by rwwff » Thu 21 Sep 2006, 02:44:26
No. I just don't mix the two; most especially religion into science. I will, from time to time in the nature of story telling, allow scientific knowledge to "bleed through" into a religious story.
I do it that way for two reasons.
1st - practicality (why clutter)
2nd - scientific knowledge rarely (arguably, never) has any ethical implication one way or another, so dumping some into a religious story does not alter the "faith and morals" aspect that is critical. On the other hand, taking a religious axiom and dumping it into a scientific context, demeans the inerrant part of the axiom by emphasizing that which is subject to large errors.
The creation story is of course the prime example.. Which of the following would be protected by the statement "inerrant with regard to faith and morals.":
1.) it took 6 days
2.) God did it.
Yet often, people get so tangled up in that first part, that they completely lose sight of the fact that it doesn't matter whether if it took 1 minute, 1 year, or 1 billion years; what's important for the preservation of the faith and religious truth, is that God did it.
abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all