[Religion as science and non-science]

Science is a tentative truth. It’s also a truth about what can be verified. So philosophers like Carl Popper suggest the criteria for the compartmentalization of science and non-science as “the criteria for the possibility of refutation.” In other words, you should be able to state when you get it wrong. When Einstein verifies the theory of relativity, he predicts that stars behind the moon will be observed elsewhere during a total eclipse. If the position does not change, he professes that his theory is wrong. This is often called science.

Religion is one of the representative non-science. The word non-science doesn’t disparage religion, it’s just another area. Because the Bible is a revelation and an unmistakable truth. Therefore, evolutionary biologist Stephen J. J. J. Gould also respected and acknowledged religion as a value in other areas.

The issue, however, is that attempts are made to place the Bible in the same position as science without stating it theologically. The Society of Creative Science is the most disturbing example.

Historically, Cheondongism is recognized as a science. But medieval theologians also leaned over here and tried to interpret the Bible. The case in point was the Galileo Inquisition.

The phrases below prove that the earth is flat in the religious trial at the time.

“The Lord is dressed in the same light as the Lord is dressed, and he is flying in the sky like a insignia” (Psalm 104:2, Revision of Reformation)
“He sat in a gutter on the ground, and the people living on the ground were like grasshoppers. He spread the sky with him and set up a tent with him to live in.” (S. 40:22, Revision of Reformation)

The logic was that the ground must be flat in order to hit the sky like a tent. This disaster occurs when these ancient Near East cultural expressions are confused with the the theological truth contained in the Bible.

Since we are in the position of defending the truth, we must speak more carefully and carefully. Because if science is wrong, it quickly withdraws its assumption, saying, “Oh, it’s wrong.” That way, the authority of science is not undermined, but rather elevated.

However, in the realm of non-science, religion, which is true in a different sense, has one fatal event. It is the duty of religion to reveal the gospel based on the resurrection of Christ and his divinity as we know it, rather than to speak prematurely.

I’m not saying that Darwin wrote the origin of a species, but I’m saying that this species went through this process through geoscience, which most people don’t know, but Darwin used the word “evolution” only once in the origin of a species, and what he wanted to explain was to explain nature’s choice among biodiversity.

I want believers to be more cautious.