Since both true science and true religion have truth as their ultimate goals,
whatever that truth may disprove, it becomes clearer than clear that where the
two contradict each other, one or the other or both are wrong.

Truth is truth is truth whether it be scientific or religious.

The problem, of course, is in the proof. How do you prove "religious truth" to
a nonbeliever? How you you force "scientific proof" on one so devout in their
religion that they refuse to believe anything their pastor disagrees with? You
cannot do either.

Religion has to revolve around faith, but religious people (like myself) should
be more open minded and admit that religious data is as incomplete as much
of the scientific data our types complain of. My faith is much easier to sustain
when I accept it for what it is. It then allows me to embrace provable science,
and be tentativly (sp?) accepting with regard to probable theories. Some
might call this a cop-out, but I believe it is as intellectually honest as any other
world view.

I suspect that more often than not, personal and political agendas get in the
way of the search for truth. If we were all as honest as we claim to be we
would admit we are working on incomplete scientific data (which is generally
openly admitted) as well as incomplete revelation (which is rarely admitted,
and often violently opposed). That would lead us to be far more open minded
and searching than it appears we are now.

Brent Ripley
brentr at hawlaw.com