Why isn't it okay to question evolution?
I believe that God is truth and truth is, by definition, reasonable. Science cannot disprove true faith; because true faith rests on the truth; and science cannot be in ultimate conflict with the truth. So I am perfectly happy to believe in evolution, for example, as the most powerful theory yet devised explaining human history and pre-history. I have no fear of what science will tell us about the universe - since God is definitionally the Creator of such a universe; and the meaning of the universe cannot be in conflict with its Creator. I do not, in other words, see reason as somehow in conflict with faith - since both are reconciled by a Truth that may yet be beyond our understanding
I don't know which group I find more narrow-minded and intolerable, those evolutionists who insist that anyone who believes in an unmoved mover is an anti-science, anti-intellectual rube or those Christians who hold that no one can profess Christ and recite the The Nicene Creed with conviction while believing that God could have used evolution to create.
Try to learn about romance through science and you'll not get far. Try to discover how to live a meaningful live through science and you'll get neurological studies but nothing fulfilling. Try to determine if we really exist through science and you'll find that we quickly run out of scientific tools to answer the question.
There are some questions that are not susceptible to science. The beliefs of creationists/ID-ists/[whatever we've decided to call them in this thread] is one such thing. They have a system of belief about why there is life on this earth that is not susceptible to science.
Firstly, There IS a difference between 'Creationism' and 'Intelligent Design'.
Nah, apes are pongids. We're homonids.
OK, to play devils advocate, what cause evolution?
Exactly Flunkie, 'probability' can be ones 'god' or 'unmoved mover' but at some point, it seems to me, there is a mystery that we can't comprehend. I have no real problem with evolution (Darwinism is another fish) but I do question where the cosmos began, and I don't see where religion or science has the definitive answer. It's what you are comfortable believing.
I agree. So what's the argument.
An honest scientist (and let's face it, some scientists are creationists) will face the question of where the first cell, or bang, or whimper came from, and most don't say 'I don't know, it could be aliens', rather they say anything but intelligence and shirk the question.
As dumbness has been defined downward in American public life during the last two decades, one of the most important and frequently overlooked culprits is the public's increasing reluctance to give a fair hearing -- or any hearing at all -- to opposing points of view.
Whether watching television news, consulting political blogs or (more rarely) reading books, Americans today have become a people in search of validation for opinions that they already hold. This absence of curiosity about other points of view is the essence of anti-intellectualism and represents a major departure from the nation's best cultural traditions.
The idea of a distinctive, unifying, risk-taking American DNA might also help to explain our most persistent and painful racial divide - between the progeny of every immigrant nationality that chose to come here, and the one significant group that exercised no choice in making their journey to the U.S. Nothing in the horrific ordeal of African slaves, seized from their homes against their will, reflected a genetic predisposition to risk-taking, or any sort of self-selection based on personality traits.
« Older Smooth Jazz,... | Wayne Miller's compelling B&W ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt