Brad — Very interesting…

Yeah, your second response is much clearer and you gave a pretty good example here.

The DNA has certainly opened up more questions than it solved.

I think science is like that..two steps forward, one step back.

But we’re still further ahead then we were before we even knew DNA existed.

THis is a great debate.

Lookit what Karen started.

Friars last blog post..Increasing your Traffic: Blog Posts that are Guaranteed Crowd-Pleasers.

If one believes, as I do, that reality is comprised of things both inside and outside physical reality, the more we hold to the view that nothing is real unless we can perceive it, the further away we could be moving from reality. Who’s to say whether the ancients, with philosophies that were a blend of the scientific and the spiritual, were closer to the truth than we are, with our far more scientific view? The writings of someone like Thomas Aquinas, although from the 13th century, ring truer to me about the nature of reality than narrower essays from modern theologians and scientists alike. Could it be that by compartmentalizing religion and science we are making it harder to recognize truth?

Example … our recently acquired understanding of the workings of DNA answers many questions but calls into question the long held evolutionary idea that life developed through a “natural” process of selection. I’m not qualified to debate the scientific merits of a designer universe theory, but from what I understand, our deeper understanding of the physical nature of life has led to new questions about life’s origin inside and outside the scientific community. My point is that sometimes new knowledge raises more questions than it answer.

You probably won’t agree, but I hope my response makes a little more sense than my earlier comment.

Brad Shorrs last blog post..In Praise of One Liners