I agree with you. My only point was that religion can certainly allow for
whatever science discovers -- truth is truth. Therefore science is not exclusive
of religion or vice versa. My personal theology does not allow for a God that
simply snaps his fingers, so it is natural to want to discover how things are done. That is done mainly through scientific inquiry, not interpretation of religous text, which is obviously metaphorical, not literal. Religious
interpretation and metaphor should indeed be taught in a comparative religions class.

I am unaware of any significant technological or medical advance that came
through biblical interpretation alone. I just don't think that scientific advances preclude deity -- they simply preclude false dogmas.

Brent Ripley
brentr at hawlaw.com

----------
From: steve rothboeck
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 10:04 PM
To: brentr at hawlaw.com; tweeters at u.washington.edu
Subject: RE: Kansas action

Brent, I want to add one comment on your "e" mail: evolution ought to be
taught within the science curriculum of public schools, and creationism, if
taught within the school system at all, ought to be a topic discussed within
a comparative religions course.

I am not bothered by those who believe in creationism. But I do object to
those who suggest that creationism is a scientific principle. (And as an
aside, the term "scientific creationism" is an oxymoron). R/Steve


>From: Brent Ripley <brentr at hawlaw.com>
>Reply-To: brentr at hawlaw.com
>To: "'tweeters at u.washington.edu'" <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
>Subject: RE: Kansas action
>Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:54:57 -0700
>
>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
>
>


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com