Which side are you in?

[Laksha Maria Charbel]

I would go under group four. There are some answers that science can't provide, and there are some that we don't yet understand from the Biblical origin theory. I do believe that it was intended to be so. That there are some questions that we can't get answers to. Much like life itself. Despite meticulous planning, understanding, and statistical data, our future cannot be predicted. It is "The greatest mystery", that has been kept from mankind, since the days of Adam. The purpose of life on Earth is to learn to embrace uncertainty. To accept that not everything can be known or understood, to marvel at life nevertheless, and to thrive in it.
I am happy with this uncertainty. I am happy, that we get to share this beautiful relationship of faith with God. I enjoy the discoveries of men and the luxuries. Most of all I believe that the unknown exists and that it is beautiful because it's a mystery.

[Sophia U]

Surely there are more than just three categories in which humans can be classified with. In fact, we can assume that different humans believe in different things, and even when there are similarities in their beliefs, they can vary in extent. Additionally, beliefs can be intertwined like how Science and Religion correspond in some ways. Through this, we can assume that there is an infinite amount of categories in which human can be classified in. If I had to choose between the given categories, I believe I would fall under the third. I know enough about Science and enough about Religion- byproducts of my upbringing and education. Anyways, nothing is set in stone and we have the right to change our mind anytime.

[Joseph Dunn]

It appears that I'm rather late to this discussion; however, having recently read the book, I would suggest that there is at least one other group. At the very least, this would be a subgroup to group 3: those that know both science and the Bible, and who understand that neither could ever provide a definitive answer regarding the age of the universe. This subgroup would consist of those who recognize that any further reconciliation or disparities are speculative, and that science or religion can only propose theories: theories, which are by nature, malleable and refutable as more data is gathered. Even if we could narrow it down (as the author suggests both science and religion have), what preceded (or precedes) the universe? Who or what provided the energy to create the universe? Who or what provided the "who" or the "what"? The technologies that we use to make these speculations are fairly nascent, yet we believe that we can use them to date a thing (the universe) that we can only perceive as infinite. Our oldest written human communication goes back only a few thousand years, yet we believe that we can translate and transliterate ancient text to extract unanswerable data. The more a scientist learns about a matter, the more that scientist realizes that he or she has to learn about that same matter. Similarly, one would hope that intense Biblical studies would lead to humility and an understanding that there are some things we can never know. For example, what is the smallest unit of matter? Is it a quark? That can't be so, because quarks are composed of even smaller units. Once we identify those, as scientists, we then must identify their composition. Human curiosity is admirable: it becomes a much different thing when we believe we have attained all of the answers.

[Grace McHardy]

I would be in group 2. I believe in the story of Creation from The Bible and can discern that many scientific ideoligies often prove Biblical happenings.

[review-specialist]

I think there's a fourth group: people who are on both sides and believe that there is just more to it than we can possibly know as humans.

Yes, I was trying to think of how to factor in this fourth perspective because I see where there are both truths in creation and scientific ideologies. Indeed, I agree that there is soo much more than what meets the eye. As generation progresses I think humans will unravel more mysteries beyond our wildest dreams.

[Josephe-Anne]

I would say that I fit into Group 3 because (even though the book was excellent), I believe that there are some mysteries we may never find the answer to while we are alive. I like to research scientific and religious teachings, so it doesn't bother me to explore different perspectives.

[Mason Garrod]

That's fair enough, those categories are quite broad and I guess they would cover the majority of people. Not being hugely knowledgeable of science I'm definitely more angled towards the religious and spiritual side, but I'm not familiar with most of the nitty-gritty in either subject, so I've always been comfortable without really needing to reconcile the two in my mind

[Michelle Menezes]

I think I'd go be in group 3, I believe in science as well as the Bible and I think they go hand-in-hand. I feel that not everything can be explained with science, even though some people may believe that everything follows a logic. I do feel there are some miracles that happen.

[Tarie07]

I think group 3 is a good fit for me because I believe in both science and religion. I believe miracles do happen and the little science i know, I'm not so sure I would be able to make sense of it without religion.

[Grace McHardy]

My beliefs line up more with the second option. I believe in the six days of creation and feel as if there is a way by which this belief and science can coexist.

[Medhansh Bhardwaj]

Group 3 squad here. The reason is simple- I don't want to be a firm believer of any ideology or dogma. I really like to be flexible with my belief systems, and not take a rigid stance for or against anything. This allows me to be free and independent and use my own thought process to comprehend stuff around me.

[Aashu Chaudhary]

Definitely the third one. I think on one side the science facts help us to understand the world better and do great things in life. On the other, religion have its own place of importance as it helps a person to bring peace to his heart.

[Sandeep Moses Arulnesan]

I would be taking the second side. The side where we believe in God and creation as well as have basic scientific knowledge. But, in the end, what the Bible says stands!

[Simmons32]

The thing is, I do believe that science proves the Bible. I just don’t believe it happened the way the author believes it does. I don’t believe millions of years passed during those six days of creation. I think they were just average days. It seems like everything always boils down to people believing that dinosaurs existed before humans did. I don’t get why it’s so hard to think that dinosaurs and humans could have walked the earth together. They were just another type of land animal.

[Donald Trust]

I can't take a stand on any, because am part of both and there is a sync between them.