Much Ado About Darwin
I'll preface what I'm about to say by disclosing that I'm a Christian. I believe that Christ is our Savior and the true Son of God. I'm non-denominational (although I enjoy the Episcopal services).
Ok, now with that being said, these Christians are trying to infuse spiritual beliefs into a realm of physical science. To me, the idea of being able to "prove" what is being called "Intelligent Design" is just as asinine as when physicists assume that a GUT (Grand Unification Theory) will remove any "need" for a Creator. It's all conceited tripe.
In the news story about which this blog entry is, the main proponent of the suit, William Harris reveals the true motivation for the suit:
Now, I agree that there is a bias against religion, Christianity specifically, in most public institutions today. However, that's an entirely different blog entry. What Mr. Harris and his ilk are doing however is to introduce theories for which there is no physical evidence into a realm of physical science - that's the reason that it doesn't make sense to "require" it in these classes. To pursue true Freedom of Religion in public institutions is a noble pursuit, however it has its place and needs to be consistent and make sense.
On that same note, evolution has it's own problems. Micro-evolution, or the concept that species adapt is proven. The Galapagos islands are the most famous example, but it has been proven over and over again that species mutate and adapt to surroundings. However, Macro-evolution, the concept that every species arose from other types of animals completely (birds from dinosaurs, land-walking animlas from "fish", etc.) has never been proven. There is no clear , irrefutable evidence that it has ever happened. However, unlike Intelligent Design, there are physical clues and hints that it may have happened. This alone makes it worthy of inclusion in physical science classes.
The very concept that we can prove or disprove God's existence in a physical sense to me is the height of narcisissm. For those who want to disprove God's existence, I can always counter with, "Yeah, but He made it appear that way." And for those who want to prove God's existence physically, I can just propose, "What makes you think he would allow you to prove his existence via physical evidence?" It's all silly banter.
Christians are confusing those who are anti-religious (and/or anti-Christian) who are also evolutionists with the theory of evolution itself. The theory of evolution (Micro and Macro), like most of physical science actually, is not inherently anti-religious at all. Physical sciences require physical evidence and physical means of testing that evidence. They are not anti-religious, nor are they the realm of religion. Chrisitans need to set their sites on the greater goal of glorifying God's name in their day-to-day actions while also trying to further the physical sciences through prudent scientific investigation. Not whining and complaining because spritiual beliefs aren't being allowed in the realm where physical evidence should be required.
Ok, now with that being said, these Christians are trying to infuse spiritual beliefs into a realm of physical science. To me, the idea of being able to "prove" what is being called "Intelligent Design" is just as asinine as when physicists assume that a GUT (Grand Unification Theory) will remove any "need" for a Creator. It's all conceited tripe.
In the news story about which this blog entry is, the main proponent of the suit, William Harris reveals the true motivation for the suit:
"They are offering an answer that may be in conflict with religious views," Harris said in opening the debate. "Part of our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is currently in schools. This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications." [emphasis mine]I believe that more than just part of the goal is to remove said bias.
Now, I agree that there is a bias against religion, Christianity specifically, in most public institutions today. However, that's an entirely different blog entry. What Mr. Harris and his ilk are doing however is to introduce theories for which there is no physical evidence into a realm of physical science - that's the reason that it doesn't make sense to "require" it in these classes. To pursue true Freedom of Religion in public institutions is a noble pursuit, however it has its place and needs to be consistent and make sense.
On that same note, evolution has it's own problems. Micro-evolution, or the concept that species adapt is proven. The Galapagos islands are the most famous example, but it has been proven over and over again that species mutate and adapt to surroundings. However, Macro-evolution, the concept that every species arose from other types of animals completely (birds from dinosaurs, land-walking animlas from "fish", etc.) has never been proven. There is no clear , irrefutable evidence that it has ever happened. However, unlike Intelligent Design, there are physical clues and hints that it may have happened. This alone makes it worthy of inclusion in physical science classes.
The very concept that we can prove or disprove God's existence in a physical sense to me is the height of narcisissm. For those who want to disprove God's existence, I can always counter with, "Yeah, but He made it appear that way." And for those who want to prove God's existence physically, I can just propose, "What makes you think he would allow you to prove his existence via physical evidence?" It's all silly banter.
Christians are confusing those who are anti-religious (and/or anti-Christian) who are also evolutionists with the theory of evolution itself. The theory of evolution (Micro and Macro), like most of physical science actually, is not inherently anti-religious at all. Physical sciences require physical evidence and physical means of testing that evidence. They are not anti-religious, nor are they the realm of religion. Chrisitans need to set their sites on the greater goal of glorifying God's name in their day-to-day actions while also trying to further the physical sciences through prudent scientific investigation. Not whining and complaining because spritiual beliefs aren't being allowed in the realm where physical evidence should be required.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home