It is OK for any of us to believe what we believe
as long as it doesn't do harm to others. It is not
OK however, for us to insist that everyone else
believe the same as us.

Thank You David F., for explaining your position.

Several statements in http://ineos.com/inch-magazine/articles/issue-7/debate/ the article Foxy referred to are questionable.

“But the debate over whether science and religion can co-exist has been going on since the dawn of mankind”

How can anyone know what humans were debating at the dawn of mankind?

How can anyone assume that humanity had the concepts of science or religion at the dawn of mankind?

The article also states, “Religion concerns the meaning and purpose of the world and of human life, the proper relation of people to the Creator and to each other, the moral values that inspire and govern people’s lives.”

All religions do not assume a creator. The idea of a creator is not a Buddhist notion. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion.

All religions do not contain moral values. In many of polytheistic religions one would worship the gods and seek the god’s favor, but the gods had no say on one’s moral code.

Whether science and religion can co-exist depends on how one defines religion. The author of the article has a limited view of religion and makes unverifiable assumptions.

Dear David F.,

The reason I chose to give that particular link
was because there were many various opinions being
expressed from a variety of people on the subject .
I thought it might be interesting to read what others
had to say on the subject of whether religion and
science can co-exist. It is OK to have different
opinions after all - our world was created with differences.

Dear David F.,

You objected to the phrase - "dawn of mankind".

I guess it depends on how one interprets that
remark.

Found on the web:

"Aristotle is considered by many to be the first
scientist. In Greece in the 4th century BC he
pioneered the techniques of logic, observation,
inquiry, and demonstration and these would shape
Western philosophical and scientific culture through
the Middle Ages and the early modern era and would
influence some aspects of the natural sciences even
up to the 18th century."

Hitler was so influenced by Darwin he felt he must now be responsible to raise a superior rase of humana and eradicate the lower species. Hitler believed the current science in his quest for a super race. He thought he was assisting evolution.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hitler_and_evolution

Hitler believed in evolution and not in creationism. He stated this not only in Mein Kampf but also in his second book, Zweites Buch.

“In the times before man, world history was primarily a presentation of geological events: the struggle of natural forces with one another, the creation of an inhabitable surface on this planet, the separation of water from land, the formation of mountains, of plains, and of the seas".

http://www.historyonthenet.com/hitlers-views-eugenics

i believe there in a mind behind creation, but I do not believe in 6 24 hour days, they were periods and the created chemistry was empowered to bring forth species except on the case of Gen 1: 1 Time, Space and matter, the spark of life. and the intelligence of and moral spirit of man. Everything emerged from the created chemistry that existed at day as the remainder of Genesis 1. records every thing else emerged from the existing chemistry.

There are moral principles in understanding there is a purpose for our existence. The reason why, and it it is not explained in science.

Dear Foxy,

I didn't object to the phrase, dawn of mankind. I objected to the idea that someone could assume there was such a thing as language at the time, and that humans were having debates about such concepts as science and religion.

From Evolution from ape to man. From Proconsul to Homo Heidelbergensis - YouTube

Three million years ago Australopithecus afarensis of East Africa evolved into the first humans. I don’t think they were having discussions about science and religion.

In my opinion science and most religions cannot comfortably coexist. I understand science to have as a basic idea the concept that natural events have natural causes. As far as we know, that idea was first expressed by Thales (c. 620-548 BCE), the first Greek philosopher.

Most religions contain a supernatural element. There is something outside of nature. One may fudge over that difference, but I believe the difference is irreconcilable. There are religions such as Unitarianism and humanistic Judaism that have eliminated the supernatural elements but keep certain practices and rituals. They are the exceptions which can coexist with science.