Science Text Attempts to Reconcile Religion and Science

terrymaster69 writes "The New York Times reports that the National Academy of Sciences has just published their third book outlining guidelines for the teaching of evolution. 'But this volume is unusual, people who worked on it say, because it is intended specifically for the lay public and because it devotes much of its space to explaining the differences between science and religion, and asserting that acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God.'"

Comments

Sellouts

[cheater512]

If you believe in science AND god then your a bloody hypocrite because the scientific method can never be used on god.

This book is just trying to get more evolution supporters by saying that believing in god is ok.

Its irrational to believe in something there is no proof of.

Re:Sellouts

[h4rm0ny]

Its irrational to believe in something there is no proof of.

Millions of people claim to have felt a connection to a higher being / existence. It is irrational to dismiss evidence because it does not fit your paradigm.

Been done before....

[Anonymous Coward]

See here

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

So how do you reconcile logic and faith. An interesting philosophical treatise about this question can be found here

Re:The limits of science

[timmarhy]

then don't put them up there are priests. I think global warming is one very pointed example of people taking something that isn't even a theory yet and making it a cult.

Re:The real world doesn't need religion...

[nih]

ah sorry, when i said the real world i didn't include life, which is too insignificant to matter.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[aichpvee]

Wow, you religious nuts try so hard to reconcile the real world with your make believe. Why don't you just give up already because you're always going to fail at it?

And what the fuck is "intoxicatingly useful" even supposed to mean?