Biblical - Scientific correlation

[David Thuleen]

I'm trying to put together a document showing that science does
indeed agree with the word of God. I would like to receive inputs
from anyone who can provide insight into such information. I am
working on the Genesis creation story presently, so please limit
any contributions/comments to this realm.

=20
You might want to check out string theory (which would sharpen the "qua=

rk=20

soup" bits, among other things). I presume you're familiar with Paul=20
Davies' writings already. And, more recently, Francis Collins (head of=

the=20

human genome project) has just published a book called "The Language of=

God"=20

that may contain some useful material for you.
=20
Have fun with your project!
=20
In Christ,
Paul=20
=20

Here's a response to the Collins book that you might find interesting:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignoran
ce/

--=20
-------------
Dave Thuleen
Escondido, California

Click here to listen to this audio link:
http://longnow.chubbo.net/salt-0200512-harris/salt-0200512-harris.mp3

http://www.samharris.org/index.php

"We do not respect people's beliefs; we evaluate their reasons. If my re=
asons
are good enough, you will helplessly believe what I believe. That is wha=
t it
is to be a rational human being. Reasons are contagious."=20

"Faith is the license that religious people give one another to keep beli=
eving
when reasons fail."=20

-- Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith

[Paul]

"David Thuleen" <***@cts.com> wrote in message news:XiREg.1468$***@trndny03...
<snip>

Post by David Thuleen
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignoran
ce/
--=20
-------------
Dave Thuleen
Escondido, California

Hi, Dave,

Thanks for the pointer. I'm in the middle of the Collins book right now, so
it would be premature to give any lengthy opinion on it (suffice to say, a
couple of Harris's responses aren't surprising to me, though).

However, Harris's review is -- sadly -- just as dogmatic in its way as he
attacks Collins for being in his way. It's very discouraging to find the
same old "fanatic", "dangerous", yadda yadda cliches being so loosely tossed
around. Especially in response to a book that (whatever one may think of
the success of its arguments) is at least trying to build a bridge and lead
us to reasoned discourse. If Harris truly wants to contribute more than
heat, he would do well to take Collins' tone seriously, even if he can't buy
his reasoning.

YMMV, of course.

In Christ,
Paul