Quantcast
Opinion

Michael Gerson: Why the theological resistance to science that's intuitively consistent with Christian theology?

Comments

Return To Article
  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 25, 2014 3:05 p.m.

    Blue -

    “Your doubts are unsupported by any real evidence.” Which the doubts? Oh, you mean my doubt that the scientists have determined the universe to be 13.8 billion years old.

    These scientists are obviously using a narrow definition of the word “universe.” I’m not. If any word is deserving of an all-encompassing broad definition, it is “Universe,” the sum of all that is.

    No real evidence exists to support the idea that only nothingness existed before the big bang. Whatever existed before the big bang was still part of the universe, by its broadest definition.

    The big bang may well have happened 13.8 billion years ago, but was that really the beginning of everything? I doubt it.

  • stuff Provo, UT
    April 25, 2014 11:37 a.m.

    I love true science. However, I despise and mock theories that are portrayed as fact and as being universally applicable.

    The universe is a very large expanse. Time and events are much greater than the small dots and glints we see. Factually, science can only see and decipher a very small portion of what goes on out there. Yet, the scientific world constantly portrays their findings as universally applicable to everything out there and the laws we currently understand are the sum total of all available laws and processes in the universe and that it's been this way for literally billions of years. They make up conclusions based on a couple of pixels of a very large, 3D image that we know as the universe. Then, they claim their conclusions are universally true facts and we're all stupid if we don't "believe" or go along with their self-aggrandizing blather.

    That's my problem with so many theories that are touted as established science. My little brain can see thru assumptions of so much of today's "science".

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 25, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    "There now appears to be corroborating scientific data that this specific universe came into existence 13.798 billion years ago within a tolerance accuracy of 0.037 billion years." And such is the limitation of science as it reverts to a psuedo - religion as it tries to establish a beginning.

    Science tries to set a single line of existence with a beginning and an end. "Some have suggested that this universe might be just one among many or even an infinite number of universes that likewise exist." Tell me where is the edge of this universe, and I will show you one step further. Multiple universes? How, because they would exist in the universe. Physics tell us you can not create something from nothing, you can't take something and make it nothing. Science searches for the basic foundation of all existence, they call it the god particle. Every time they think they have found it it becomes a combination of smaller particles.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 25, 2014 9:45 a.m.

    @the truth – “Galileo views was opposed by men and their philosophies and beliefs and their agendas, not by God, the doctrines and revelations in the bible.”

    Unfortunately you missed my point as evidence by this comment above.

    Religion claims to provide knowledge about the natural world and has been doing since the first shaman told his tribe a story (no doubt meant to convey they should listen to him) about the starry skies at night.

    By now this catalogue of religious wisdom comes to us through books, prophets, priests, revelations, and believers “feelings” yet never provides any criteria for knowing when these sources might be wrong – we are simply admonished ad nauseum to have faith and obey these men/books of God.

    You admit the Church was wrong on Galileo yet you’re only able to do this through hindsight and an acknowledgment of science – there is nothing in your beliefs enabling you to make this judgment 500 years ago.

    So again, given the abysmal track record I think we are entirely justified in rejecting the entire project (religion as a vehicle to knowledge about the natural world).

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    April 25, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    I don't think the Earth began 13.8 billion years ago. I think it began 13.75 billion years ago. As Hillary would say, "What Difference Does It Make!" It's here and we live on it. As for what happened before the big bang and where all the matter came from to create the universe, (which had to be there before the big bang) good luck trying to figure that one out science. That's where you will need a lot of faith.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    April 25, 2014 7:26 a.m.

    If "You" believe, it's real.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 25, 2014 6:52 a.m.

    I see no conflict between religion and science. In fact, both are needed to have a complete understanding. Religion teaches the "who" and the "why" and science teaches the "how". In this mortal stage of our development, it is our job to learn as much as we can so when we pass to the other side of the veil we have the basis on which to build as we continue to progress.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 24, 2014 11:47 p.m.

    @ Mike Richards "They [scientists] want our thoughts to orbit their thoughts. They think that because they can "think" that their thoughts are more profound than the thoughts of their Creator, our Father in Heaven." I find your thinking incoherent.

