A. J. Palmer - September 2002
(minor corrections and references added August 2008)
I became a scientist because in my head science works.
Chemistry Physics, Maths, Biology all made sense in a way that history,
languages and sport never did. Although I was brought up in a Christian home,
it wasn't until after studying at UMIST and just obtaining a chemistry
degree, and then starting to work within the chemical dyestuffs industry that
I found faith offered something valuable and constructive to life.
I have always been impressed with the fact that ideas like
evolution and natural selection just make sense. As I see the world they are
intuitively obvious. Equally natural are the ideas that cosmologists have
generated about the origin of the universe. A "big bang", or inflation, or a
separation of matter and anti-matter in a quantum flux, are exciting science.
All are good and developing attempts to understand the universe we live in.
Unless the person of faith is willing to accept the genuine fit of such
models with reality, then that person lives in denial of the world in which
we live. I do recognise that a sense of rightness as I describe is not proof.
Such a feeling can only direct you to seek rational argument and relevant
"proofs", and give warning to beware of bias.
It has taken many years for me to find a real sense of
balance and fit of faith with a genuine scientific understanding of the
world. It was just a week or so ago, on holiday in Austria, in the accidental
or providential company of some fine people, and with the intention of
reading some of a book called "Reason, Science & Faith" 1 that many parts seemed suddenly to fall into
place. I am not saying that I agree with Forster & Marston, but their
systematic overview of the areas of science and philosophy was very helpful.
The reductive approach to science of Dennet, Dawkin's,
Gribbin, and others offers a very clear understanding of the processes of the
universe. To such as myself the description has the same appeal as that of my
first encounter with natural selection. "It's obviously right" is the sort of
thought I have. Yet it doesn't change the deep feeling that God is here known
through the same processes and interactions, as is any person. I think that I
have always believed that there is God, to me it is equally intuitive. But
all intuition, all wonderful ideas are only useful when they are demonstrated
to fit the reality of the world.
I do not see those arguments using as axiomatic the
statements of men and women made millennia ago to have any particular weight
per se. I am interested in the theology and aspirations of those historic
people. I am delighted that some obviously found a faith which helped them to
make sense of their lives. I am pleased to learn from their experience.
However the bible and other texts, are not scientific texts, they are a
record of peoples' faith and experiences. They are important. However just
because somebody, about 3000 years ago or since, said "God said do
" or "this is the way to please God" or "This is how the Gods made
" 2, and another
person wrote it down doesn't mean that it is a statement no longer subject to
reason and evaluation.
In the following pages I try to express that reconciliation
of science and faith that I have achieved. And I do so with gratitude to
those who sometimes unknown to themselves have helped in that journey.
AJP. 4th August 2002
I play around with clocks and intend to build some in the
future. I've learnt a little about the mechanisms. I do know that you can
tell quite a bit about the clockmaker from his clocks. He may or may not have
signed it, but that would only give you a name and perhaps-other ways of
tracing his history. But just as the works of Monet, or Picasso can be
identified by the style of painting, similarly the clockmaker from his clock.
The clockmaker illustration is helpful. The clockmaker designs and fabricates
the clock, and may even initiate its first tick, although some mechanisms are
self-starting. That same person (or another) may modify or repair the clock.
The mind that initiated and controlled the fabrication and executes repairs
exists in parallel to the clock. Considering a clock there is a designer and
fabricator, the clock could not have happened by accident, we knew that
before the analogy was made. However this part of the argument fails to prove
that there is a creator for the universe, that is only true if you believe
that the world you see has mechanistic or natural processes that imply a
fabricator. What it does tell you is that if there is a creator Mind, you
can infer some of the creator's qualities or attributes from his
From the human perspective, when we want to talk about
whether there is a mind involved in a creative moment for the universe a
different analogy is perhaps more instructive. Suppose I am stood on a beach,
and a chunk of rock falls from the cliff above and buries itself in the sand
near me. What can I infer about the cause of the rock falling? It may be that
I can imagine a hand pushing the rock over the edge, or equally I can imagine
the natural processes of erosion, the effect of wind and water and infer that
some natural processes brought about this fall. Even a butterfly may have
landed on the outward edge and tipped it over. Whichever, from where I am
stood on the beach some things are evident.
- I may never have enough information to decide as the causal event may be inaccessible to me. So if I am honest there will always be an element of doubt in theories any human being produces.
