jesuits and geology

i'm at work at the archives at the moment, more and more i am beginning to disdain this job. i used to love it, i'm a geek like that, and researching random facts and thumbing through kitchy artifacts was completely delightful. now, perhaps it's merely the grant i'm working on, it's damn boring. i'm organizing information and doing research on the Canisius College Seismograph Station; it's one of the oldest in the country, and one of four Jesuit stations that remains active. I shan't continue to describe seismology in detail, not that i think i would bore you, reader, but because it simply bores myself.
i'm having communication problems with my boss; she's on vacation all week, and was in conferences all last week. i feel like i'm continually hitting dead ends sorting through a mess of papers of dead priests. a dead end is where i'm at right now, so, alone in the office, i've decided to end my frustration, and merely get paid for writing a blog.
going to a Jesuit school, i'm fairly immersed in this sort of thing, and it doesn't seem odd typically, but the paradox suddenly struck me just now of being a priest and a scientist. how can two worlds, science and religion, that are so at odds with one another contain simultaneous truth for a person? yet here i am, for a few months now, going through the personal papers of Father Ruddick and Father McTigue, two men who devoted their lives to the pursuit of both religion and science. granted, they were Jesuits, the often liberal renegades of the Catholic Church, and geology isn't the most controversial of sciences, but i can't stop wondering, that when push came to shove, which doctrine won out over the other. i'm not saying that an intellectual can not believe in God, nothing of the sort. I myself, almost definitely, believe that a God exists. additionally, i'll be so bold but to label myself an intellectual. the thing is, yes i believe in God, but certainly not religion. i certainly don't think that religion is a bad thing, and it's a helpful tool for many who try to appreciate the spiritual aspect of live. however, one can't deny the fact that religion is in fact man made. one's faith can be a beautiful thing, but it is just that, their faith, not their religion. and yes, reader, it's a grey line that exists between the two; where does one's faith end and one's religion begin? that's all relative. one thing i do know is there are two poles in the world: science and religion, and each is often debunking the other. each views the other as delusional. i grew up in what i always joke as a "cult church", i was a Pentecostal kiddie before i reached my jaded teens. my parents are hippies turned gun-ho evangelicals, which still causes a fair share of conflict in our relationship. my mother started crying when i explained to her that i was pro-choice. my father is convinced that global warming is a secular myth. and i won't even begin to describe our unpleasant conversations on the topic of evolution. this may seem extreme to you, reader, you're probably thinking that my parents are a pair of crazy holy rollers. the thing is, they're not. they're normal, average people. they just happen to view the world through a lens of religion. i view the world through science. both of our perspectives seem completely absurd to the other. ("you think we come from monkeys?" vs. "you think the world happened in 6 days?")
this brings everything back to me sitting at the archives in the upstairs corner of the library, and how i've been sitting here for months, reading the letters and the notes of two men who found a way for the worlds of science and religion to co-exist. it baffles me. and of course, they're both long dead, so, reader, there goes that.