We can cherry pick a sentence and completely fill a deviated meaning into almost anything anybody says. I am here to discuss not argue.
I never said I believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible (from my first post). The other 95% of the article was not what I was attempting to refer to. I do not disagree entirely with the article; I found that one part that I quoted to be the most interesting (in my opinion). Remember the Bible was written by man, primarily in Hebrew. It has since been translated multiple times. Every time it is translated is further "interpreted" to mean something different. We know by our standard of a day, that God could not have created the earth in our definition of 7 days. But the Bible does not define a day in God's eyes. Man wrote the Bible, the same man that created science. If man is flawed in thinking of religion then man is also likely to be flawed in science. Not all science is fact.
Evolution is a science as much as a theory. No scientist can take a human and map our direct descendents with complete accuracy. Why, because we cannot test evolution in the time and scale that something occurred. I do not disagree that evolution occurs, nor am I arguing the evolution is false. We know for a fact the human heart is similar to a pig’s heart. We know we are similar to mice, in many ways. But to say we evolved from mice or pigs is just a theory. All living creatures contain carbon atoms. So are we all derived from carbon? Who knows? Science may one day prove that is true. But evolution does not disprove, or even prove, the existence of God and creationism. I still do not see why it is one way or the other. It is not black and white; there is a lot gray, and a lot of theories that float around. Interpretation is needed by any human being to interpret findings. Saying the science is a bunch of facts is a complete lie. Science is as much theory into how something works and acts as it is based on scientific date. Data con correlate all day long, and we can draw conclusions but that does not mean they are inherently fact.
To give an example: Before the big bang, or even further, since we really have no idea where "all of this" started, we had to come from something. By a simple leap, space and time had to start and something had to set everything in motion. Existence of matter had to start somewhere. String theory attempts to explain, but by its very nature it is only a bunch of mathematical proofs attempting to explain the beginning of time (none of which can probably ever be tested to confirm or deny it as fact).
I cannot prove God and I cannot prove creationism. However science often fails in the simplest of forms. Medical science is one in which every day, we find new things, and continue to change theories and ideas. Often what was true ten years ago is disproved. Ten to twenty years ago celiac disease did not exist, now it is almost a household name in the US. That doesn't mean that science is wrong and we throw it under the bus. However on a personal side, when science fails one, one must wonder why. When all reality and science fails you must wonder why.
