Here is an interesting quote from a Roman Catholic astronomer:
A Vatican astronomer who embraces both science and religion has said there is no conflict between the two, arguing that scientist who reject religion are lacking in humility, while Christians who reject science believe they can tell God how he should have made the universe.
Those who side with God on our origins, are not telling God anything. They are merely repeating what he told us about his creative act in the beginning. God never said he used science thus it is those who advocate for a scientific origins that are trying to tell God how he should have made the universe and life on this planet.
Whenever I read comments from those who have rejected Genesis 1 & 2 in favor of secular science, I see the same common theme. They are the ones doing exactly as they accuse those who believe God and who reject secular science’s alternatives. This never fails no matter what the topic or issue, those who reject God and his revelations, are always guilty of committing those errors
Pope Leo wanted an observatory so that everyone might see the Church is not opposed to solid science, but embraces it and encourages it with full devotion,” Consolmagno revealed.
The problem with this is, ‘solid science’ may not be telling the truth. Some one forgot to tell Pope Leo that there was a thing called right and wrong, true and false teaching and those biblical teachings apply to science as well.
The church is not opposed to solid science, it is opposed to the lies that secular science produces. Yes, science lies when it says that God and the bible is in error.
Religion gives me the reason to do the science,” he added.
But if you using religion to do science, a field that says your religion is in error, then what good is your religion? It seems that the person who adopts this attitude has a faulty religious belief for it allows the holder to be taken away from that religious belief.Science is NOT God’s authoritative representative. The Bible is and when science says that authoritative work is not authoritative or correct, then there is something wrong with the science, not the Bible.
“The important thing is to recognize that the universe is created by God, and however God did it tells us something about God’s personality,” Consolmagno said at the time.
People claim that there is no such thing as a stupid question, and other such remarks but this is a stupid remark because it tells us that that Cardinal doe snot read his Bible nor believes it if he has. God already told us how he created everything and not just in Genesis but other books of the Bible as well and not once has those remarks contradicted each other nor have they implied that God used natural or scientific alternatives to do his creative work.
Since we know how God did it, for he tells us how, such comments above render that man’s credibility and qualification to be anywhere near students or even a pulpit or microphone, moot. When representatives of a church denomination state that their own God and his holy writings are wrong, then those people need to find another church to attend and another god to worship. For the ones they adhere to are very faulty and incapable of communicating the truth.
If God chose to make a universe where we are the only creatures, that is interesting, that tells us something about God and us,” he continued.
“If God creates a universe where life is everywhere, that gives us a different picture of God, but in either way, we learn more about Who the Creator is.”
Stating the obvious does not win any scholastic or academic rewards.
When it comes to the contents of the Bible, you either believe God or you don’t. There is no middle ground here. You get to choose Genesis and God’s revelation or secular science and its alternatives. Those who hold to a God driven evolutionary method are trying to have it both ways and they do not realize it but they are saying that they do not believe God or take him at his word.
God does not lie so why would he have his authors write something that did not take place if he used a different method?