Evolving.
thoughts from a fence straddler
Published on February 22, 2004 By Angloesque In Blogging
I started reading through some of the religion vs. science posts. Not religion and science, mind you. I wasn't altogether pleased with the tones people took and the words they used to bolster their side of the debate. But then, why does it have to be one or the other? And why do people have to get on other people's backs about it? Neither camp explains everything about how life came to be as we know it today--not yet, at least.

Me, I believe in God and I believe in evolution. Sure there's conflict, and I've stepped off the fence numerous times on each side. But I keep coming back to both, because there's a lot of persuasion on each side. I have a lot of respect for a lot of creationists I know. It's really hard to be constantly bombarded with taunts, facts, and lies and keep one's faith in God. Alternately, it's hard to be a scientist and be told you're going to hell, or whatever, if you don't believe in God. Who doesn't think about an afterlife at some point, even if they don't believe it it the rest of the time? If I could teach kids this stuff, I'd say, "This is what group A believes. This is what group B believes. They're not mutually exclusive and there are lots of questions about both sides." (Insert Venn diagram...)

My church (which states its belief in the literal 7-day creation) is going through huge talks right now because so many science professors in our schools cannot in goodwill say they believe in a six-thousand-year-old Earth, ergo the literal interpretation of the Bible. In the past they've been fired directly if they state that; these days, though, there is church-sponsored dialogue between the theologians and the scientists, which is generally healthy and respectful. It'll still be years, if not centuries, before my church changes its position on evolution, but the change has to start somewhere.

I know one disillusioned professor, though, whose idea of integrating faith and science is to put them both in boxes and believe in them separately. He says that one day it'll all make sense, and for now, they're neatly compartmentalized in his brain. I like that idea.

Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Mar 01, 2004
But that does not invalidate it.


As a religious book, sure, it's "valid." As a source of science information, it is not.


Still is just as far fetched to think those those chemicals came together by accident and formed life.


Not nearly as far-fetched as it is to believe that an omnipotent being from outside the universe generated a cosmos and the human race out of nothing at all.


As for defending it, there is is no need.


So when you make a claim, you don't have to defend it despite the lack of evidence? This is a new one...


I never said that they did not have their witnesses, only that you do not.


Thank you for the missing the point, which is that witnesses are irrelevant since they are obviously "wrong," if only by their mutual contradiction.


As for hard evidence for God, I have it, it is all around you.


Nope. I contend that everything around me is perfectly explainable by physics and chemistry.


Do I really think that I can convince you or show you proof that you will accept that God exists?


Finally, something reasonable! No, I don't think so. But the difference is in the mindset. A scientist will admit that it is POSSIBLE that a scientific theory is misguided or even completely incorrect; thus, I concede that it is POSSIBLE that God exists, that Jesus was the Son of God, and that the Bible is 100% true. Will you admit that the opposite is POSSIBLE?


***


Frankly, I'm kind of annoyed at both of you. My original post was about allowing for both sides


Please. There are more erratic tangents on which we could have gone. What kind of a discussion did you want to spark? A dozen people all saying that they agree with you and with each other?


***


Sorry, I could make the case that Bulby drew first blood.


I'll take credit for the first strike; I just don't see what's wrong with that. If you don't want commentary because it might leave a bad taste in your mouth, don't post articles.
on Mar 01, 2004
As hard as civil argumentation in the context of the article must be, perhaps you should take your toys and go home.

I always wanted to use that one.

Seriously, if you think I'm looking for everyone to agree with me, you're dumber than I thought.
on Mar 01, 2004
Seriously, if you think I'm looking for everyone to agree with me, you're dumber than I thought.


Oh, geez. Just stop whining that the debate that rages on in the comments to your article isn't everything you hoped it would be and more.
on Mar 01, 2004
I don't think a literal interpretation of Creationism with the world being created 6000 years ago would fit


This is where my skepticism lies. If you allow that part of the bible is a metaphor - a fable constructed by people in a different time and place, then you must allow that anything is open to question - including the claimed existence of God, miracles, etc. It comes down to faith, not proof, it is inherently non-scientific.

Which is not to say the two concepts (faith and science) are mutually exclusive.

on Mar 01, 2004
Poetphilosopher,

Good point. A pitfall for me was trying to figure out what parts, or whole, of the Bible were indeed metaphor. It gets to be a slippery slope, and I don't know how some people manage to keep their faith and believe only portions of the Bible. It's like believing the parts that make you feel good, making the Bible conform to your worldview. I'm not sure how to deal with that part.

-T.
on Mar 01, 2004
if evolution is not a real process, how do you expect to ever go to Heaven?
on Mar 01, 2004
if evolution is not a real process, how do you expect to ever go to Heaven?


Huh?
on Mar 01, 2004
Arghhh... sorry I can't help myself

As a religious book, sure, it's "valid." As a source of science information, it is not.

True, and it can be equally said that science is not a valid source for information concerning the meaning and purpose of life.
The magical mix of chemicals is just as far fetched as any God.

So when you make a claim, you don't have to defend it despite the lack of evidence? This is a new one...

As I said, the evidence is all around you and there is some documentation in a book called the bible. And while you may claim everything around you has a valid explaination in physics and chemistry I contend there are many things that science currently says "we just don't know".

Finally, something reasonable! No, I don't think so. But the difference is in the mindset. A scientist will admit that it is POSSIBLE that a scientific theory is misguided or even completely incorrect; thus, I concede that it is POSSIBLE that God exists, that Jesus was the Son of God, and that the Bible is 100% true. Will you admit that the opposite is POSSIBLE?

Sure it is possible, but as you would say, it is not probable.

Oh, geez. Just stop whining that the debate that rages on in the comments to your article isn't everything you hoped it would be and more.

LOL, I sense that you are giving yourself more credit than you deserve.
3 Pages1 2 3