| fighter said: the big bang isn't an "explosion of life" and has no comparison with the mecanisms in evolution - the way religion reasons is completely different from that of science and they in no way complete each other Science is defined by a set of principles : a transparent method, a will to know and to keep doubting. Science increasingly provides theoretical and operational knowledge and is proud of questioning and challenging itslef. Religion is a system of beliefs defined through a set of caracters, behaviors and books, "answers" are provided right away and if logic is admitted it is only to address contradictions and/or gaps in explanation. Religion rarely admits contradiction and the few times it has been allowed it has resulted in scissions, rewritings, and no fundamental questioning of it,s method or purpose. |
I think you misunderstood my post. What I linked was a wikipedia article on the Cambrian explosion, not the big bang. (I talked about the big bang seperately.) This, if true, puts a rather large hole in the theory of evolution. It may or may not be true.
I'm not debating that.
A religion that is without contradiction could very well be true. And a contradiction could be acceptable if the science behind it is shaky, as in the case of the theory of the formation of the moon.
I'm not saying that religion is science, or that its provable. I'm saying that I can't think of a way to prove what came before the big bang, and so intelligent design seems as valid as any other theory. I'm also saying that if a religion is not contradictory, its credibility is certainly higher than another religion that is full of contradictions. The reason I mentioned what I did is because many people think of those as contradictions between Christianity and science when they might not actually be.
