|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
W I L C O tragedy? London Just So You Know Musical Bits MF D SLR Tour de Bad TV Good Movie Coming to Town Getting it Wrong Moths Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
7.15.2005
No Blog of Significance: "It means, old-earthers, that it's time to get out the forks. You're done." Why are they always from Tulsa? (Go read the entire post from which this quote from pulled first) Look, if you want to make a religious argument for your views, that's fine, do so. But don't try to use bad science to justify your religious convictions. First off, your religious beliefs should be secure without having to attack science, God can still love you either way. And second, pointing out a flaw, or a debate, within the generally accepted scientific consensus does not mean that you win by default. You still have to suit up and run the race for anyone to take you seriously. The ID/YEC crowd seems to think that all it has to do is find some discrepancy in the evolutionary consensus and they can claim victory. But accepting a young earth view essentially means throwing out most of our understanding of Biology, Astronomy and Geology. Why are we being asked to do this? I think its simply to defend a religious belief. After all, it seems that every time you scratch a YEC or a proponent of ID you find someone with a religious agenda to promote (and that includes some scientists as well). You might notice that other fields of science that skirt such religious dilemmas are left unchallenged. But in my opinion, Physics has asked much harder questions about reality and the universe than Biology ever has. Evolution, a pretty straightforward theory, made the "mistake" of assuming that human beings are just another component of the natural world, open to scientific examination. When we all know that God would never love an ape, or a cherry blossom? You will also notice that many opponents of evolution are less concerned about building a valid alternative to evolutionary theory as they are in shaping public perception in their favor. They drag the debate into the realm of public opinion, where "winning" has more to do with rhetorical box building than science. Attacking evolution, or pushing creationist views into the public square (a la the Tulsa Zoo exhibit) does nothing to change the fact that should evolution be dismissed, we'd be left with little of scientific value in its place. For me, the biggest obstacle to accepting a creationist point of view is how it makes natural processes seem so damn pointless. Why do we need a heart, blood, hemoglobin, oxygen, iron, proteins, an immune system, kidneys, urine, eyes, pupils, etc etc when we have no need of them? If we were created just as we are now, out of divine whim, we could just as easily been filled with magic jelly. Evolution, whether it withstands the rigors of scientific investigation or not (I think it will in some form) as least gives us a good idea as to why we have all these unnecessary (from a creationist's pov at least) organs, and systems. |
Comments:
Post a Comment
|
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
