Which side are you in?

[Jackie Holycross]

I would be in group three. I believe in the Bible as well as Science. I think they can and do go hand in hand, and that one proves the other because there have been so many proofs presented regarding the Bible by scientists over the years that exemplify the way this world is made, created, growing and evolving and prove out the Bible’s claims as well as its historical events over the many years.

I agree. I read a quote once that said basically when scientists finally reach the pinnacle of knowledge and truth, they will find that religion was already there.

There have been many things in the Bible that seemed even metaphorical that were eventually proved by science. For instance, stars resonate at different frequencies. So, if we could hear in space, we would find that "the morning stars sang together" Job 38.7

[Chiagbanwe Almond]

There may also be the group that explicitly and completely believe in all the accounts of the Bible. The word of God is true and binding. Part of those in this group may know much or little about the various scientific theories, but they would choose to believe or go along with the theories that are in agreement with the word of God. Heaven and Earth belong to the Lord, therefore he would be the architect of whatever scientific theory there may be. I belong to this group.

[Dimi1]

I think there's a fourth group: people who are on both sides and believe that there is just more to it than we can possibly know as humans.

I think I am in this group too. There is always a gap in scientific knowledge covered by God. I don't think that this gap will ever be filled; as such there must be a higher power that justifies the unexplained.

[Laila_Hashem]

I am in the third group. I think, with modern interpretations, the Bible and science could be complementary and not opposing each other. The 'time is relative' theory is an example of that.

[Nalini BAdhan]

I'm pretty sure that I belong to group three. I think God is there and humans have evolved and invented so much over the time.


"People will call other people with names there parents gave them, but they won't believe in God". - Lady bird

[Jacky999]

i would be in group 2, where else would you find all the answers that you are looking for. Science can't really provide answers to everything.......

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I would say for myself that I am in the third group. I think that science and religion, that is, the Bible, complement each other. I think that science alone and the human mind cannot fathom the source of the whole universe. Even well-known scholars and philosophers throughout history have interpreted the transcendental and the divine and the incomprehensible. Likewise, what is true is that biblical stories should not be taken literally, which is sometimes the case.

Well, for that we can agree. Biblical stories cannot be just taken literally. At the same time we cannot interpret them in various ways and try to either compare them with scientific theories, because interpretations can be either correct or wrong. So the best thing is to keep what you know regarding science and religion for yourself and let them be apart. We can use science and religion for their intended purposes without trying to see a common ground between them, not because of anything else, but as such an attempt is unnecessary

[Sushan Ekanayake]

Science is yet to convincly prove the "Bang Theory" to which began the world. Am strong 2 believing in God's creation.

Science will always have to attempt on convincing people on its various theories, because science is a subject that anyone can understand with their own knowledge and decide whether to accept it or not. Proving thing is the job of science, but making people believe in it is not a task of science or scientists.

In contrast, a religion or religious teachings are mostly based on faith rather than evidence. Anyone can choose what to believe and what not to, but I believe that it is not a wise decision to ignore a scientific theory over a religious belief just because science has not fully proven it yet

[Sushan Ekanayake]

My belief tilts more towards God than to science. I believe there's a biblical explanation to everything and that is the most valid explanation.

I agree partly. There are explanations for many things in many religions. But that does not necessarily mean that they are valid. People can explain and interpret things in various manners when no one challenges them. When a religious label is given for any argument, most people do not dare to challenge them. But that does not make them valid.

Anyone can choose what to believe. It can be either in science or God. But what you believe does not make what others believe false or less valuable.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

Group three it is for me. I believe In God and then I am a scientist. However, I do not let the things science has proven make it seem that God doesn't exist. You see, God actually let man have these scientific achievements. So I see no point why these sciences should be used hand in hand. One is over the other here and that one is God

I believe In God and then I am a scientist. However, I do not let the things science has proven make it seem that God doesn't extis

From what I understand from this statement, it seems that you belong to group two, but not group three. Group three is for those who know both but does not take any side. Defending God means that you have biased thoughts. I am not complaining or blaming you. But, to belong into the third group, you should have an open mind and to be ready to accept what is true and evidence based, without hanging onto a single belief.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

Science is yet to convincly prove the "Bang Theory" to which began the world. Am strong 2 believing in God's creation.

