<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Art Deco wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid001201c74c5c$26c315d0$6401a8c0@opalpeakkiosk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div>
<div class="node">
<div class="content">
<p>(2) The Same Worlds Model. This model says that science and
religion are not in conflict. They are different ways of looking at the
universe but they both are valid. Since “truth” cannot contradict
“truth”, they cannot be in conflict. Any apparent conflict then is due
to our lack of understanding what the real “truth” of at least one of
those views is.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I pretty much agree with this model when it comes to most things
supernatural. Darwin's Beagle (not sure if that's you or not) doesn't
touch upon this one much except to say that theists tend to believe
it. For example, I see auras. Not all the time, but often. I assume
that there is some natural explanation for this, even as I learn how to
improve upon the ability. Science has come a long way, but I imagine
that there is still a much, much longer way to go.<br>
<br>
Even an active, omnipotent god doesn't break this model. Science can
only pertain to what is measurable. If a god can tweak the system,
then science is worthless for studying that god. For example, the
world might have been created a week ago, but created such that all the
evidence was in place, including our personal memories and all
measurable data, of a much longer timescale. It's basically a
variation of the "brain in a bottle" hypothesis. Science is not wrong
in this case, because it correctly describes this newly created
universe in terms of what can be measured. That is still Truth, even
if it can never uncover the fact that all it's answers are bogus.
Science can only test the self-consistency of the universe in this case.<br>
<br>
So the Book of Genesis could be correct, just not testable by science.
The God of the bible could have taken seven exact 24-hour days in the
exact order described to create a self-consistent universe that appears
to be much older than it is. I don't see any reason to believe this
over any other creation story in which the same can be said to be true,
nor do I see any reason to believe this for any other reason. But it
could be true and wouldn't invalidate the Same Worlds Model.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
</body>
</html>