| ??? 09/06/07 17:53 Read: times Msg Score: +1 +1 Good Answer/Helpful |
#144091 - Interpretation Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Richard Erlacher said:
What really puzzles me is why these people have to adopt an adversarial position, trying to tell us that there's gross conflict between, say, the fossil record and the scriptures. Isn't it all subject to interpretation? Yes and no. In both the scriptures and the fossil record, there is exactly one truth. The various "interpretations" are (hopefully) honest efforts to ascertain that truth and while each person will strongly believe their interpretation is the truth, that doesn't mean it is. The zealots (both religious zealots and scientific zealots) will stubbornly claim that their position is right to the exclusion of all others--and perhaps they are right, but their failure to understand that they might also be wrong about their interpretation is what makes them a zealot and impossible to talk with. Macro-evolution is an interpretation of the fossil record, nothing more. Young earth creationists have a different interpretation of the exact same fossil record. I think both extremes defy Occam's razor and the truth is probably a combination of the two which means, unfortunately, religious zealots are going to have to get along with scientific zealots (and vice versa) to someday ascertain the truth. Religious explanations ignore science at their peril and scientific explanations ignore religion at their peril as well. Religion needs to understand that if they're right bout God, God gave us the ability to understand His creation through science. Science needs to understand that it shouldn't rule out possible explanations simply because they are unpopular among atheists. If God exists and scientists ignore that possibility, all their gyrations and investigations will never reach the truth because they aren't considering the very possibility that is the truth (hypothetically speaking). Regards, Craig Steiner |