But there is more evidence to prove the Big Bang Theory than there is to prove the creation theory. Even if the Big Bang didn't happen and there are other reasons why the Universe began, it is impossible for civilization and life to have come this far in the space of time that the creation theory gives us! Just playing devils advocate!

It is always nice to find someone who is playing devil's advocate. It makes the discussion more interesting. More or less I think I play a similar role too.

I agree. There are more evidence which is for the Big bang theory. And there are evidence and arguments which are against it as well. But that is how it happens in science in contrast to religions where you believe in something even when there is a massive amount of evidence against your beliefs.

[Maddie Atkinson]

Science is yet to convincly prove the "Bang Theory" to which began the world. Am strong 2 believing in God's creation.

But there is more evidence to prove the Big Bang Theory than there is to prove the creation theory. Even if the Big Bang didn't happen and there are other reasons why the Universe began, it is impossible for civilization and life to have come this far in the space of time that the creation theory gives us! Just playing devils advocate!

It is always nice to find someone who is playing devil's advocate. It makes the discussion more interesting. More or less I think I play a similar role too.

I agree. There are more evidence which is for the Big bang theory. And there are evidence and arguments which are against it as well. But that is how it happens in science in contrast to religions where you believe in something even when there is a massive amount of evidence against your beliefs.

Being the devil's advocate is a burden as well as a blessing

There are definitely arguments against it and there are other theories as well as to how it began. I understand that some must have extremely strong beliefs to believe is something despite the masses of evidence against it, especially something that there is no evidence for in the first place. However, even not scientifically, but historically speaking, it is simply impossible for civilisation to have come this far in the time that the creation theory gives us.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I believe in Science and I believe in the Bible. BUT I don't take the Bible literally (it was first passed down orally, then in writing, add to that numerous translations; there's plenty of room for error) and I know some aspects of science aren't written in stone (as technology advances, so do scientific discoveries; that's why we now know the Earth isn't flat for example).

I read somewhere a man comparing the Eiffel tower with the Earth's creation: to create such a complex structure, you can't simply throw the pieces around hoping for them to come together in the exact correct way. You need an architect to design it and execute it. The same happens with the Earth's creation: just consider the amazing piece of machinery that is the human body. I can't simply believe there was no creative consciousness, no divine architect, behind it.

I cannot exactly remember, but that concept is quite ancient. Someone has developed such an argument telling that like a watch has a creator, the human eye too should have a creator. So when we develop that argument, we go towards the myth of creationism.

I cannot understand how one compare a machine with a complex thing like a living being and its life. We have not still understood all the activities of human brain, yet we know that many things can be explained when we get into molecular level. Most of the machines are created based on the human observations over natural things. That cannot be applied when it comes to life and animals.

On the other hand, if God is such a divine figure, He too should have been a creation of somebody. So who created God?

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I mostly fit into the third category. I believe in the Bible but I also know that there is a lot of symbolism in the Bible. My thought is, why couldn't the Big Bang be the "let there be light" pronouncement? We also know that organisms adapt and change in their environment. To me, this doesn't mean that the Bible isn't true; it just means that it doesn't tell us in exact words what happened. There is this thing called faith that comes into play. It takes a lot more faith in chaos to believe the Big Bang and all creation just happened than it does to have faith in a God who can make things happen in such a spectacular way. We don't know what really happened, no matter which category you are in.

Yes, we do not know what exactly happened. But I cannot understand your difficulty in accepting the scientific evidence which are for the theory of big bang, but you being able to believe that an almighty God created all the stuff, to which we have no evidence at all, rather than the holy book which says so. If the bible has many things written in the form of riddles, why cannot we think that the biblical authors has explained the big bang as God's "Let there be light" scenario? Why many want to first believe in the Creation and then see whether science agree with that?

[Francis Aderogbin]

I have a fairly good knowledge of science and the Bible, and I am not taking any sides. overtime, science has proved some biblical histories by finding some artifacts. But I am still finding it difficult to absorb the theory of evolution.