- The end result is the same - the rock buried in the sand - the world in which we live.
- I may think that someone is trying to gain my attention.
- I may think that someone is trying to harm me.
- I may conclude that standing near cliffs is just plain dangerous.
But in the end, as to why the event happened, or what
process caused it, I may never have other than a very good range of theories.
I personally believe that there is God, a God who exists in
parallel to or contains this universe. And I also believe that it was God who
initiated the event that brought the universe into existence, but that
doesn't change the fact of the event or its generative nature. If that is all
that God ever did, that contention might be forever be beyond proof. In terms
of the falling rock illustration, God is the butterfly that landed on the
outward edge of the rock, or in the Hawking Quantum field, his were the
snapped fingers that held apart the separated particles just long enough for
inflation to begin. These however are only verbal pictures to assert a simple
belief that God is the reason why the event occurred, and are not intended as
scientific explanations of how the event occurred.
What follows from the clockmaker argument though is that if
there is a God and God is 'the creator' then some of God's qualities should
be discernible through this universe. Therefore I must use the best
scientific understanding of this universe if I am properly to discern
elements of the character of the creator / initiator. To refuse to tackle
scientific theory because it appears to deny the existence of God or because
scientists deny the existence of God, or because it doesn't fit with
"revealed" theology would be to do an injustice to the mind that brought it
all into being.
The process, both the "snap of the divine fingers" or the
random variation in a quantum field, and all that follows is fully open to
reason and understanding. The description of the development of all things
includes, such as Hawking quantum fields at the initiation of the universe,
as well as evolution and natural selection within the development of life. I
know that there are different theories and approaches within the scientific
community. The human mind is engaged on a constant quest for a true
understanding of existence. To those who believe there is a creator mind,
this will disclose something of that mind's nature, to those who don't so
believe it will still be a description of the fabulous and amazing universe
in which we exist.
After I had begun to write about this concept of the
parallel God, not knowing what I was writing, a friend recommended me to look
at a book called "Rocks of Ages"4.
Here Gould argues the principle of distinct and separate areas of teaching
for Science and Religion, areas that do not overlap. Science deals with the
material world, and Religion with God. He shows how this has been held
historically, as well as arguing the case cogently. It is convincing and
exciting reading, and is well worth a read by anyone who feels that there is
conflict between science and religion. His arguments are clear. The dispute
is more likely to be between scientists and theists who wish to pronounce
upon each other's area of expertise, rather than truly between science and
However although Gould writes of Science in general (he is
a zoologist, concerned with the material world.) Perhaps the true interface
between religion and science is likely to be in the field of ethics. This
field spreads its net over all the sciences, in the same way the faith will.
The reason is that it deals with the very proper field of what we do with
knowledge, and how we find out things about the universe and its contents
Without doubt this serious area is the one that brings not
just people of faith, but people of every creed into serious debate, concern
We have also always to remember that models and
descriptions are not the reality they represent. Schroedinger's Wave Equation
describes the probability of finding electrons in the space surrounding
atomic nuclei. We use them to draw shapes for the "orbitals" but electrons
don't really buzz around in these shapes. They exist in some "uncertain"
relationship with the nucleus to which they belong which is best described by
the complex mathematics of Schroedinger and Maxwell.
We may not understand the complexities of the mathematics
but still we will want to know how the model is verified? Well, the question
people would normally ask about a theory/model is something like - "does it
properly describe the behaviour we observe and predict new ideas which can be
subject to experiment and test?" If the answer is yes, and predicted
behaviour tests out positively you may find yourself with the best theory /
The same will always be true of all the theories we produce
about the universe. We may refine them, we polish them, and we may reduce
them to relationships with other models. But they are only as good as the
accuracy with which they describe the reality they model.
This means then that all the theories we produce have
somehow to be verifiable and show a fit with the real world. The same holds
true for our theories about God (theology). Revelation about God is fine but
has to be subject to test and be verifiable. i.e. it has to fit with the
world and be able to be shown to work. If people are not willing to test
revelation then the result can end up with cults that commit mass suicide.
15 So, if God initiated the
universe, and we can infer attributes of the Maker from the made, do those
attributes imply anything that is testable within the world today?
Another question raised by the clockmaker analogy is the
possibility of continuing interaction between maker and made. So whatever or
whoever God is, is it possible that he can be known by people. Is such a
presumption testable? What kinds of evidence would one look for beyond the
contention that the universe declares the glory of God ? The other area has
to be within human experience and human living.
