I know I've had a lot of posts about this stuff lately, but it's been heavy on my mind since the discussion I mentioned here. It just astounds me, and confounds me, that people really are stupid enough to a) think that there is some innate conflict between science and religion, b) dismiss accepted scientific theories backed with strong scientific evidence (such as evolution, carbon dating, etc.) without studying them in the slightest, and c) fervently argue that science is out to destroy religion and it must be wrong without first getting their facts straight.
At any rate, I read this article today, and I was pleased to see that I'm not the last sane religious person on this planet.
Here we have a Vatican astronomer, one Brother Consolmagno, stating that believing in creationism is a form of paganism. He also 'described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a "kind of paganism" because it harked back to the days of "nature gods" who were responsible for natural events.'
He also gave the following wonderful quote:
"Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."
Now, I'm not Catholic, and I know a lot of Christian Fundamentalists dislike Catholicism, but this guy makes an excellent point that should be read and understood by everyone, of every faith.
Agreed
I don't know much about creationism, really. I know there are full-time researchers and things.
I like the snippet you gave above about science and religion, though. As a committed Christian, I feel much the same. If we truly believe God is behind it all, then all science should eventually boost our faith.
An interesting social example of this is the big bang theory, which taught us that the universe actually did have a beginning (a point that athiests and prior steady-state theories resisted). It held some confirmation for Christians who believed in a creation, although the same groups who were happy to see the big bang in its day are now opposing it as some kind of anti-Christian doctrine. Why?
The people at odds are those who theorize "god of the gaps", where mystery is proof of God. Such a god gives way before scientific investigation and is weakened and lost over time. I don't buy the god of the gaps. Remember that a lot of false theories were held because they were considered to be good theology, such as the earth being the center of the universe. Actually the truth is a better theological situation, but it is humbling compared to their grand scheme of humanity's place.
I recognize that science was founded primarily by Christian and Jewish scholars, and many top physicists I've met are believers. The thing that science does is not to reduce god, but to try to figure out what he's done and what that means to us. It's a physical science, not a moral science. It doesn't have to officially recognize and appeal to God to do that.
Without much context, remember that searching out a matter is the pleasure of kings. Research is not the enemy of religion as long as the goal of both is Truth.
Big Bang
Actually, several leading theories suggest that this wasn't "the beginning" per se.
In both the Brane model and the chaotic inflation model the "big bang" was just an event in an older, more external, universe.
Most other models of the universe call for matter and material to exist before the "big bang" as well. In fact, many of them also require a big crunch of some sort or another.