Quote:
|
No -- I have little faith in most science.
|
I never got this idea. We have a robot on Mars vaporizing rocks and doing mass spectroscopy. We have cures for hundreds of diseases based on the very idea of gene sequencing and evolution-- it's the reason we have flu shots. We have a space station orbiting the Earth. We have phones that talk to satellites. I guess it's easy to question smaller details of science but to say you have little faith in science is bewildering to me.
Just because Isaac Newton got some details wrong that Einstein corrected and Einstein is being proven wrong himself doesn't mean that gravity is up for debate.
If you want to believe in religion, then do that. It's just not going to be justified by science if it retains it's fundamentalist views. The Earth is not flat as they believed it was in Jesus' time. The earth isn't the center of the universe. Science isn't replacing God-- it's just discovering things about the world that paint God in a different light. If you are fighting science, I believe you are on the same side as the Catholic church that banned the teachings of Galileo. The church eventually realized that they couldn't pretend that Galileo was wrong anymore and moved on-- much like most of the religious leaders in the world-- just not in the US for some reason even though we are at the forefront of many scientific fields.
Either God changes to adapt to the new paradigm live a unified spiritual existence (as he did when we realized that the Earth was not the center of the universe nor the center of the solar system), or you can dismiss science and live in two different worlds-- where you live your everyday life as if you are rational (getting immunized, depending on gravity, etc) but worship on a completely non-rational plane. Belief in God was never supposed to be a rational endeavor, so I don't believe either one of those is necessarily superior, but I would just personally be concerned that my religious faith was always in conflict with how the world is.
And for the record, I think it's absolutely silly to believe that scientists are motivated by a desire to disprove the bible. Most of the greatest scientific discoveries that flew in the face of church dogma were discovered by accident-- and many by religious men. Scientists want to know the truth. Religious people think they know the truth so they don't want to listen when scientists find evidence that begins to tell a story contrary to fringe elements of their faith. The Bible never says how old the Earth is literally and evolution does not mean that God doesn't exist the same way that the Earth being a small spec in the universe never convinced a single person that Jesus' teachings were wrong or that there is no God. Why does it matter?
Does it even matter that Jesus speaks of evolution in a parable when he identifies dominant (black fur) and recessive (white fur) genetic traits in sheep and breeding to keep some traits from showing themselves in a population? Does it matter that after Jesus' parable all you have to do is let the sheep wander the country side for a million years and you have evolution as Darwin knew it?