Science and Religion - Compatabile?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TDC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
yochumjy:
I had been thinking of starting a new thread on a similar topic, but here it is… 😃

My pondering started from JPII theology of the body (translated from Popese by Christopher West, thank you very much) and a friend of mine who had been considering opening a Catholic University that was also technically oriented. So, I began to wonder about applying this teaching. So, to marry the two ideas together: Theology of the body teaches us that God reveals himself through our own bodies and our sexuality. On a corrallary (sp?) God has been setting us up for Jesus throughout the whole OT. So, since God really wants us to “GET” what he is about, wouldn’t it make sense that physics could be pointing us to greater knowledge of God/his spiritual truth. This is not very rigorous, but let’s look at a couple of physical laws:

Law of Gravity: Eistein’s theory was that smaller masses tend to be drawn to larger masses (simplistic, but I believe it gets the point across). So, to take the spiritual side of this, our smaller spiritual beings are drawn to a much larger spiritual being, GOD! Where we get into trouble, I theorize is when we find local minimum/maximums, such as our own gods (money, goods, Greek gods, etc) which we fool ourselves into believing are more than they really are, or worse satan, who is a spiritual force.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: This to me points to God’s justice. If we do something, we are always accountable for it. God’s grace might act like friction for us… but justice/heat is always there, the heat might just be a little pergatory. Actually, this law for me, (assuming there is any truth to my pondering) would actually point to the existance of pergatory.

I haven’t taken this to any other physical laws, just because of time, but I thought it was interesting, geek that I am. Oh, and since there is very rarely any new ideas out there, please point me to the person that did think of this before and probably thought it out more clearly. I guess to me, this would also point out that physics isn’t some random creation from God, it would be based on spiritual truth. Not that God couldn’t create something random, but that he is always trying to reveal himself to us.

Have fun throwing stones if I’m waaay out! 😉

John
Click to expand...
Yes, interesting observations, I may add a couple. I suppose your explanation of gravity isn’t incorrect, but I’m not sure if he would describe it the same way under general relativity, but it makes sense using that analogy.

Extending upon your thoughts on that everything we do is accounted for, sort of as a ‘conservation of energy’ in physics terms. We all start out at an initial state (an initial position or velocity), and are tempted. We commit sins (frictional losses/heat/inefficiences) and end up at a final state. Additionally, reactions progress in one direction (the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), always to a state of more disorder and we as humans are born without sin, and commit sins through our life (increasing the ‘disorder’). Hmm, maybe my analogy totally failed - I’m not sure if that makes sense or not, but I tried to think it through.
 
40.png
TDC:
Extending upon your thoughts on that everything we do is accounted for, sort of as a ‘conservation of energy’ in physics terms. We all start out at an initial state (an initial position or velocity), and are tempted. We commit sins (frictional losses/heat/inefficiences) and end up at a final state. Additionally, reactions progress in one direction (the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), always to a state of more disorder and we as humans are born without sin, and commit sins through our life (increasing the ‘disorder’). Hmm, maybe my analogy totally failed - I’m not sure if that makes sense or not, but I tried to think it through.
Click to expand...
The best mathematical relationship to use for determining spontaneous reactions is the Gibbs free energy equation, where dG = dH - TdS (I used ‘d’ instead of a delta), because it takes into account both enthalpy and entropy. Now, in this equation, an increase in entropy (disorder) is dS>0 and contributes to lowering dG. Enthalpy (dH) is essentially the internal energy of the system, and for our purposes we can look at it as the amount of God’s grace we have inside of us. If dH is small (ie little grace), the entropy term will take over and we will readily fall into sin. However, if the amount of grace (dH) is larger than the amount of disorder (dS), then we no longer spontaneously fall into sin.

Keep in mind I just thought of this off the top of my head and haven’t refined it too much, but I hope you get the picture.

Peace
 
Science and religion are both perfectly compatible, since God is the author of all truth. We can come to understand God through our senses and reason (science) or through faith (religion). Since God cannot conflict with Himself, ultimately, they both bring us to the same place. Unfortunately, there or those who attempt to use scientific discovery to DISprove God, and violate the rules of empiricism that are required to remain objective, hence Darwinism.
 
