🚀 go-pugleaf

janettt@my-deja.com wrote in message <7rrk1v$tr6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>     I discovered a fascinating discussion of three books
>on the struggle between science and religion at
>http://www.techdirections.com/html/in_review.html
>
>The three books (along with the Amazon.com listings) are
>
>ROCKS OF AGES
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345430093/
>
>TOWER OF BABEL
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/026216180X/
>
>BIBLE ACCORDING TO EINSTEIN
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0965517691/
>
>Particularly favorable comments are made about the latter.
>
>--Jane


There is a hidden assumption in this whole subject line.  The assumption is
that there is an absolute "truth" that science can ultimately answer, if we
pursue science long enough.  This way of looking at the world is probably
flawed.  In effect, all of the currently accepted practices of this day and
time are based on theories that happen to be the best known way of
explaining sets of scientific data.  There are certainly many different ways
to explain the same data, and there are probably simpler explanations that
can be formulated to explain some of the data that we currently take for
granted.  To conclude that currently accepted scientific explanations are
necessarily in conflict with currently accepted religious explanations,
based on the fact that the language of the two explanations seems to be
"discontinuous", is an opinion that can't be validated by any known
scientific method.  In effect, the bible (if that is the document that you
wish to use for your religious core beliefs) is not a scientific document,
which strongly implies that one who compares science and religion is
comparing "apples and oranges".