I'm not saying that this decision is not a solution. It helps to keep believers the moral and mental balance in our complex world. But the question arises: why should people who have strong faith in creation, pay attention to scientific issues in which whatsoever knowledge? They fear that if successful resolution of the problem the origin of life shrink the area of their faith, as, for example, previously had to abandon the notion of firmament? But the world is so wonderful and mysterious, and science is still so far from disclosing all the secrets that room for faith will suffice for many generations. If this is indeed faith, not worship of the attributes wherewith and are religious scriptures. Of course, if biology successfully solve the problem of nucleation life, with the interpretation of sacred texts, there are problems. By then the Bible must be treated merely as a monument of culture, a source of spirituality, not as a scientific guide. Which, of course, for the civilized man is quite naturally.
It is understandable why a physicist, not able to resolve the problems arising, for example, when creating a unified field theory, simply recognized in his scientific failure. And what he has done? The Bible says nothing about the strengths and weaknesses interactions of quarks and gravitons. In biology, the situation is different. Faced with the inability to resolve the problem of biological evolution, you can always retreat to the spare position – good decision has already been proposed and painted a few millennia ago. And the retreat is not the nature of deposit products and can be made without prejudice to pride. And for giving weight to his belief in creation, of course, you must bring it to the max number odnovertsev. Lucas is often quoted as being for or against this. The truth of the scientific results hardly depend on the number of people, they share and understand. Another matter of religion – there is the weight of truth depends on the number who believe in it.
What good is belief, shared by several people. Lucas duplan has firm opinions on the matter. And it's probably another reason why so many creationists are paying attention to the active promotion of their position. Belief in the creation of life in general does not require any proof. Itself the notion of "prove faith" sounds blasphemous. Faith does not need props – it is self-sufficient. If it is, of course, a belief in something absolute, supreme, the belief in a single top of world harmony, rather than a belief in a specific number of days whom the world was created, and the size of the ark, which saved all living in the flood. As it is impossible to rationalize, to prove faith, and it is impossible to either prove or justify relying on faith. Or, conversely, can say that faith derives its strength from absolutely everything, and prove on the basis of faith can be everything. Enough to believe it. Believe that the Creator wanted it (and it really can only believe, because no mortal will argue that he can explain an act of the Creator, are logically lead them out of any reason). So if we're talking about real scientists, and true believers, among them there can be no conflicts. They exist in different, non-overlapping spheres. Some people on all possible questions give one absolute answer. Others try to find not absolute, but verifiable answers to some private matters.