    As you well know science is a method. There is a problem with including God in a scientific model, because we don't know if God in fact exists (you may know, but I don't).

    It's interesting how the presumption of God's existence can mess up scientific research. Did you know that the original opposition to evolution came from the notion that God would never let one of his created creatures go extinct? Of course, we know that such is commonplace. God appears nowhere to be found.

    Opposition to global warming comes from the notion that God is in charge and He wouldn't allow the earth to become uninhabitable (sounds like Rush). But thermodynamics says the world is decaying as a fit place for us all by itself (we accelerate it by burning fossil fuels). God just doesn't function is scientific models.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 24, 2014 10:13 p.m.

    "Science gives us something to talk about, but, without God, science offers nothing".

    That may be a personal belief or creed of yours but it is entirely wrong. Science all by itself offers us much. Not everything, nor does it claim to.

    Science can tell us much about where we came from and why. Science can tell us much about our present condition as humans and citizens of a living world, and it does it all without a reference to or reliance on God.

    Contrary to your claims life itself offers us joy, hope, love, along with sadness, trials, and sorrows. Where do I think those experiences come from you ask..life and the human condition.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 24, 2014 6:55 p.m.

    "the truth,"

    You're welcome to personally disbelieve scientific evidence all you want. You're 100% wrong, but you do have the right to be wrong.

    BTW, the physics that make the 21st Century work are eloquent evidence of how "right" science is in understanding the antiquity of the universe. If the evidence for the Big Bang is wrong then nuclear power plants and your car's GPS wouldn't work.

    Go to church and rail against genetics, biology, physiology, astronomy, geology, and the laws of physics all you want.

    But the moment you try to insert those irrational, backward and corrosive beliefs into our public policy, especially into our schools, you're going to have a huge problem, because the only way a free society can work is if there is a common expectation of honesty and an honest respect for provable facts.

    Faith is not the same thing as truth.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    April 24, 2014 6:33 p.m.

    @Tyler

    Your questions are irrelevant, and even miss the mark badly.

    Religious truth and scientific are not separable,
    truth can not be separated from itself.

    Each is just a perspective of the truth.

    They are not enemies, they do not oppose each other. Nor can they truth can not oppose itself.

    It is only men that oppose God, and men's philosophies and ideologies that oppose God's.

    Galileo views was opposed by men and their philosophies and beliefs and their agendas, not by God, the doctrines and revelations in the bible.

    But in answer to your question,

    Science is approaching what was revealed by God to Abraham, in the book Abraham.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    April 24, 2014 6:32 p.m.

    The Bible does NOT say the earth is 6000 years, that is philosophy of men mingled with scripture.

    What the bible says is 6000 is approximately the age of the current state of earth, or more correctly that how long since adam and eve were kicked out of the garden of eden.

    We have no real revealed knowledge of the earth before that, only of the garden eden and we have no idea how long that place existed.

    Ultimately the age of the earth is irrelevant and has no real important meaning and no bearing on our salvation.

    -
    -
    @Blue

    We have no common ancestors with apes or monkey.

    We have no relationship with them other than a common creator.
    We have genetic similarity because are have similar genetic features, and there is nothing more to it than that.

    We did not evolve, nor did any modern animal. There is no real scientific proof of evolution just a belief and a made up fantastic story.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 24, 2014 5:30 p.m.

    re: LDS Liberal, Openminded,

    You've made some interesting points on all five of your posts. You've told us some of the principles that you believe. You've cited some conference talks. What you've failed to do is to count. You've made five posts to write about Godly things. We're allowed four posts. Saul was severely chastised for breaking the rules. David was severely condemned for breaking the rules. Joseph Smith lost his ability to translate for a season for breaking the rules. Most of us know enough about science and math to be able to count to four. How about you?

    When the laws of science are known perfectly, as our Creator knows them, there will be no difference between science and religion. After all, "The glory of God is intelligence". And, one of my favorites: "And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;"

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    April 24, 2014 5:19 p.m.

    People should leave room to bend! You know, there are lots of little and once in a while, something big, that comes around and it doesn't exactly match a person's beliefs. If we can bend a little, it helps. We don't need to know everything.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 24, 2014 4:47 p.m.

