science, religion, and evolution
i attended a christian private school k-12. we had trimesters instead of semesters, we studied greek and hebrew, in addition to latin and spanish. we had a bible class year round, as well as a math. the bible was the literal word of god. they did acknowledge that men decided what was canon and what was not. in some cases, different men, leading to different sects of christianity, disagreed. strict, biblical creationism was taught: 6 days, ~6000 years old.
now, since ive graduated and moved on from that school, my opinions have changed. sometimes, i still get drawn into a debate about creationism/intelligent design vs evolution. the truth is, there is no real debate. there's no discussion. science is doubt based, religion is faith based. we know the earth is billions of years old. the fossil record bears witness to the course of evolution - we share 97%+ of our DNA with our friends, the chimpanzees.
what is this debate all about? i never hear scientists discussing the validity of modern evolutionary theory. of course it changes! thats what science, as a fact, does. it culls false knowledge thru carefully controlled experimentation; it also enhances knowledge by cross checking against different human intelligences, a process called peer review. that is why scientific thought, applying logic, critical and rational thinking are so far superior to religion. science and spirituality can and should coexist. organized and dogmatic religion is the antithesis of science - it enslaves the majority instead of setting them free to reason for themselves.
im reminded of an exchange reported in carl sagan's science as a candle in the dark. carl sagan asked the dalai lama what his religion would do if science presented proof negating a specific belief. the dalai lama replied that they would have to change - science is indisputable. sagan pressed the question, asking what would happen if science disproved reincarnation, and the dalai lama replied that then, they must once again adapt; however, the evidence would have to amazing and incontrovertible.
creationism is foolish. the earth is far older than claimed, qed. some bishop in the middle ages added up numbers and came up with their timeline. intelligent design is not even subtle creationism - do its proponents have no brains in their heads? if intelligence requires design, the designer requires design, and you have meta-turtles the whole way down. cant these people follow a thought to its logical conclusion? maybe theyre capable, as long as it doesnt contradict their faith based delusions.
until someone with legitimate scientific credentials comes forth to challenge the basic tenets of evolution, this debate isnt even necessary. if creationists are reduced to pointing out my beliefs arent absolute truths, that they adapt to reality and discovery and change, i have no time. im pretty sure einstein proved relativity just like heisenberg proved indeterminancy; thats why i believe in a relativistic, constantly changing universe. if my answers scare you, cease asking frightening questions :-p
now, since ive graduated and moved on from that school, my opinions have changed. sometimes, i still get drawn into a debate about creationism/intelligent design vs evolution. the truth is, there is no real debate. there's no discussion. science is doubt based, religion is faith based. we know the earth is billions of years old. the fossil record bears witness to the course of evolution - we share 97%+ of our DNA with our friends, the chimpanzees.
what is this debate all about? i never hear scientists discussing the validity of modern evolutionary theory. of course it changes! thats what science, as a fact, does. it culls false knowledge thru carefully controlled experimentation; it also enhances knowledge by cross checking against different human intelligences, a process called peer review. that is why scientific thought, applying logic, critical and rational thinking are so far superior to religion. science and spirituality can and should coexist. organized and dogmatic religion is the antithesis of science - it enslaves the majority instead of setting them free to reason for themselves.
im reminded of an exchange reported in carl sagan's science as a candle in the dark. carl sagan asked the dalai lama what his religion would do if science presented proof negating a specific belief. the dalai lama replied that they would have to change - science is indisputable. sagan pressed the question, asking what would happen if science disproved reincarnation, and the dalai lama replied that then, they must once again adapt; however, the evidence would have to amazing and incontrovertible.
creationism is foolish. the earth is far older than claimed, qed. some bishop in the middle ages added up numbers and came up with their timeline. intelligent design is not even subtle creationism - do its proponents have no brains in their heads? if intelligence requires design, the designer requires design, and you have meta-turtles the whole way down. cant these people follow a thought to its logical conclusion? maybe theyre capable, as long as it doesnt contradict their faith based delusions.
until someone with legitimate scientific credentials comes forth to challenge the basic tenets of evolution, this debate isnt even necessary. if creationists are reduced to pointing out my beliefs arent absolute truths, that they adapt to reality and discovery and change, i have no time. im pretty sure einstein proved relativity just like heisenberg proved indeterminancy; thats why i believe in a relativistic, constantly changing universe. if my answers scare you, cease asking frightening questions :-p
posted by keylaeris at 22:56
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home