1) The Bible was never intended to be a reference manual on science. Where it speaks to science, it does so only in very limited terms and is framed in the contexts of the time and culture wherein it was written. It should not be used to prove or disprove science as to do so involves application beyond purpose. It is an instruction manual on how to live a fulfilled life and to know the heart of God in a personal way if you are convinced of His existience.

2) By strict definition, science can only explain function. However, practically speaking, science doesn’t really work so narrowly confined. It necessarily engages quasi-religion and philosophy to formulate hypothesis on very deep and profound questions that seek answers far beyond our understanding. Such questions involve a form of faith on the part of the scientist to consider the possibilities of other dimensions, states, and continuums that, in reality, may or may not exist. Such faith is what pushes science towards greater discoveries. Without it, we would still be teaching in science class that the earth is carried on the back of a turtle. So to say science is a religion is a somewhat misguided criticism. To say that science doesn’t benefit from faith and belief is equally errored.

3) Science cannot assign purpose and meaning to things. This must be relegated to the realm of philosophy and religion. To understand function without purpose and meaning is empty. To assign purpose and meaning without a desire to understand function is equally empty. In the context of these demarcations, science and religion complete our understandings of our internal and external worlds. Where they appear to differ in conclusion is a matter of our having attempted to answer a question using the wrong reference.

4) Most models and theories are built around beliefs that seek justification. Only when a model or theory is proven by empirical evidence and repeatable methods of observation (experiments) does it gain the status of knowledge (or fact). The philosopher Richard Kirkham offered perhaps the most concise definition of knowledge. It is where the “justification for the belief must be infallible.” If any doubt exists or the belief is built on pseudo-evidence, the knowledge cannot be sustained and cannot be held as fact. So we must be careful about what we state as fact and knowledge for they may be only faith and belief.

Show me an individual who distains the contributions of science or religion and I’ll show you an arrogant, intolerant, and narrow minded person who understand neither.

Oh and yes, the dinosaurs were lucky. We are even luckier that their luck ran out. As an avid hiker and camper, I’m so relieved that I don’t have to worry about being stalked by the likes of T-Rex when on the trail.

Does that mean that Adam was a dinosaur jockey?