    I am simply amazed at science and its limitations on knowledge. Science tells the bible literalists their 6,000 year creation is wrong. LDS liberal relates it to the creature in a tidal pool who cannot see the ocean. But the human mind in its quest to discover its end has given us another arbitrary number of about 14 billion years. Their understanding of the universe is still the simplistic creature in the tidal pool.

    My understanding of the use of the word universe includes all components, the whole. The universe did not start at 14 billion years. It has always eternally existed. The big bang was maybe a single simple event in the universe. The universe cannot expand beyond what already exists because it already exists.

    It is a bit bigger than getting out of the tidal pool and seeing the ocean. The ocean like sciences definition of the universe is still limited. Science needs to step up and accept the universe is not expanding, it already is and always has been and always will be.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 24, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Does the sermons -- "You are my Hands",
    or
    Even as you have done it unto these, the least of my brethern...
    - have any meanings to you?

    I say again --
    God is not a puppeteer in the Sky.

    We are his chldren, NOT his pets.

    You clean up after your dog,
    You teach and expect your children to cleanup and take care of themselves and each other.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 24, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    This is an interesting thread. Some people believe in Science. Some people believe in God. Some people believe in both. Some think that we can turn this earth into a celestial world using our abilities and knowledge. I contend that we cannot because the keys to turn this world into a terrestrial or celestial earth have not been given to mankind. I contend that we are to feed and clothe and house all of God's children, as best we can; that we are to use our resources to do that; that we are to work together as children of God to accomplish that; but, I recognize that doing that will require the Master's hand, which means that it will not happen without His direct intervention. Science will not accomplish that task. Democrats will not accomplish that task. Republicans will not accomplish that task. That task will be accomplished when Zion is established - and Zion will be established when all mankind is united.

    Science gives us something to talk about, but, without God, science offers nothing.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    April 24, 2014 2:35 p.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    LDS Liberal,
    I think we will use science.

    Science so advanced... it would appear to be magic to children like us.

    ***************

    Agreed -
    but here's were we differ ---

    If we understand was causes Global Warming, and Global cooling...
    The tides,
    The weather,
    chemistry, acids, and bases,
    geo and solar heating,
    volcanic, magnetic and gravitationsl forces..

    God has told us the Earth will "become" something beter.
    Take the parable the Talents.

    He gave us this beautiful Earth.
    He expects us to MAKE something MORE of what he has given us.

    Not polluted,
    scarred from industry and mining,
    uninhabitable,
    ugly and someplace to avoid.

    God gave us this beautiful Earth,
    Man - via the Fall - corrpupted it,
    By using our intellect, and his revealed wisdom,
    WE can redeem the Earth, make it a Parasdise, and transfor it inot a Terrestial and later Celestial Glory for ourselves.

    Some think "enough and to spare" means being free to exploit and waste,
    and God will send a heavenly cleaning crew to clean up after his messy children,
    and then reward them for it.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 24, 2014 1:50 p.m.

    @2 bits – “Pretending man can prevent God or change his plans for his earth... is the height or hubris.”

    I’m sorry but this is just too much…

    The height of hubris is anyone thinking they know the slightest inkling of the mind of God. And why? Because when you read something second hand you get a “spiritual feeling?”

    Prophets, priest and believers have been making this claim since time immemorial so perhaps a review of the facts are in order.

    1.Name a fact about the natural world for which we once had a religious explanation that has now been superseded by a scientific explanation?

    2.Name a fact about the natural world for which we once had a scientific explanation but has now been replaced by a better religious explanation?

    Given the obvious answers of “countless” and “none” respectively, can we please join the 21st century and finally place the label of “hubris” where it is justified?

    I mean just how bad does a track record have to be before we question its validity!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 24, 2014 1:34 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,
    I think we will use science.

    Science so advanced... it would appear to be magic to children like us.

    ===

    Re: "Polluting, emitting un-natural substances and skewing the fragile balancee in the enviroment will lead to our own GLORY or Destruction"...

    Our salvation or destruction is not based on environmentalism. It's based on the Savior and our belief in him (not our acceptance of GW rhetoric).

    ===

    Re "This is OUR Celestial Kingdom"...