The atheist Carl Sagan in Cosmos (1980) described the process by which the Big Bang is said to have happened. The universe began billions of years ago. During the early era, out of the darkness there was an explosion of light that flooded the universe. And so it should be something of a surprise to astronomers that in Genesis three thousand years ago it was said that at first darkness covered the earth, and then God said, “Let there be light!” (1,000 B.C.) Now this, remember, is before God created the sun and the moon. When we consider the primitive state of science during the age of the prophets, this is an amazing shot in the dark.
 
40.png
Carl:
The atheist Carl Sagan in Cosmos (1980) described the process by which the Big Bang is said to have happened. The universe began billions of years ago. During the early era, out of the darkness there was an explosion of light that flooded the universe. And so it should be something of a surprise to astronomers that in Genesis three thousand years ago it was said that at first darkness covered the earth, and then God said, “Let there be light!” (1,000 B.C.) Now this, remember, is before God created the sun and the moon. When we consider the primitive state of science during the age of the prophets, this is an amazing shot in the dark.
Click to expand...
WOW! I never thought of it that way…during that time that Genesis was written…HOW on Earth could man have known there was darkness without someone divine telling them…
 
Most striking to me is how transparent many modern scientists are in their endeavors (aiming to try to disprove God).

Lious Pasteur said, "science should never seek to foresee the philosophical consequences of its investigations…so much the worse for those whose doctrines are at odds with the truth of the facts of nature” (Louis Pasteur, Hilaire Cunny, Page 89).

Yet this is exactly what is happening now. World Book Encyclopedia says that while Louis Pastuer’s Law of Biogenesis (which states that life cannot come from non-living matter) remains officially unchallenged, “A revised theory of spontaneous generation now has great favor…our earth, as it was formed, was certainly lifeless – yet life appeared. Consequently, the present theory is that life did appear from non-living matter, over a period of perhaps a billion years.” (World Book Encyclopedia, 2002, Vol 25, Pg. 528).

Current scientific endeavors (radiometric dating, for example) seem to have the clear preconceived goal of providing some kind of evidence, no matter how flawed, which could possibly help disprove the existance of God.

Indeed Creationists have nothing to fear from science. I hesitate to say “religion” has nothing to fear from science, because I believe Athiesm is also a form of religion, with it’s own set of doctrines (an interesting idea to present to an athiest). The more we learn the more evidence we find for intelligent design.
 
Wow! What a question! I love it!

To me the existence of God (at least as uncaused cause) is a no-brainer. It simply is not in my experience (or anyone else’s) of anything existing without a cause of some sort or another. The fun begins when one goes into what kind of a God there is. This is where first Judaism and later Christianity takes over, and faith is required to go beyond the uncaused cause.
I am instinctively inclined toward skepticism and rationality, and since science is aimed at what one can sense, and God gave us those senses, I have enormous regard for it. Yet even psychology (yep, a science!) seems to indicate that our senses are sometimes not as reliable as we may think. And science of itself cannot answer the question of whether there is a God or not because that is not a scientific question.
Science is a tool–a wonderful gift of God to us. But science is by its own nature unable to answer the ultimate questions about life, death, morality, salvation and a host of other matters. Not that it should–it just isn’t designed to do that. Faith is meant to supply answers for the unanswerable.
Science cannot be used as a substitute for faith, nor can faith be used as a substitute for science, though many have tried. Einstein was as wrong as the Pope who condemned Galileo. No less than Thomas Aquinas (I wish I knew the source of the quote) said that truth is one, and that if science seems to contradict revelation it is because we have not correctly understood revelation.
Thanks for submitting such an interesting question!!
 
As far as Galileo being condemned, I seem to remember that there was a specific piece of evidence that he couldn’t give proof of but was needed to verify his claims. However, his claims were verified with the required proof years later.

I received the following in an e-mail from my dad some time ago:\

"Did you know that the space program is busy proving that what has been called “myth” in the Bible is true? Mr. Harold Hill, President of the Curtis Engine Company in Baltimore, Maryland, and a consultant in the space program, relates the following development.

