It provides enough evidence to determine that we evolved from some type of entity. Like why do bugs get Immune to some bug repelents after being sprayed? It shows that Natrual selection is possible and is still going on today. The only thing that proves this Theory wrong is the fact that why isnt a primative ape still evolving to a man. I cant answer that one.
Correct, evolution is a reality. However, it is evident and obvious that we are not speaking of evolution in this context. Small genetic mutations that grant immunity to some sort of substance that was toxic to a former strain of said organism isn't "evolution" in the context of one-celled organisms evolving into complex beings such as humans, dolphins, whales or monkeys (and obviously a slew of other things).
In conclusion, I don't disagree that evolution is a sensible answer to how we got here, but it's important to realize that it is nothing more than a theory. I do, however, believe that doesn't answer where the Universe came from (neither does the Big Bang theory. It simply answers how the Universe as we know it originated).
Science is not a set of definites, because it's constantly changing. Whether we rely on it completely for our basis of existance or not, it's not going to provide all the answers. Ever. Neither is religion, because there is such a vast range of religions in existance that have conflicting ideas.
Yep. As I already said, for answers as complex as existence, Science can propose little more than speculative theories.
The thing about religion is it provides answers to said complex questions involving things such as existence. It does not answer all questions, but it does answer fundamental questions which science will never be able to answer beyond theories which have the inherent trait of doubt. If you have faith and believe that, say, Christianity is the truth, otherwise impossible questions have been answered.
Then, simply, both science and religion are a way to explain the world around us to the fullest possible extent we make it. Even if you view through the eyes of religion, science still does provide a way for us to explain things that happen in the world. Religion doesn't entirely neglect science. It does use it. The Catholic church, for example, has accepted a vast majority of scientific ideas because, well, the easiest way to put it is that science and religion deal with the same things. They can't be seperated.
What do you mean by "the vast majority of scientific ideas?" What kind of scientific ideas? I really doubt they've accepted evolution or the big bang, which are two of the largest ideas in science (especially since they both encompass other ideas and conclusions to base their reasoning on).
If you take this view into light, then you can see science as a way of explaining some of the things "God" did. While it's said that he created the world in seven days, were they our days, or were they "God" days, which can be timeless? If that's the case, then evolution may be a way to explain how God created the earth.
Since a day is a unit of measurement invented by humans, I would easily conclude that 'seven days' is measured in 'human days.'
It's sort of a moot point, though. What does it matter?
It would make sense for God to create the planet with a history, even if he didn't actually let the history happen itself. If this "God" is all powerful, then he can do anything. Even put bones on the planet of dinosaurs that never actually lived, even though the evidence that they did is everywhere. He could do it.
Or preemptively plan a series of events that deceive our imperfect methods of measuring the age of some object.
So, in a way, I agree with Sty, but in a different way. Science and religion cannot be seperated, and I find that the best way to believe in any sort of "Creation" story is to believe in both.
I don't understand what you mean. Why can't science and religion be separated? Especially for issues such as the creation and fate of the Universe, I don't see how the two can be used interchangeably or concurrently.
Poll