    The father doesn't intend for this planet to remain the way it is now... forever.

    It will change very drastically. I don't know if man will cause that, or if natural forces alone will cause it, but it's part of the plan. Pretending man can prevent God or change his plans for his earth... is the height or hubris.

    Note: I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of the earth. Obviously we have been commanded to till it... and take care of it. But the earth (as we know it) is temporary. And that's not something we must stop, or force God to change.

    IMO... do best we can... but accept God's will.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    April 24, 2014 1:10 p.m.

    I have no problem with people who view science as the "practice of revealing God's laws", but the minute you try to refute the observations of science solely on the basis of religion, IMHO, you are skating on thin ice.

  • rad3 SLC, UT
    April 24, 2014 1:00 p.m.

    Scientific discoveries never caused me to doubt the religion of my youth - history books did.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 24, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    GaryO: "I doubt that most scientists would bet on that time frame being accurate to within a billion years. That conclusion results from measuring a specific phenomenon. But who knows what other undiscovered phenomena might exist that could eventually measure the age of the universe more accurately."

    Your doubts are unsupported by any real evidence. What the many independently validated lines of objective evidence _do_ show is that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, +/- ~50 million years.

    As a kid I remember reading that the age of the universe as 10-20 billion years. In college it was estimated at 12-18 billion years. Later, the estimate was put right around 15 billion. The error bars are shrinking, not getting bigger.

    But suppose that somehow you're right and the current estimate is off by 3 billion years, meaning the universe was 10 or 17 billion years old. How does that in any way change the fact that a belief in a 6,000 year old universe is the equivalent of claiming that the driving distance between SLC and Miami is 6 feet?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 24, 2014 12:11 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal,
    We have more common ground than you think.

    But my beliefs are not based on hopes that anybody else agrees, or that anybody who judges me or my beliefs thinks I'm correct enough, or "worthy" enough (as you put it).

    My opinion is MY opinion. Whether you agree or think it's worthy or not. I put it out there for what it's worth (which is ZERO to some people). But I don't care if they agree, or think I'm worthy.

    ====

    I noticed you were able to spin back into the usual "I'm right, your wrong" rhetoric towards the end. But this isn't about politics, or your environmental judge-mentalism soap-box...

    IMO We aren't here to judge each other, or to validate each other. Just to share.

    ===

    GaryO,
    I don't know the age of the components of this globe. I know it doesn't matter for my eternal salvation... or it would be revealed.

    The 6000 year thing is a red-herring. God doesn't see time the way we do. Who said 6000 years? And in who's reckoning of "time"? Gods? That's "tradition", not "Doctrine" IMO.

  • Sensible Scientist Rexburg, ID
    April 24, 2014 12:07 p.m.

    There is a simple dividing line that has been well known for hundreds of years: Science is concerned with the tangible, the testable (by experiment), the observable, while Religion is concerned with the supernatural (not tangible or physically testable).

    There cannot be conflict when this dividing line is adhered to.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 24, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    " . . . a recent poll found that a majority of Americans is "not too" or "not at all" confident that "the universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang."


    I doubt that most scientists would bet on that time frame being accurate to within a billion years. That conclusion results from measuring a specific phenomenon. But who knows what other undiscovered phenomena might exist that could eventually measure the age of the universe more accurately.

    Scientists don't pretend to know exactly when the universe began. The 13.8 billion year number is a best estimate based on available technology. Forty years ago, available measuring technology suggested the age of the universe to be closer to 5 billion years.

    And then of course, there's the whole matter of what makes up the universe and the time-space continuum. Can we even conceive of time and space or anything or nothing before the Universe with its time and space ever existed?

    Yes, I'm not surprised that reasonable people would doubt such a specific claim regarding the origin of everything. In fact, it seems overly-presumptuous of mere mortal humans to even make such a claim.

    I doubt it too.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 24, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    Those who reject theology and accept science only are more like those who lived in the "dark ages" than they might want to think. Back then, the common view was that the sun orbited the earth. Now, those who reject God want to take His place. They want our thoughts to orbit their thoughts. They think that because they can "think" that their thoughts are more profound than the thoughts of their Creator, our Father in Heaven.