Religion and Faith differ. Religion is forms of behaviour
built on human dogma. Faith is about a relationship, some would say
friendship. The distinction is important. Sir Alister Hardy, Linacre
Professor of Zoology (1946 - 65) and founder and first director (1969-1976)
of The Oxford Religious Experience Research unit in a statistical survey
found that 66% of people experience a "benevolent other force" at some time
in their lives.6 Is this in its own
right reasonable evidence in favour of people being able to interact with God
and even that there is a God? This offers the beginnings of sociological and
experiential arguments for the existence of God.
At this stage I simply contend that God can be known in a
relationship. Much theology, biblical and other eventually obscures that
simple relationship. However if mind relates to mind, Human mind to other
human minds and to animal minds, then why not human mind to divine mind.
There is of course, the possibility of projection. Human beings do project
responsive relationships onto machines and organisms, even if those organisms
are inanimate or unthinking. That possibility has to be dealt with. However
my reading of Jesus in the gospels shows me a man who experienced a
relationship with God that brought wholeness, purpose, a sense of
integration, and peace to his life. Whatever that relationship was, to it he
attributed the power to bring good into people's lives through healing. He
had a strong sense of God's presence in his life, and prayer played an
important part in his relationship with God. I think Jesus understanding was
of God who was best described in terms of love ( agape (Gk.) =
unconditional and self giving love.) I see Jesus life as a "demonstration" of
the nature of God and a demonstration of the effect of a relationship with
God upon living, and a demonstration of the power of divine love to radically
I think that with Teilhard de Chardin I would want to
affirm "Someday, after mastering the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity,
we shall harness for God the energies of love, and then for the second time
in the history of the world, we will have discovered fire." 16
Man has an ethical or moral nature. (Marc Bekoff suggests
most primates also show ethical behaviour which is consequent upon natural
selection. 7) I think I would see
that as inherent in creation, but also one of the means God uses to make us
aware of himself and his willingness to be part of our living.
We need here to distinguish between the capacity for
ethical behaviour, and the actual rules used in relationships. Our origins -
i.e. our DNA may include the recipe 8 for the capacity for ethical behaviour, but
not necessarily the rules to be used. Evolution and natural selection may
predispose us to behaviour that ensures our own, our partners and our
offspring's survival in some kind of priority order. It may therefore be that
the recipe for man includes in its ethical bits a degree of what might be
seen as "altruism". Twin studies and other studies could give an indication
of how much and what part of ethics comes from our genetic inheritance. But
wouldn't necessarily explain everything about the different kinds of moral
codes that exist, or why they exist in the first place. Morality, ethical
behaviour and theology have a history of being interwoven. The word God and
good in the English language have the same root, so that the phrase "God is
good" is almost tautological. Certain kinds of behaviour are seen as good,
and godly. How we behave is therefore somehow intrinsically linked to the
idea that there might be absolute standards for behaviour (God given
perhaps). That is, a standard that is independent of our upbringing. If there
is such an independent standard, was it written into our genetic makeup, or
did it just evolve, or was the universe so designed that when we evolved, we
evolved this way. Or maybe it exists for us simply to take hold of as an act
of free will? Can we really choose to be good or evil?
If in this area theologians and ethicists find themselves
treading similar ground. Should there be common rules for dealing with the
issues. Is it acceptable for one group to say "The bible says
" or "On a
mountain God said
?" I think not. The theologian equally needs to use
the rules of logic and enquiry. If the theologian's definition of the nature
of God is adequate and "true" then his derivations about acceptable, moral
behaviour will be equally true. The ethicist or sociologist who argues from
the principles founded on human social relationships should find that he and
the theologian agree if both have derived their work accurately from their
sources. If they differ, then both are testable, because both should be
dealing with the practicalities of relationships and behaviour. Here perhaps
more than ever the suggestion of God existing in parallel to the world
described by scientists can be seen more clearly. Behavioural scientists
could also develop a consistent ethics from the root of survival of the
fittest. Once survival is seen to include the possibility of helping others
to ensure one's own survival, then altruistic behaviour has a root with
evolutionary theory which leads to ethical behaviour. What sort of
"protecting others" behaviour properly coincides with survival of the
fittest, and is it testable that this is genetically "encouraged" or
"facilitated" (i.e. how much of that altruistic behaviour is genetically
predisposed? see the section "Evolution, Natural
Selection and Human Behaviour")
I think that theology should have a practical benefit. Just
as scientists theorise and attempt to describe or model reality and therefore
offer not just a description but also testable predictions about the world,
so theology should do more than sail theories that cannot be proved. It
should offer a coherent approach to life lived in relationship with God, and
be testable. Propositions that cannot be tested may be pretty but are also
The following chart tries to put alongside each other
different approaches to origins.
