Replies

I believe in the science of Darwinism, and I believe in the story of creation as written in the Bible.

The first belief is practical, and the second is faith-based. I don’t have a problem with that, so I don’t beat the contradictions to death.

A belief in God (or whatever you want to call it) does not deny science, but does help us reach an understanding of certain mysteries of life and nature not otherwise explainable (yet).

There are plenty of old-time articles of faith which science has rendered obsolete. Nevertheless, going back to the very beginning, there is no science (there are theories) to explain how cells found their way to connect with each other and create life. God did that.

I believe in the science of Darwinism, and I believe in the story of creation as written in the Bible.
The first belief is practical, and the second is faith-based. I don’t have a problem with that, so I don’t beat the contradictions to death.
A belief in God (or whatever you want to call it) does not deny science, but does help us reach an understanding of certain mysteries of life and nature not otherwise explainable (yet).
There are plenty of old-time articles of faith which science has rendered obsolete. Nevertheless, going back to the very beginning, there is no science (there are theories) to explain how cells found their way to connect with each other and create life. God did that. [bold emphasis mine]

The science of Darwinism says Creation didn't happen.(Or even need to)

Creation [as written in the bible] says Darwinian abiogenesis didn't happen.

Scenario:

Witness A says the defendant stole $1 from the church.
Witness B says the defendant gave $1 to the church.

I believe in the science of witness A's testimony, and I believe in the story of witness B's testimony.(paraphrase)

The first belief is practical, and the second is faith-based. I don’t have a problem with that, so I don’t beat the contradictions to death. [excerpt]

Looks like relativism to me.