in the Bible, or the Qu’ran, or the Torah? It was written by people, and people are fallible… have you ever played “telephone”? The word gets changed as you go down the line. The “divinely inspired Word” could easily have been distorted over the multiple re-writes, mis-interpreted by “well-meaning” cultural bias & understanding of the times.
I’ve always figured that The One/First Cause/God couldn’t be as limited in scope and possibilities as fundamentalists would have us believe. I figure God would be “big enough” to “create” an evolving planet. The Ultimate Truth may always be beyond our human grasp but we can stretch as far we’re able towards it.
But either way, when we die, All will be revealed. In the meantime, let’s do our “best” — whatever that might be — on a one by one basis. I’ll do my best, you do your best and let’s “play nice together”… all of us here on our little blue speck in [God's] Universe. There is more to Heaven and Earth than we can dream of.