re: #2 LudwigVanQuixote

OHHH!

The Rambam said:

“The Torah can not be false. What hhs been proven to be true can not be false by definition. Therefore if your understanding of Torah is contradicted by what has been proven to be true, the only thing that can be wrong is your understanding of Torah.”

In other words, if your reading of Torah (Genesis being the first book of it) makes you think that evolution didn’t happen, then you are reading it wrong.

Rambam’s entire point and thrust was to bridge perceived gaps between Torah and the science of his day.

To say that this punk who misuses him is shameless is an understatement beyond measure.

Yep. And speaking of another enlightened approach to science and religion, check out this excerpt from a talk the Dalai Lama delivered to the Society for Neuroscience in 2005 (emphasis mine)…

On the philosophical level, both Buddhism and modern science share a deep suspicion of any notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a transcendent being, as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul, or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism.

For example, in the Buddhist investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last. This means that, in the Buddhist investigation of reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may be. Even in the case of knowledge derived through reason or inference, its validity must derive ultimately from some observed facts of experience.

Because of this methodological standpoint, I have often remarked to my Buddhist colleagues that the empirically verified insights of modern cosmology and astronomy must compel us now to modify, or in some cases reject, many aspects of traditional cosmology as found in ancient Buddhist texts.

And yet, Buddhism is often decried…especially by the Chinese…as “backward” and “superstitious,” while modern-day Christianity is on the cutting edge of truth? I don’t think so.