Faith and science : this reasoning should make the debate easier.

I know thetopic is hot water and have been beaten to a pulp (with the cell stem research issue). Plus, I obviously have no new information to share (really ?). However, I think that Tenzin Gyatso ( the 14th Dalai Lama) may have the beginning of the answer.
Here is his take on whether faith and science are compatible:
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview [..] The goal here is not to prove Buddhism right or wrong - or even to bring people to Buddhism - but rather to take these methods out of the traditional context, study their potential benefits, and share the findings with anyone who might find them helpful [..] many people still consider science and religion to be in opposition. While I agree that certain religious concepts conflict with scientific facts and principles, I also feel that people from both worlds can have an intelligent discussion,[..] A deeper dialogue between all scientific fields and society could help deepen our understanding of what it means to be human and our responsibilities for the natural world we share with other sentient beings."
I will reiterate my personal opinion on the matter of ID vs Evolution: evolution is a proven fact BUT it does not disprove by any means the existence of God. That's all we can and should be concluding at this point. How is this still an issue in this part of the world is a bit of mystery to me. For great reads on the subject of faith and science, I really liked Claude Allegre's book "Dieu et la Science", and Francis Collins (head of the NIH Human Genome Project) "Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief ".
The complete article in the New York Times of November 12th, 2005 is here.


  1. I respectfully disagree that evolution is a proven fact. I think relies on a lot of underlying assumptions (like the measurement of time for example and how things are dated) that are significantly flawed.

    I do, however, wholeheartedly agree that scientific investigation - complete investigation - reveals the truth. I also believe that science and religion are not mutually exclusive in spite of how they are often discussed or portrayed in the media. Religion is science if practiced with an open and inquiring mind and vice versa.

    I don't know a lot about Buddhism so this comment in no way applies to it. Or maybe it does and I just don't know it.

  2. This evidence of evolution at the molecular genetics level does not require any time measurement or time dating:
    "The development of molecular genetics, and particularly of DNA sequencing, has allowed biologists to study the record of evolution left in the organisms' genetic structures. The degree of similarity and difference in the DNA sequences of modern species allows geneticists to reconstruct their lineages. It is from DNA sequence comparisons that figures such as the 95% similarity between humans and chimpanzees come"
    However, I ,in return, totally respect that you disagree with my opinion. What I want to emphasize is that evolution should not undermine the notion that life has a finality and a spiritual meaning.