[Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Thread Index] [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Date Index]

Re: paleonet science-faith relationship



Nicely put Dee Ann.  Let's not forget of course "And the Lord God formed man
of the slime of the earth" Gen 2:7 Douay.  It's kind of funny that people
would complain about coming from "monkeys" but have no problem coming from
slime.  Or maybe they just skip that passage.  Actually the same passage
continues "and breathed into his face the breath of life and man became a
living soul."  This clearly makes the distinction between body and soul and
their separate sources.  It therefore supports the notion that they are
interrelated but also mutually exclusive.  There are plenty of other
biblical passages that also support this notion.

-Michael Kishel

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dee Ann Cooper" <deeanncooper@yahoo.com>
To: <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: paleonet science-faith relationship


> science and religion are not mutually exclusive ...
> they are compatible.  the Biblical account says that
> God said "Let the earth bring forth ... "  and "Let
> the waters bring forth ...".  This, my friends, is
> evolution .... highly simplified.  God doesn't make
> life in the account ... just commands it to begin.
> There are many other examples in the
> Christian/Judeo/Islamic holy books and in other
> religions.  Read St. Augustine's early essays.
> Science is an attempt to explain how all of this works
> and religion is an attempt to explain why.
>
> --- Judith Harris <harrisj@valornet.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree with you. What I meant is that they are two
> > different
> > endeavors. On the part of science, to understand the
> > material world.
> > On the part of religion, to do right and good, to
> > use our hearts and
> > to be kind. They are, of course, connected within a
> > single person but
> > they are different endeavors.
> >
> > Judith
> >
> > On Dec 15, 2005, at 12:22 PM, Dr. David Campbell
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> "Science cannot be involved in religion and
> > religion cannot be
> > >> involved in science."
> > >
> > > Part of the problem is defining the type of
> > involvement.  Religions
> > > typically include a number of moral directives
> > that are good for
> > > science, e.g. don't lie, don't steal, etc.
> > Religions also tend to
> > > encourage doing good work.  One doesn't have to
> > have a religion to do
> > > good, honest work, but religion can provide a
> > strong impetus for it.
> > > At a more abstract level, religion can provide a
> > suitable (or
> > > unsuitable) framework for doing science.  For
> > example, the combination
> > > of belief in the orderly and physical nature of
> > the world and of
> > > belief in the value of doing work (found, among
> > others, in Judaeo-
> > > Christian-Islamic views) is conducive to doing
> > science, whereas
> > > believing that natural phenomena are produced by
> > the whims of numerous
> > > unpredictable and competing deities is not.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, science can provide some input
> > regarding certain
> > > religious claims.  Archaeology and related fields
> > are often relevant.
> > > Religious claims that are more in the superstition
> > line (e.g.,
> > > astrology) are often amenable to scientific
> > testing and disproof.
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > Dr. David Campbell
> > > 425 Scientific Collections Building
> > > Department of Biological Sciences
> > > Biodiversity and Systematics
> > > University of Alabama, Box 870345
> > > Tuscaloosa AL 35487-0345  USA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > judith harris
> > emerita professor
> > university of colorado museum
> > boulder, co
> > harrisj@valornet.com
> > 505-756-1813
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Dee Ann Cooper, BS, MS, PG
> Phone: (409) 751-6907
> Address: 17890 Nonie Lane, Lumberton, TX  77657
>