Thanks for the ping. As for Coyoteman, I don't think you need bother pinging him anymore.
I don't recall ever saying there is a conflict between science and faith, although there can be a conflict between science and specific assertions about physical reality made by people in the name of religion. I'm curious why I was included in such a sweeping statement.
Is your "sure knowledge" in conflict with some specific finding of science?
Not in the least. My "sure knowledge" falls in domains that are not (and should not be, IMHO) addressed by scientific inquiry and explanation -- such as my confidence that my Creator exists, and in my relationship with Him.
If there is a near-overlap, it is at the point where science (so far) "poops out": at the point of explaining what happened to start this whole universe, and in accepting that truths like PV=nRT appear to have been established to make things progress as planned by the One who claims to have started it all.
Because I understand, accept and apply relativity, I have zero problem accepting the accumulating evidence for a universe age that is probably in the vicinity of that which you perceive: ca 13 billion years +.
Although I have the acadmic requirements for BS in biology, I am no particular fan of Darwin. I simply accept his work -- and that built upon it by his successors -- as our best (but still flawed) explanation to date of how life here on Earth reached its present state. I am not on a mission to "prove" anything. The fact that I see that progression as following the Creator's plan does not color my investigations -- because I view myself as being - like all good scientists -- on a continual journey of discovery.
In cosmology, I have the same questions as many of our colleagues: what is that "dark matter/energy" stuff? And how did we miss such a large portion of our universe for so long? And...what else have our observations missed?
~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, it was your two statements to A-G re "verification" that I viewed as expressing a dichotomy: verifiability of science results versus non-verifiability of spiritual truths. My point was that -- if you use the same methodology that the reporting observer used, both are equally verifiable.
I do not mix my science with my religion. The closest I come to doing so is the continual sense of enjoyment and awe I feel as I make ever-newer discoveries of the beauty and majesty of what I believe to be His handiwork. No matter whether I am at the controls of the SEM or am adjusting the alt-azimuth of the telescope, that thrill of discovery makes scientific investigation just plain fun! In addition, the thrill of praise I feel for each revelation of His masterful work simply adds to my enjoyment of life... Science without religion would be, to me, far less enjoyable!
Such a deal: double joy -- while improving our understanding of our universe!