ok - you'll find that he ain't real popular). So when people try this with science and religion I find that they do a pretty good job of distorting both. Section 2. One big problem I have encountered is the failure to distinguish between "how" and "why." Sure, science can explain "how" stuff works. But it doesn't explain "why" things do what they do. Science doesn't read meaning into stuff. It explains the mechanics involved. And there ain't nothing wrong with that! Science, like art and literature, is another way to look at stuff. Religion on the other hand is supposed to make stuff meaningful for us; it should help us make sense of stuff beyond the mechanics involved (some folks are content with the mechanics, but for me its difficult to derive ethical guidance from the mechanics - and I know that scientists don't uncover objective facts - they manufacture facts as the result of an ideological model - and that model is pregnant with the ideological assumptions of the scientist creating the model - so you might as well put your cards on the table and ask the scientist what ethical and moral standards have guided the research, where they came from, and most importantly what their foreseeable consequences might be - if you get a blank stare you are talking to a fool - if you get anything else you're talking religion - or at least philosophy). Follow me? For example, science provides us with a marvelous series of related statements regarding "HOW" rainbows operate. The bible, on the other hand, provides us with an interesting little story about what it means to see a rainbow; "WHY" they appear and 'why' it might be significant for us when they do. Now, a lot of folks will respond to this with something like, "but the Bible is the word of God and not just another collection of stories!" Well, okay. But let's get a few things straight before we go any further: (1) When folks get upset about reading the bible as 'stories' it is usually because they want to read the bible as history. This is interesting to me. It is interesting to me because it assumes that the bible's value rests solely on its historical accuracy (a uniquely Western way of understanding that came about only a few hundred years ago). I'm not sure this is a wise perspective. Since we're talking about science and religion I'll use two examples from the history of science to make my point: (a) Remember learning that Isaac Newton was inspired by an apple hitting his head? Well, all Newton himself ever said was that the idea of gravity came to him as he sat "in a complative mood" and "was occasioned by the fall of an apple." But the story about him being hit on the head helped us remember the important stuff ... gravity and 'how' it ac

Some topics in this essay:
Stephen Hawking, Islam Smith's, I'm I'm, Isaac Newton, , Agent Orange, Imagine God, Houston Smith, science religion, measure position, position particle, Werner Heisenberg, can't 'prove beyond, shadow doubt', beyond shadow, can't 'prove, position velocity, 'prove beyond, biblical inerrancy, 'prove beyond shadow, beyond shadow doubt', helped remember, measure position velocity, measure position particle,