This post is installment #2 of my blog series on debunking conflicts between faith & science.
Perceived conflicts between religion and science drive people away from religion and prevent others from trusting science. No matter which side you're rooting for, being able to untangle these conflicts will allow people from both sides to have real conversations about faith and about science.
Perceived conflicts between religion and science drive people away from religion and prevent others from trusting science. No matter which side you're rooting for, being able to untangle these conflicts will allow people from both sides to have real conversations about faith and about science.
My whole life, I believed that evolution proved that the creation story in Genesis 1 didn't happen. Even though I wanted to believe in God, it was a big stumbling block for my faith that so many Bible stories seemed impossible or disprovable with science or reason.
I've since learned that the all-literal view of how to read the Bible doesn't just conflict with science, it also conflicts with the intentions of the Bible. Yes, a lot of things in the Bible literally happened, and it's important to know which ones. But it's also important to know which parts were never supposed to be read literally, and why. We can't just write-off all the verses that don't make literal sense and believe all the ones we like, but we can-- and should-- take a closer look at the nonsensical ones and decide if it even makes Biblical sense to read them literally.