A snap of the divine fingers
|Origin of Universe
A fluctuation in the quantum field, or , or .,
See John Gribbin's explanation in "In search of the big bang"9 or "God the Big Bang, and Stephen Hawking" 10 page 85, and the surrounding book.
An accidental separation of quantum particles / energy / field
|Origin of life
Self-replicating proteins are
either a (favoured) possibility of the existing universe,
Or another snap of the divine fingers (although I wouldn't have put it here),
Or a natural consequence of the balance of the universe by the above.
|Origin of life
Develops from the occurrence of self-replicating proteins.
Origin of life
An accidental event leading to evolution.
|Origin of man
"One of" or "the" most versatile members of the animal kingdom.
The replication of DNA by the survival of the fittest implies that there must be some elements of behaviour that are directed to ensuring others survive (with whom to procreate) and that the species survives. (So that "I" as a part of all may have a chance to procreate). "Good" is therefore behaviour that enables others and myself to survive. Man is the first animal to see that there is something greater than is own standards.
|Origin of man
Develops within the animal kingdom by a process of evolution driven by natural selection (survival of the fittest).
Some behaviour is driven by inheritance and other is controlled by "memes"
? What makes a meme acceptable to the brain?
e.g. self-survival memes need at their level of "intent" to match with the inherited need to survive. Equally so they need to address the social of man.
Origin of man
Is an animal "red in tooth and claw", brighter, more flexible, and more vicious than the rest? A better survivor with the ability to manipulate material things.
The development of memes, ideas that replicate through the communicative ability of man, includes social, ethical and scientific memes, which encourage and proliferate specific behaviours.
Memes "fight" for survival in a process of natural selection. Man becomes man by learning to talk.
|Religion in man
Religion / faith is the best meme for the survival of the individual and the species. Testing could show that e.g. the Christian faith would give the best survival option for both individual, society and species.
The meme includes a relationship with the creator. This allows constant monitoring and development of the meme to personal circumstance.
Faith is about living creatively in an open relationship with God, whereas religion can be about appeasing a wrathful God or dangerous spirits.
|Religion in man
The place of religion and faith cause much debate. Is God separate from and above the creeds of individual religions, and if so what is the truth about knowing God.
|Religion in man
Another of many memes, but one about a being/mind/God, or whatever, that doesn't exist.
I am fascinated by the theories of the beginnings of the
universe. And I see no reason to repeat the work of other competent writers
in this area by reviewing the full field of different theories and approaches
to the beginning of everything. If you want detail of the science and
theories of how the world / universe came into existence I recommend other
The audacity of Stephen Hawkings is thrilling. Can there
really be one theory that explains everything - I would want to
wholeheartedly agree. Some say we live in a post modernist age, which rejects
all embracing explanations of the world. However the idea of a grand
explanation, a theory which gives expression to the integrity and integration
of the world in which we live is a very appealing idea. In some ways I think
that every-one at some level works with their own explanation of how the
world works. For some it may be very limited, but without an explanation at
some level you cannot function effectively within the world. Some live
comfortably with unanswered questions, others when faced with questions
cannot rest until some kind of answer is produced.
I could never be satisfied with being told that there are
some questions the scientist / theologian / philosopher / human being could
not explore and work at because they are the domain and preserve of God.
Human beings have inquisitive minds, questioning is part of our very nature.
We may not like the answers we get. They might threaten cherished beliefs
both scientific and theological. But for me it would be blasphemy not to
enquire and research and theorise about every aspect of the world we live in.
In doing so we will discover many wonderful things.
For me fundamentally science and faith ask different
questions. Material sciences are about the structure and interaction of the
universe and its parts. It asks the question "how did this come about"? Faith
looks at the world and asks, "why did it come about", and "what is it for?"