I think one of the most amazing things that God has done for us today happened recently to our astronauts and space scientists at GreenBelt, Maryland. They were checking out where the positions of the sun, moon, and planets would be 100 years and 1,000 years from now. We have to know this so we won’t send up a satellite and have it bump into something later on in its orbits. We have to lay out the orbits in terms of the life of the satellite and where the planets will be so the whole thing will
not bog down.

They ran the computer measurement back and forth over the centuries, and it came to a halt. The computer stopped and put up a red signal, which meant that there was something wrong with either the information fed into it or with the results as compared to the standards. They called in the service department to check it out, and they said, 'What’s wrong?"

Well, they found there is a day missing in space in lapsed time.

They scratched their heads and tore their hair. There was no answer.

Finally a Christian man on the team said, ‘You know, one time I was in Sunday School, and they talked about the sun standing still.’ While they didn’t believe him, they didn’t have an answer either, so they said, ‘Show us.’ He got a Bible and went to the book of Joshua where they found a pretty ridiculous statement for any one with ‘common sense.’ There they found the Lord saying to Joshua, ‘Fear them not, I have delivered them into thy
hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee.’ Joshua was concerned because he was surrounded by the enemy, and if darkness fell, they would overpower them. So Joshua asked the Lord to make the sun stand still! That’s right… ‘The sun stood still and the moon stayed and lasted not to go down about a whole day!’ (Joshua 10:12-13) The astronauts and scientists said, ‘There is the missing day!’

They checked the computers going back into the time it was written and found it was close but not close enough. The elapsed time that was missing back in Joshua’s day was 23 hours and 20 minutes … not a whole day. They read the Bible, and there it was ‘about (approximately) a day.’ These little words in the Bible are important, but they were still in trouble because if you cannot account for 40 minutes, you’ll still be in trouble 1,000 years from now. Forty minutes had to be found because it can be multiplied many times over in orbits.

As the Christian employee thought about it, he remembered somewhere in the Bible where it said the sun went BACKWARDS.

The scientists told him he was out of his mind, but they got out the “Book” and read these words in 2 Kings that told of the following story: Hezekiah, on his death bed, was visited by the prophet Isaiah who told him that he was not going to die. Hezekiah asked for a sign as proof. Isaiah said ‘Do you want the sun to go ahead 10 degrees?’ Hezekiah said, ‘It is nothing for the sun to go ahead 10 degrees, but let the shadow return backward 10 degrees.’ Isaiah spoke to the Lord, and the Lord brought the
shadow ten degrees BACKWARD! Ten degrees is exactly 40 minutes!

Twenty-three hours and 20 minutes in Joshua, plus 40 minutes in Second Kings make the missing day in the universe!" Isn’t it amazing?

References: Joshua 10:8 and 12,13 and 2 Kings 20:9-11."

I’m not sure of the validity of the above story, but it is interesting enough.

Peace
 
More to chew on:

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton, Physicist

“God, without whom we can do nothing.” Copernicus, Astronomer

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” Galileo Galilei, Astronomer

“I believe only and alone in the service of Jesus Christ. In him is all refuge and solace.” Johannes Kepler, Astronomer

“At the center of every human being is a God-shaped vacuum which can only be filled by Jesus Christ.” Blaise Pascal, Mathematician, Inventor, Philosopher

“In good philosophy, the word cause ought to be reserved to the single divine impulse that has formed the universe.” Louis Pasteur, Chemist

“Many scientists do believe in both science and God, the God of revelation, in a perfectly consistent way.” Richard Ferriman, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1965
 
I’m afraid that the alleged story of NASA and the missing day appears to be an urban legend. See this link:
 
40.png
JimG:
I’m afraid that the alleged story of NASA and the missing day appears to be an urban legend. See this link:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. Like I said, I wasn’t really sure about the credibility.

Peace
 
Pope John Paul II answered this question in:

Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) and
Veritatis Splendor (The Beauty of Truth)
as well as pursuing both in
Ex Corde Ecclesiae (From the Heart of the Church) his Constitution for Catholic Universities. They are long but good reading.

