The interesting thing about the above point related to culture is that those who are secular minded bemoan what they see as the overwhelming influence of religion in society, and those involved in religion bemoan equally loudly the loss of such influence. Sorry, this is off topic, but I find the fact very intriguing.
Back to the point...the point regarding science refining its own theories is that science and religion ought to be asking, and in turn answering, different questions. It is for science to speculate on the age of the earth and it is for faith to discuss the purpose of humanity\'s existence on that same earth. (think of the flat vs round earth debate, though I don\'t want to directly compare the two situations).
Please don\'t confuse social and political movements with science. Science is often used as a tool for political reasons, as is religion. A good Orthodox Christian can be a good scientist today.
It is relevant that the bible is not a science textbook because there are people out there who are using it as such. To do so, in support of either view, young or old earth, is to read one\'s own ideas into the text, which is exactly what St. John Chrysostom\'s quote in an earlier post warns against. I agree that True Science and Holy Scripture cannot be opposed. It is not my intent here to be defend science unequivocally, but science should be neither deified nor demonized. It is a tool, and like all tools can be used for good or ill. (Even gifts like the bible have been misused for ill at times, I hope we can all agree on that).
I consider that fact that science is self-corrective to be a good thing, rather than \'relativistic\'. Science is not relativistic precisely because the old and disproved is recognized as wrong. Tradition is appropriate in the Church and not appropriate in science. For instance, it would be ludicrous to cling blindly to the \"plum pudding\" model of the cell. Neither Scripture nor God-given reason as expressed through science should be elevated one above the other, they are simply different and if one endeavors to compare them it should be done with a great deal of caution, recognizing that the purpose and methods of each are radically different though both essential. Whether or not you believe the scientific data is interpreted falsely or fragmented, neither Scripture nor the holy fathers can or should testify to that.
Thank you to all of those who post, especially those who challenge statements with which I agree. I think challenges like this, when engaged in respectfully as these generally have, are very helpful in our development/maturation. I have learned a great deal from all of you. Thanks again.
Be the first person to like this.