Physics has its various debated theories about the big
bang, inflation, and quantum origins. Chemistry explores the grosser physical
nature of material interactions. Biology with all its departments explains
the nature of living things, the effect of DNA and there are moves to create
a "genetic tree of life" which is very exciting. All of these and the many
other areas of scientific enquiry deal with the "how" of the universe in
which we live. David Wilkinson says that Stephen Hawkings made this point
it is possible to affirm with Hawkings the origin
of the universe being a fluctuation in a quantum field, but at the same time
hold a complementary affirmation that the universe owes its existence to the
sovereign will of God.
In fact it seems that Hawkings himself sees
such a point.
he rounds on philosophers who spend their time on
linguistic analysis rather than addressing the question 'why should there be
a universe at all?'" 11
While on holiday (Austria, July 2002), as a consequence of
discussion and through reading books an idea occurred which was confirmed by
an article in the New Scientist which I read when I came home.
I was exploring the question "what is good in human
society?" I was looking at it particularly from the point of view of
evolution and natural selection. Why should an animal that is working only to
survive, be nice to his neighbours, or to any other animal for that matter?
It cannot be that "survival of the fittest" excludes social
behaviour. In fact it must include some priority for behaviour directed to
the survival of others.
It was therefore very encouraging to read "Virtuous
Nature", a feature article from the New Scientist of 13 July 2002. In the
article, Marc Bekoff who teaches biology at the University of Colorado
recounts evidence suggesting that many animals have a sense of right and
wrong. He believes that "species that live in groups often have a sense of
fair play built on moral codes of conduct that help cement their social
He goes on to demonstrate that such moral codes are built
and explored through the play activities of the young with each other and
Studies that showed that hungry rhesus monkeys and rats
would not take food if it meant that another animal would receive and
electric shock support the presence of such codes of relational
behaviour.12 In another study
a by Hal Markowitz from San Francisco University (ca 1982), they observed
another monkey helping an old female who couldn't figure out how to use
counters to get food. Using the counters for her, and letting her take the
food. I'm sure that there are many such events that are never seen by the
observer, however in the world of science observed and recorded facts are the
best basis for argument and theories that are testable give a way forward.
Bekoff quotes examples from his own fieldwork, e.g.
"I've found that coyote pups who don't play are less
tightly bonded to other members of their group and are more likely to strike
out on their own.
I found that about 60% of the yearlings who drifted
away from their social group died, whereas fewer than 20% of their
stay-at-home peers did."
Bekoff also suggests that there is evidence in primates
other than man, for the use of punishment and apology to help reinforce the
rules of social engagement.
Bekoff says that he isn't arguing for a gene for fair or
moral behaviour - he thinks, and I agree, that "the underlying genetics is
bound to be complex."
Bekoff recommends further reading.13
Clearly then, Bekoff's work and presumably that of others
lends credence to the idea that treating one's fellow human beings with
decency and kindness has a strong place in the survival, not just of the
individual but also of the social and racial groups. The intense
preoccupation of some nations / national leadership with the creation of
biological weapons of mass destruction threatens the survival of all, and is
roundly condemned by the majority of thinking people.
Whereas social behaviour at all levels, personal, family,
society, national, international has a defined good that is related to
It seems that ethical and social behaviour - virtuous
behaviour if you like - is intrinsic to the nature of man.
While we can see this then as natural we may still want to
ask if religion or faith has any place in refining, and developing such
behaviour. We may also want to ask, "Is there such a thing as an absolute
moral standard?" and if so "Where does it come from?" We might suggest that
moral rules are perhaps part of the laws of nature.
The division between religion and science has been an
interesting piece of work. And certainly Stephen Jay Gould's14 work on this is excellent. It explores the
tension and the division in a clear way. Much of what he says I
wholeheartedly agree with. There is no battle, no fight, and should never
have been. If there has been it has come about because of the people wanting
to proclaim where they have done no research or study in areas relevant to
their proclamation and belief.
However as you follow through the concept of NOMA and the
separation of magisteria (divisions of scholarship) there is a small problem
that arises for me. While NOMA requires a proper separation of certain areas
of research the classic definition of miracle which requires to allow God to
work in the world breaking the laws of nature is scrapped. This has to be
logical - if the universe is not observable and repeatable then there are no
laws of nature, and there is no science - and everything scientific becomes
mere speculation because everything depends upon the whim of God.
