Redstate

This will devolve into a circular argument post haste.

n/t

The "Faith v. Reason" argument is so tiresome, and pointless. For centuries, many scientists actually found that studying nature strengthened their faith, not weakened it. It was only when the scientific community began to reject any discussion of faith that the two became separated.

Jenn

It was good enough for Newton, Kepler, Copernicus and Galileo (even if Galileo had some trouble getting this across to the Pope of his day).

Any other opinion is silly.

It's time for another topic.

--
This too shall pass.

'Religion' isn't used to deny 'Science' and 'Science' isn't used to deny 'Religion'.

I have often felt personally that creation was the creation of man's soul not physical creation of man. It is good to see some actual evidence and historical perspective to support such thoughts. I often stun people when I say I have no problems with evolution. It explains much in this world and is actually very cool to study. In absolutely no way does it detract from my faith.
Harold to answer your above question, yes. As I have stated before, look what has happened to our educational system and our country's culture ever since the SCOTUS banned God out of public schools. It is no coincidence. If anyone thinks that God is happy that we are denying his most precious a chance to know him, you'd better think again.
One can say that it is the family's responsibility to do that. I would argue in many cases, especially the inner cities, what family?
If you want to help get God back into public schools go here www.ceai.org and join.

From perusing the linked article, it seems like the actual question that is being asked is this: "Are the Bible and Science Compatible?"

After all, Christianity affirms that the Creator of the universe came to earth as a human and that his death enables reconciliation between God and His creation.

As the creator of the universe, the Christian God is the creator of science. And surely the creator of science is "compatible" with the content of his creation. Thus there seems little grounds to claim an incompatibility between Christianity and science.

Whether one believes Christianity is true is another debate altogether, of course, but not one that belongs in this thread.

And Rightly So!

If you view science as an attempt to build observation-based predictive models of the physical world, there's no conflict to speak of. Besides being an exciting area of study, science is useful to engineers trying to build things.

If you view science as an philosophy capable of explaining everything, even things that no one has ever observed, then there is a conflict. A completely mechanistic universe has no room for God to do anything, and why worship an impotent deity when man's science has all the answers?

I'd argue the former is true science. The latter is a religion, in the same way that trust in money or princes is a religion. These believers may not address their benefactor as a god, but they still expect it to provide what they need. And just like trust in princes, there's no guarantee of success - quite the contrary.

As for the article, I think it good to show patience to people struggling with the issue. This isn't easy stuff to work through, and God will provide at the right time, in this world or the next. Nevertheless, no knowledgable, impartial observer reading Genesis would say it meshed with the account of the philospher-scientists. Nor would this observer say that the philsopher-scientist account is fully consistent with our observations. Tbe evolution model is used despite its great problems, simply because there is no fully satisfactory model available. And if the world was created in a way beyond physical law (supernaturally), that's exactly what you'd expect.