    It's time to get over ourselves. Just because we have begun to gain a rudimentary understanding of a small part of science, does not mean that we have become experts.

    Our Creator is omniscient. He knows EVERYTHING. He is not limited to know only what we know. You would think that "scientists" would respect pure knowledge, but they want everything to revolve around their way of thinking. The word for that is "luddite".

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 24, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    So -- we have discovered common ground.
    Agreed.

    Now - let me show you were I come from on some of our other arguements.

    1. Do you believe we will use magic or Science to create our own worlds?
    a. I think we will use Science -- needing to learn about climates, heat, old, pressures, fluid dynamics, atmospheric layers, humidity, dew points, etc.

    2. Just like fmailies and getting along with others,
    Eco-systems and balance in nature is our #2 list of things to learn, know, and do here.

    3. Polluting, emitting un-natural substances and skewing the fragile balancee in the enviroment will lead to our own GLORY or Destruction.

    4. This is OUR Celestial Kingdom, we either make it our break it ourselves --no magic pixie-dust to clean it up.

    5. Understanding God's laws is more than just 10 commandments.

    This Earth is a Temple -- aka, root word, Template.
    Patterned after others where we used to live.

    We will [terra-form] others in the Future.
    but,
    no until AFTER we learn how to tend, take care, and are found worthy of the one we already have.

    We've been commanded.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 24, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    IF God is who I believe he is... he understands science to the point that he can control natural forces and the universe in ways we can't comprehend in our current mortal state.

    Even smart people like Stephen Hawking are infantile compared to his understanding of science. No mortal (in our short lives) even if we dedicate our whole short life to learning everything the science we understand to this point and beyond... could even approach his level of understanding of sciences we haven't even discovered yet.

    ===

    How long has God been studying and using science and natural forces... Eternity???

    So I would assume he knows more than we do. Even the smartest of us are still "children", to him. And our understanding of science is like that of a child, when compared to his.

    ===

    I believe that after this life, not only do we have an eternity to learn more about science... but our minds will also be "quickened"... meaning we can understand things that our mortal brains are not equipped to understand in our current state...

    May be silly... but that's what I believe...

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 24, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    @Steve C. Warren
    WESTVALLEYCITY

    Agreed.

    I might add --
    The word "Abracadabra" is aramaic for "by my words, I create"
    it is derived from Hebrew - 'ebra kidebra' which translates: "it came to pass as it was spoken."
    and Hebrew for;
    Ab(Father), Ben(Son) and Ruach A Cadsch(HolySpirit).

    In scriptures -- we learn All things were created by God's "word".
    John 1:1
    In the beginning was the Word...and the Word was God.
    And God SAID _____,

    Words are sounds,
    Sounds are vibrations.
    Vibrations are energy,
    and Modern String theory derives that ALL matter is vibrating energy.
    so
    E=mc^2

    If you want to get even deeper, think about this --

    Singularity is also 100% compatiable with our Religous belief of "Becoming ONE with God".

    200 word limit,
    Some religous folks will not listen or believe anything I have to say anyway,
    they take things literally,
    so there is no evolution, no space time continuum, no blackholes, no whiteholes, the earth is flat, the center of the univers, only 6,000 years old, and the flood covered the earth 35,000 feet deeper than it is now.

    I don't use Scriptures for science books.
    I don't use Science for Salvation.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    April 24, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    Re: the idea of a universe that began in a flash that flung stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies across the vast canvas of space is, to put it mildly, compatible with Jewish and Christian belief: "Let there be light."

    Michael Gerson makes a good point. In fact, the concept of an instant creation shows up often in the scriptures. A few examples: 1. "I am the same which spake, and the world was made" (D&C 38:3) 2. "Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. . . . for he commanded, and they were created." (Psalms 148:3,5) 3. "Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was . . . " Jacob 4: 9)

    On the other hand, the accounts of the Creation in Genesis, Moses, Abraham and in LDS temple films contradict one another on key points and simply aren't very credible.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 24, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    Strong personal emotions, even when popular and shared within your community, are not evidence of truth.