So whatever miracle is, it is not God breaking the rules of
his creation. After all. man manages to work within the world without
breaking the laws of nature. He initiates events and gets things done. So why
can't God operate in the same way. The important questions are, "What are the
parameters of an event that is purpose driven by God?", and "How is such an
event recognised as God's action?"
It is very clear that human mind interacts with matter. My
thoughts may propose actions and I may carry out those actions and thus alter
the world in which I live. How then does the mind of God (if there is such a
mind) interact with the world, which he has created? It is very clear that
some the detailed examination of the processes of nerve cells in the brain
show what happens when the associated mind has a thought. But is the thought
and the firing of the nerve cell the same thing. I think not. But since there
is a relationship between the two even if it true nature is still unclear -
does the thought fire the neurone or vice versa. This is important because it
is about free will. If I choose to remember a whole a range of events do I
really have free will? Have I chosen and is that the control, or has the
neurone fired randomly and am I acting from the illusion of self control.
Arising from this area is another question?
Whose domain is it to explore how the divine mind interacts
with the material world? Clearly neither pure material scientists, nor
theologians on their own are competent to pronounce upon this area? How is
such an inter-discipline set-up and who should study it?
God is the reason the world began. How
was God involved in the process? I'm not sure I fully understand what I
think about this moment. I don't fully understand how mind interacts with
neurones to create an event from human though. What we do know is that
there is a result. Somehow there is a connection between the mind that is
God and the material universe. And through whatever that connection is,
the event Hawkings describes when quantum matter and anti-matter separate
and inflate may be also the event when God snapped his metaphorical
fingers and said, "What a good idea. Let's have a universe in which there
is the possibility of man."
God continues to exist in parallel to
the world, and I believe there is a continuous interaction between God
and his people/world ( and possibly animals). This is the area that as a
person of faith I wish to explore and discover. Those discoveries and the
development of that relationship will be consistent with life in this
world. The things I declare about God will be testable and can be shown
to be true or false. However some of that process will involve the logic
and proofs that work within relationships. Some will involve the use of
scientific method. Human beings project personality onto organisms and
machines, but God is more than a personality projection. God is
experienced operating in relationship with human beings and God's
fundamental driving force is love.
People are genetically predisposed to
operating within a moral or ethical framework. A brief analysis indicates
that we may be predisposed to an ethical framework which includes
behaviour that ensures the survival of others. It may be that we are
genetically predisposed to altruistic behaviour, since some forms of
altruism will aid the survival of the individual.
For me, prayer is an important path
through which God is known.
A grand explanation of all, a theory of
everything, the ultimate meta-narrative is I believe possible. It seems
sensible that there can be a coherent description of how all things fit
together. If it is to be achieved there has to be a point at which
theologians and scientists stop fighting with each other and engage in
serious and thoughtful debate.
Mankind is not alone. We are part of the
animal kingdom. Mind, thought and memory, social behaviour and
communication are not our sole preserve. "Dumb" animals do not exist - at
least in the sense that you can do what you like with them, for animals
too have thoughts and feelings and social behaviour. There are
distinctive characteristics of human beings. One is the extent of his
ability to communicate and to store information. Another is the ability
to perceive beyond the survival of the individual and to act
altruistically for the survival of the species. The nature of man's
ethics, and it's potential to form a genuine global society needs
extensive exploration. It is clear also that we should take much more
seriously our relationship with all creatures on this planet.
The interface between faith and science
needs to be carefully explored. Their are studies that could be done to
show how much ethical freedom people have. While this is the realm of
science, the amount of free ethical content is very much the realm of
faith as is the whole area of the effect of faith on acceptable practice.
Some of this field overlaps with ethical and social studies - It may not
be completely possible in some areas (as Gould suggests) to entirely
separate faith from social sciences as from physical sciences. Faith
speaks about love, respect, care. Faith has an important contribution to
make to the application of scientific discovery (such as cloning and
IVF). It is important however that the contribution is made in such a way
as not to violate the fundamental ethical principles derived from faith.
It is clear though, that God is just as
involved in the world today as he has always been. As usual the
difficulty is to get to a clear understanding of how God works, rather
than how we think he should work. This can only happen when Christians
and scientists learn to listen and hear and understand what the other is
saying. With that must go the humility to be honest about what they
experience of God and of the world.
Andrew J. Palmer September 2002
(minor corrections and references added August 2008)
This is a page from www.genefaith.org created by A. J.
If you have not visited the main site please do so.