<p>There was a debate a while back. At the Grand Canyon, I think, a book was put in the bookstore that said the grand canyon was only about 10,000 years old. The authors said because that was when God made the earth (paraphrasing). </p>
<p>Now, the FACT that we have rocks a bit older than that, and direct scientific evidence that contracted the claims, it is amazing to me that people believe that. I am religious. I go to church. But I also believe in science.</p>
<p>Virtue, it doesn’t have bearing on evolution per se, but it does bother me that so many creationists are also ignorant of their religion and <em>its</em> evolution. It’s as if somehow some version of the Bible they favor and some current interpretation–and any whacko can call themselves a preacher–sprang into existence 10 years ago but has been “right” since 27 A.D. or whenever.</p>
<p>Pretend for a moment that you are a parent (not hard), and your very small child asks you where she came from. There are many things she cannot understand at this young age, but will only be able to discover as she grows up. But you want to tell the truth, so you say, “Mommy and Daddy met and fell in love. We got married and you grew within Mommy. You were born and you’ve been growing on your own now for a few years.” But there is no way then to explain everything - not just physically, but emotionally. For example, just look between the words “met and fell in love.” How much there is to talk about there, about the falling in love part; about that tingle of the first touch, about your emotions when you first kissed, about how you felt when you decided to get married. The gulf between your mind and its experiences and your child’s mind are enormous.</p>
<p>But if you believe in an Omnipotent Creator, how MUCH greater would be the gulf between your mind and the “mind” of that Creator. It would be unimaginable. How much could not be conveyed to you in getting the answer to your question: “Where did I (we) come from?” The truth, as you could understand it, would contain but an iota of an iota of an iota of the knowledge that Creator would have.</p>
<p>By insisting that the answer you have is literal and complete and without depth or complexity is denigrating the Creator. To insist that the gap between your mind and the mind of the Creator does not exist is either the ultimate ego trip or the ultimate blasphemy.</p>
<p>By believing in a Creator, and by admitting that we could never understand the complexities of the Creation, we can start to look upon science with wonder. And as humans, we can examine and learn and begin to get hints at understanding just a tiny bit. Each thing that we learn (like evolution) can be thought of as a sort of revelation of the Greatness of that Creator. By assigning human purposes or attributes to that creation (like “Directed Design” or “Intelligent Design”), we’re showing how little we think of the power of the Creator.</p>
<p>Oh, ye Blasphemers: Wake Up! Repent, and celebrate the power of the Creator’s complexity and worship the Creator through the wonders of nature and the revelations of science.</p>
<p>And of course even if you don’t believe in an Omnipotent Creator, you can still celebrate the complexity of the creation through the wonders of nature and the revelations of science.</p>
<p>What is important to remember is that all peoples have some sort of story to explain where humans came from. These stories answered questions and made sense at the time. Who is to say which of the stories and legends is more correct? </p>
<p>The problems comes from ignoring science and claiming it is wrong because it doesn’t match old stories. I became Catholic years ago. I have no problem reconciling the two. </p>
<p>As for being blasphmerers, oh well, I guess I am to a degree. So what happens to me now?</p>
<p>“science
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena”</p>
<p>It is, for most, difficult to look upon a system of knowledge with wonder, at least at a visceral level. The scientific method lives up to its billing: its a method not a thing which appreciates our adoration or pleasure. When people are moved by creation, they are rarely moved by the process of the creation but rather that which would have created that which is created; sometimes the creator, sometimes the creation, knowing either would say allot about the other. