A few related ideas. I'd love to hear your thoughts. :)
In the evolution versus creation debate, I don't understand why creationism believers automatically knock down the possibility of evolution. On one hand, religious people will tell you that their god created the universe and everything within the umbrella of "universe." Therefore he had the foresight to plan for human life, plan for meaning to life (a huge concept!), give us the fabulous brains in our craniums, and so on. So why can't this god have planned for the evolution of humans? For Jews and Christians, for example, why can't "earth" have been a metaphor (creating man from earth)? Creating woman from man's rib is an obvious example of hierarchy and evolution in a general sense. I'll say right now that I've never read Darwin, and the only holy scripture I've ever read was part of the Old Testament for a college writing class ~ but I just don't see why they have to be separate.
In more general terms, why are scientists looked on as unholy and anti-godly? There are many scientists who hold fast to organized-religious beliefs. In fact, one could imagine a scientist who aims to discover more about a god-given world, who analyzes everything in terms of god and its purpose for god, who studies his universe in order to become closer to his god.
I just don't see what the big fuss is all about. Humans up to their usual factioning?
~<B>d a n i m o</B><3
I'm right behind you. I'm Catholic, so I'm a half-half believer, and I find fanatics from both sides obnoxious. First, the Bible is not to be taken literally. Second, I find Big Bang as specious as Creationism, to be honest.
I agree with both of you. I think you are correct in suggesting "humans up to their usual factioning." I am a Christian in a Christian school studying Bible and Theology myself and have no problems accepting evolution as a possibility. I don't think that anyone is any less of a person for believing in evolution. I personally find macro evolution a little hard to accept myself, but I have my reasons. I respect those who believe otherswise and won't look down upon them. We need to learn that Christianity is not scientific and Science isn't Christian. The two can exist and work together, but they are totally separate fields of study. My belief in God is not influenced one way or the other by evolution. I also agree that "fanactics from both sides are obnoxious."
I wish people would understand that science is not out to disprove God or anything.
Yes, and I implore anyone who disagrees with this to find an example of science disproving God...I imagine you will have a hard time finding any!
Richard Dawkins, author of 'The God Delusion, whom by suggestion of the title is a hardcore atheist and a scientist, stopped by my town a few weeks ago. He said that he doubts there could be any evidence found to disprove God, so there you have it.
I am personally a fan of logic, though I most certainly do not consider myself atheistic, and I'd have to say that to introduce the possibility of God into science would give someone the suggestion that if you can't understand it then you weren't meant to. But being a scientist is all about trying to explain the universe and not giving up. Introducing God into science sort of paves the way for laziness.
I believe in pure evolution, but I have heard the theory floating around of how God made the world and then we just evolved into what we are today.
That aside, though, I wish people in general could just get along.
I see what you are saying about logic, but I think that science and evolution can still involve God. For one thing, your comment about not understanding things in science meaning that we weren't supposed to be able to (if God is involved) is inaccurate because we are all created in the image and likeness of God. Although our human nature limits us, we were meant to be able to comprehend all of these things. Therefore God does not limit science in any way.
What she was referring to was "God-of-the-Gaps" arguments that creationists use ... "The bacterial flagellum is too complex for it to have originated naturally therefore Goddidit". All this argument REALLY is, is that the PERSON MAKING IT CANNOT IMAGINE A WAY IT COULD HAVE COME ABOUT NATURALLY so his default position is that Goddidit.
Science is a process by which we not only imagine how such a thing comes about but we test it. For instance we imagine that the proteins used in the bacterial flagellum originally arose for other purposes. In that case we should see homologous proteins in other organisms doing different things ... and we do. The main part of the bacterial flagellum is homologous to a Type Three Secretory System found in other bacteria. Structural proteins in the flagellum also show strong similarities to structural proteins in other bacteria that have nothing to do with flagella.
We could use Goddidit to explain anything that seems hard to understand. We could give up trying to explain it and be satisfied with Goddidit. But that would be the lazy approach and it is not how science works. That is the point she was trying to make.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France