-JohnDeP
 
Seems there’s much discussion these days about the apparent conflict between faith and reason (science). Of course, faith and science are not opposed, but they are not the same either. Belief in God does not negate proven scientific facts and proven scientific facts do not negate the reality of God.

Faith is the assent of the will and intellect to the truths revealed by God to his Church by way of scripture and Tradition. Revealed truth by its very nature is a higher truth than the truth of science because it concerns the one who is Truth itself.

Natural science is a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the Scientific Method. This method makes empirical observations, proposes hypotheses, explains observations, and tests hypotheses using valid means. Science is purely concerned with the natural and is totally incapable of undertaking the study of the supernatural.

It’s interesting that the subject of Theistic Evolution comes up on the Catholic Answers radio show and there is some support for this idea right here on this message board. I’d argue that evolution and theism are incompatible.

Evolution or more properly, Macroevolution is the hypothesis that living organisms evolved from a single (or few) ancestor over billions of years. More specifically, evolution necessarily states that so called simple organisms somehow appeared in pools of primordial soup. Over the millenia and by pure chance, the offspring of these organisms mutated to the extent that today we have a wide variety of complex life forms, including human beings. It should be noted that macroevolution is really an idea that results from atheistic materialism and has very little to do with real scientific inquiry. If the hypothesis of evolution is true, then it ought to be measurable, repeatable, and publicly observable. The fact of the matter is that evolutionary hypotheses of “molecules to man” are nothing more than elaborate historical wishful thinking, especially in regard to the fossil record. Further, evolution is part of the scientific movement known as Cosmology, which attempts to explain the origin of the universe as a foundation of evolution. Again, Cosmologists believe the universe created itself out of nothing, an idea that is more suited for philosophical discussion than legitimate scientific inquiry. In short, the science of evolution is highly suspect because of its absence of evidence in the fossil record and its absolute failure to be accountable to the scientific method.

*It should be noted that most if not all leading evolutionary scientists are atheists.

More importantly however, is the false idea that God used evolution as a means to create human beings. Evolution relies on a cycle of birth, mutation, reproduction, PAIN, SUFFERING, and DEATH. The Church teaches that pain, suffering, and death did not enter creation until Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin. Theistic evolution requires that God’s creation was somehow flawed.

Evolution also does not state that human beings represent the highest end of the evolutionary process. Accordingly, humans are merely another link in the inevitable process of endless mutation or extinction. So, in a couple billion years, human beings may be the contemporary equivalent of snails. Theistic evolution is required to state that Our Blessed Mother may not be the greatest creature. Did Jesus die for the right species?

It is interesting to read the evolutionary literature and watch discussions between evolutionists. A critical analysis of the material and the arrogant attitude of most of the leading proponents expose the real premises of evolutionary theory.

Real premises of evolutionary hypothesis:
  1. We are here and we are very smart, evolutionists being the smartest of all.
  2. God doesn’t exist.
  3. Living things came into being as a result of pure chance. Over billions of years we have evolved from our very ancient ancestor, the amoeba.
  4. We’ve proven our theory because it’s obvious.
  5. If it isn’t obvious to you, then you must be stupid because you don’t understand fancy terms like “allele frequency” or “punctuated equilibrium.”
Conclusion: The universe is the result of pure chance. Human beings are nothing more than another link in the endless process of life, death, and mutation. Therefore, life is meaningless.
 
Thank you, Intrntsrch, for that last post.

The following are some other problems that a “theistic evolutionist” would have to grapple with:
  1. How can a higher creature “descend” from a lower creature? It seems to me that this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Otherwise, it would imply that the more complex the creature, the more it has degenerated. That doesn’t make sense, and that’s not how evolutionists understand the process. Part of the “theory” (it’s really more of a hypothesis, and not a good one at that) is that creatures within a species can will to change their DNA make-up by using or not using different body parts. Doing so changes those parts by coordinated efforts of many of such creatures within the species over a long period of time. Again, a rather fantastic claim.
  2. There is no proof that fossils of evolutionary ancestors actually are such. Perhaps they are extinct species originally created by God. If species constantly evolve, we should expect to see this occurring all the time over a relatively few generations in lower creatures. It doesn’t.
  3. The more troubling problem from a theological point of view is, at what point did man “evolve” far enough for God to have placed a human soul in his body instead of an animal soul? The two are not the same.
God created all things out of nothing “in the beginning.” He created each of our souls out of nothing at the moment of our conception. It’s difficult enough to observe scientifically in the present the world God created for us. How God actually brought about this creation can only be a matter of speculation.

Pax,

Dean
 
Intrn << It should be noted that macroevolution is really an idea that results from atheistic materialism and has very little to do with real scientific inquiry. >>

“Atheistic materialism” is indeed philosophy, and for those evolutionists that push that philosophy (such as Richard Dawkins) we should oppose that. What you probably mean is evolution or science in general is based on “methodological naturalism” – that is science studies nature, it doesn’t deal in super-nature (i.e. the supernatural). God cannot be “measured” or “tested” by science, but I think God can be demonstrated by reason and philosophy. So atheistic materialism No, but methodological naturalism in science, perhaps.

For your standard complete evidence for Macroevolution see this

There is no reference to God, the Bible, Christianity, or any religion here, it is strictly the “scientific evidence” for evolution. The author is Douglas Theobald who I believe is a Christian, according to an Email he sent me. He has his Ph.D. in chemistry, and is a faculty member at the Univ of Colorado at Boulder.

For my abridged version of his article, see this

Intrn << It should be noted that most if not all leading evolutionary scientists are atheists. >>

Um, where are you getting your statistics? I would call Mike Behe and Ken Miller some of the “leading evolutionary scientists” from two ends of the spectrum (for vs. against intelligent design) – note that both Behe and Miller are (1) Catholic, and (2) accept macroevolution or what is called “common descent.” They have their disagreements, but they have no problems with God and evolution.

If you mean Stephen Jay Gould, yeah he is quite agnostic/atheist, but is at least sympathetic to religion, see his book Rocks of Ages I linked earlier. I don’t know if Douglas Futuyma (author of the standard text in defense of Evolutionary Biology) is a Christian, but I believe Douglas Theobald is as noted earlier.

An excellent article showing how God and evolution are compatible

See these articles by a group of Christian scientists

And don’t forget the 1996 JPII statement on evolution from the Pontifical Academy of Science

Intrn << The Church teaches that pain, suffering, and death did not enter creation until Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin. Theistic evolution requires that God’s creation was somehow flawed. >>

So you are saying there was no “animal death” before the Fall? I’m not sure where the Church would teach that. But the “death before sin” objection is dealt with here

Death Before the Fall by Glenn Morton

Creature Mortality: From Creation or the Fall?

You no doubt accept the young earth, so I’ll give you this link as well 😛

Radiometric Dating, a Christian Perspective

Intrn << Theistic evolution is required to state that Our Blessed Mother may not be the greatest creature. Did Jesus die for the right species? >>

Don’t know where you got that either. Again, science and faith address two different domains.

Intrn << Therefore, life is meaningless. >>

Here you are going against the Catechism which says that “meaning” or “purpose” is something not dealt with by science, but by religion and faith, “which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences.”
  1. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers…
  2. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin…
Science doesn’t deal in “meaning” or “purpose”, that’s religion or philosophy. Looks like this is turning into a creation-evolution thread 😃

Phil P
 
40.png
Dean:
Thank you, Intrntsrch, for that last post.

