True science, true relgion do not contradict

EVOLUTION

        It is historically inaccurate to maintain that modern science forced
the Church to come up with ideas about Genesis 1-3 that differ from the
allegedly "literal" views of Protestant Fundamentalists.  In his "De Genesi
ad Litteram Libri Duodecim" [Twelve Books on the Literal Interpretation of
Genesis] and "De Genesi contra Manichaeos Libri Duo" [Two Books on Genesis
against the Manichees], St. Augustine (354-430), Prince of the Fathers and
Doctors of the Church, gave many interpretations of Genesis that are plainly
at variance with such "literal" views.  Given that a theological thinker of
St. Augustine's genius arrived at the views that he did after years of
careful study of the text, it is incumbent upon us to approach the early
chapters of Genesis with far less dogmatism and far more humility and caution
than we often do.

        St. Augustine's interpretations should help us guard against facile
claims about the "literal" meaning of these texts.  We should recognize what
Augustine recognized: namely, the early chapters of Genesis are in fact
complex and do not tender easy, pat answers.  For example, St. Augustine
repeatedly stresses that the six days described in Genesis are not six
successive ordinary days.  They have nothing to do with time.  The days are
repeatedly claimed to be arranged according to causes, order, and logic.
  
        Pope Pius XII's Encyclical "Humani Generis" exhibits a very prudent
approach to the question of the theory of evolution, as well as all
scientific theories.  Both religion and science are founded in truth;
therefore, true religion and true science can never be in contradiction.  He
reprimands those who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that Evolution, WHICH
HAS NOT BEEN FULLY PROVEN EVEN IN THE DOMAIN OF NATURAL SCIENCES, explains
the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic
opinion that the world is in continual evolution."

        The salient point here is that the Theory of Evolution is just that,
a theory.  There may be aspects of it that are correct, and other aspects
that are not.  Even scientists do not agree on all points of the theory, and,
like all scientific theories, more and more flaws in it will be discovered as
further data are discovered.

        Science can be looked at more as a process rather than a set of
facts.  For example, the Ptolemaic system was replaced by the Newtonian, the
Newtonian by the Einsteinian.  The 19th-century "Theory of Evolution" has
already been found wanting by the scientific community and is constantly
being revised as biological understanding increases.

        In history, we find that some in religion try to impose rigorously
non-dogmatic aspects of the Faith into science, as in the great debate on
heliocentrism in the 17th century.  Conversely, some scientists try to make
their "theories" contradict religious dogma.  Both approaches are incorrect.

        Here are the pertinent passages from the encyclical.

        "Thus, the teaching of the Church leaves the doctrine of evolution an
open question, as long as it confines its speculations to the development,
from other living matter already in existence [not Darwin's theory of
spontaneous generation, that living matter has come from non-living matter],
of the human body.  In the present state of scientific and theological
opinion, this question may be legitimately canvassed by research, and by
discussion between experts on both sides." (Sec. 1, para. 5-7)

        "It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although
they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less
connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few
insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into
account as much as possible.  This certainly would be praiseworthy in the
case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather
question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which
the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved.  If
such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine
revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be
admitted....

        "For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not
forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and
sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in
both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far
as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent
and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are
immediately created by God.  However this must be done in such a way that the
reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to
evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation
and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of
the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting
authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful. 
Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as
if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were
already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered
up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in
the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and
caution in this question."  (Section 36)

        "There are other conjectures, about polygenism (as it is called)
[Darwin's theory that there were many Adams and Eves in the very beginning of
mankind, not just one set of First Parents], which leave the faithful no such
freedom of choice.  Christians cannot lend their support to a theory which
involves the existence, after Adam's time, of some earthly race of men, truly
so called, who were not descended ultimately from him....  It does not appear
how such views can be reconciled with the doctrine of original sin."  (Sec.
3, para. 64-68)

Here is why most people get the Scientific method backwards.

“I looked under a rock for a bug, but the bug was not there; I believed it was there until I proved it didn’t exist.”

All of perception is a relative perception, possibly thought of as an absolute perception. This is where mistakes begin to creep into our rational thinking.

All of existence has its paradox for every part within it as well as it's own being. What does this mean to us? It means water can both quench a man's thirst or drown him; everything has the potential for life or death at the same time. Two sides to the same coin. God would be the coin; perception would be the heads and tails of that coin (of existence). Does that make sense?

So how do we use this paradox to figure things out for ourselves? We turn what we know of it into an axiom (to state it as truth until proven otherwise). This is how we utilize scientific method to prove WHAT HAPPENS (not so much whether it is or isn't) in the instance of observance. In this, it is pertinent to be unbiased (to not judge or have preconceptions of the outcome so the observation itself takes priority). Extroverts are very handy in this case.

Once the observation is made and the data collected objectively, then we sit down to write down our thoughts, our feelings about the findings we collected and what we would like to do with them next; how do we use this for practical purposes?

So really? How can someone prove the existence of God if he hasn't been proven that God doesn't exist or even if God is working his magic right now as you are reading this last line?
It is a natural thing to exclude one's self from a common way of thinking, it is a fool's errand to not try something new and repeat the same thing over and over even though it ends in failure, it's a waste of his own time; would you waste your time listening to him for an extended period? It is an ignorant choice to say something doesn't exist even though it has yet to be observed. It may not be TRUE, but the possibility will always exist until proven otherwise, or ignored and forgotten. There is no interim between awareness and ignorance is there?

In awareness lies the possibility, pursuing the possibility means pursuing the revelation regardless of the unknown and ignorance; you do it because you want to believe it works or it exists. So what is the choice in this? Life and death are your options; To live or not to live, to die or not to die. Those that believe in an interim of this I call, "Fence-sitters." These people like to watch over their fence of safety to assure that anything that comes by is to their liking BEFORE they find out what it is. This is why most people that go to shopping markets appreciate a clean, good looking, well-stocked and faced shelves with beautiful ads and labels to look at. It's the appearance of things they want. That which they don't want, they ignore. It's everywhere. It's indoctrination and mostly due to ignorance, feigning ignorance breeding and teaching their children the same; the blind leading the blind. People are not ignorant because of who they are; it was a choice they made when they were a child to adapt into their environments. It's a coping mechanism that allows a decrease in conflict with parents, teachers, classmates, co-workers, etc. When we integrate this choice into everything we do; we become arrogant and think we know it all. It is true to me, because it happened to me. Whether someone else says it's false only means it is false to them. This is the proper way of viewing perceptions and opinions.