    If the concept of honesty and humility matter at all to you, then you have to look at the evidence the universe puts in front of you and let the objective evidence speak for itself, even when (in fact, _especially_ when) that evidence contradicts your personal beliefs.

    These are objectively established facts for which there is no more controversy than the direction a rock falls when released from a height:

    The universe is ~14 billion years old.
    The Earth is ~4.5 billion years old.
    Humans and chimpanzees have >98% the same DNA because both species share a distant (millions of years ago) common genetic ancestor.

    That's all established reality.

    If you want to imagine that the universe began as a thought in the mind of a supernatural creator, fine, go ahead. But if you want to imagine an inscrutable, capricious, supernatural being who controls the weather, decides which sick child lives and which sick child dies, who wins the lottery and who loses everything in an earthquake, then you're embracing an endless, dishonest, and above all, a losing battle with reality.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 24, 2014 8:28 a.m.

    RE: "In order to accept the scientific method, they must abandon the beliefs of their community"....

    I don't agree with their assumption that you must abandon your religious beliefs to accept the scientific explanation for the creation of our universe.

    I've always thought however our universe was created... it was by natural means. Meaning scientifically explainable means. More advanced science than we can understand... but "Science" none the less.

    When God said "Let there be light"... I never assumed he just flipped a light switch on.

    I assume that he used science, physics, chemistry, nuclear physics, etc, and in a very advanced knowledge of science to it's very core... he coordinated the big bang to result in our universe (and countless other universes out there).

    To him... our understanding of Science... is like an infants.

    Expecting us to understand how he did it (scientifically) would be like expecting a baby who can't even talk yet to understand how an airplane was built, or how nuclear fission works.

    But science in no way forces me to abandon my faith.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 24, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    @ There you go again. I watch Fox News and cannot think of one example of them "selling theological resistance to science". Can you please provide one example?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    April 24, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    Science and progress of mankind go hand in hand, with religion usually playing catchup, facing dwindling numbers of adherents.

    Galileo backed the idea that the sun revolves around the sun, not vice versa, and was imprisoned for life, with the Catholic church apologizing 500 years later.

    In the information age, things have accelerated. Those who think the Earth is 6000 years old might as well believe in a flat Earth, too, and avoid getting on airplanes. They are proof that dinosaurs live among us.

    The current debate includes same sex attraction, with religions playing catchup and being left behind again, trying to keep things together as younger generations teeter on leaving the club because of something that appears obvious, were it not for religions trying to control everything.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 24, 2014 7:59 a.m.

    Nice try Michael but no cigar.

    You can't say on the one hand that science is the only way to understand the physical universe and then do a slight of hand and imply we humans are not part of that physical universe because we are not to be understood by science alone.

    That's simply picking an choosing what science you want to believe the very thing your article is arguing against.

    One of the major problems with choosing a view of humanity other than the scientific one is which one. There are conflicting religious views all claiming authority for their view. Culture and training make that choice for most of us. Science is the only view that is not tainted with prejudice.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    April 24, 2014 7:53 a.m.

    FOX News has done a wonderful job selling theological resistance to science that's intuitively consistent with Christian theology.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    April 24, 2014 7:32 a.m.

    Two problems exist; False science and false religions. True religion and true science are completely compatible. My religion teaches me that I don't have to believe anything that is not true. That's why I embrace it!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 24, 2014 7:07 a.m.

    Tiny creatures,
    Living in tiny little tidal pools,
    can not imagine the concept of an Ocean.

    So with their tiny brains,
    they deny it exists,
    explain things with magic,
    and to appease their insecurities,
    they tell others that THEY are wrong.

    I'm lucky --
    My religion teaches me otherwise,
    but some of it's members are stuck in the pool.

    Science tells me how,
    Religion tells me why.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    April 24, 2014 6:49 a.m.

    It is best for religions to incorporate science into their theology. It is very damaging for religions to "disprove" basic scientific principles using junk science or scriptural arguments. It only damages their credibility.

    I have friends and family who make the ridiculous claim that the earth is old 6000 years old. This can easily be debunked by looking at locations where tree ring dating can go back 10,000 years!

    I had religious biology teachers at the "U", and I don't see any BYU science professors arguing that creation "science" or "young earth" geology be taught at BYU.