The following are some other problems that a “theistic evolutionist” would have to grapple with:
  1. How can a higher creature “descend” from a lower creature? It seems to me that this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Otherwise, it would imply that the more complex the creature, the more it has degenerated. That doesn’t make sense, and that’s not how evolutionists understand the process. Part of the “theory” (it’s really more of a hypothesis, and not a good one at that) is that creatures within a species can will to change their DNA make-up by using or not using different body parts. Doing so changes those parts by coordinated efforts of many of such creatures within the species over a long period of time. Again, a rather fantastic claim.
Click to expand...
My only problem with discrediting evolution using the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is this: how do you quantify the entropy of human life or the process of evolution? In thermodynamics, we use entropy and the 2nd law to help determine which way a reaction or process will occur. This is sort of what we mean when we use the terms ‘order’ and ‘disorder’ when describing the order or disorder of a system. These are values you can look up in tables for various substances like water, water vapor, refrigerants, etc. To my knowledge, there is no such entropy values for human life, but maybe someone has concocted one, in which case, it would be interesting to see. I have just finished my degree in Mechanical Engineering, so I do have a decent background in thermo, but I realize there may be others here who have more experience in this field, in which case, I yield to them. I don’t mean to be a stickler, but I often see people misinterpret science, and I am not aware of entropy values for human life/evolution. And sorry if I sound condescending, as I’m not sure of everyone else’s science background here.
 
Dean << 1. How can a higher creature “descend” from a lower creature? It seems to me that this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. >>

Talk Origins on 2nd Law of Thermo

Dean << 2. There is no proof that fossils of evolutionary ancestors actually are such. >>

Talk Origins on Transitional Fossils

I’ll note these first two objections are standard “creationist” objections, and they’ve been answered for at least 40 years (since 1961 The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb/Morris was published). There are several books published in the early 1980s (the time of the Arkansas Creationist Trial) that deal with all of them.

Also, these first two can be answered whether one is an atheist scientist or a Catholic/Christian scientist. They are not objections to “theistic evolution” as such.

Dean << 3. The more troubling problem from a theological point of view is, at what point did man “evolve” far enough for God to have placed a human soul in his body instead of an animal soul? >>

Good objection, and I don’t have a good answer. TalkOrigins I don’t believe even deals with it, since they answer the strictly scientific objections, not the theological ones.

The evidence for human evolution, however, appears to be pretty well documented

Phil P
 
Intrn << Science is purely concerned with the natural and is totally incapable of undertaking the study of the supernatural. >>

I didn’t notice that, but you’ve answered your own post. Yes, science is concerned with the natural, not the supernatural. Correct. This is why “creation science” is not science.

I guess the jury is still out on “intelligent design” being science, at least according to Dembski, Behe, and others.

If you have a fast connection, check out these online videos

Phil P
 
PHIL

“This is why “creation science” is not science.”

In one sense, yes. In another sense?

The Big Bang is now more “scientific” than Darwin’s theory of evolution. This theory, as you know, concerns how the universe came into being (was created). There is no scinetific evidence that the universe is eternal, as scientists like Einstein used to believe before the Big Bang theory. Is this not therefore creation science in the literal sense of the word, as opposed to the theological sense? It is up for scientists to decide whether they care to infer a Creator such as we have done. But hardly any reputable scientists living today deny the universe was created and that time came into being simulaneous with the creation of the universe.

The irony of all this is that it took George LeMaitre, a young Belgian Jesuit and mathematician, to correct Einstein’s equations that falsely led to his view of an infinite and uncreated universe. But Einstein gave LeMaitre credit for his discovery and nominated him for a prestigious scientific award, which he truly won. Einstein later admitted that his “cosmological constant” introduced into his equations to keep the universe infinite and eternal was the biggest blunder of his life.

The Big Bang theory later produced evidence that the early universe began with a powerful surge of light as the dominant element in the universe long before the creation of stars and planets, echoing the first quotation from God in Genesis:

“Let there be Light!”
 
Yeah, the Big Bang would be the moment of creation. Evolution took over from that point, and there is no problem with God intervening periodically to keep evolution “on track”, but the “God intervening” part would not be science. Science deals in the natural, not the supernatural.

That’s my position: God used evolution, and the evidence for macroevolution is overwhelming, and no real scientist today doubts it. They argue about the mechanism (Darwinism = natural selection, or something else), but not the fact of evolution itself. Also, evolution does not deal with the origin of life.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

There were numerous mistakes or misconceptions made in the above posts that are easily corrected by a quick search on the web, or reading any standard textbook on evolution science.

TalkOrigins is probably the best place since they have thoroughly answered all the standard “creationist” objections to evolution.

Consider the Project Steve

Phil P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top