Donald, now that's what I call thinking outside the box. Unfortunately, the scientific side of the equation will not stand for any form of a diety doing any "creating". This has been the problem we have run into many times in the past. They want everything to fit neatly into the boxes they have produced. Therein lies the problem. Man is trying to type and cast God. He must conform to our standards and rules or he cannot exist. Science and Religion have been at odds almost from the beginning. You point out one of the many problems with religion. It must be our way and no matter what the proofs are it cannot be right if it does not fit with the "Book". That is my "interpretation" of what the "book" means. Man has intellect but sometimes religion asks us to put our intellect aside in lieu of Faith. If we think for ourselves then we must be influenced by the dark side of God. We are all too often told what to think even if it makes no sense because we must have faith. We must believe.
These are the opposite ends of the spectrum. Now in Buddihist thought, it is the middle ground that is the best way. As I heard stated, if a string on an instrument is too loose it will not play. If it is too tight, it will break. Therefore, knowing that the best spot with enough tension to produce the greatest sound is in the middle is the beginning of the journey. It takes many years to truely find the middle path of all things in life. Neither excess or deficiency, hot or cold, rich or poor, strong or weak is the answer. Elimination of extremes. Albert Einstein said it best, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". The two are connected and must therefore argee with each other. They are the wings of a bird. Both wings must be free and strong to allow the bird to fly to new heights. I believe that God created us to carry forth an ever advancing civilazation. We cannot do that without looking at science to help. But science needs to have limitations and these come from religion. Science says we can do it while religion asks should we do it.
Donald, you have put together some very logical points. You have connected the two but how would we prove it to both science and religion agreement. Neither side wants to change or admit that they may be mistaken about what they thought was right. This is why in most cases you cannot argue or even discuse religion and evolution. The sides are too polarized. I do like your theory. Does anyone else have any ideas?
More information about text formats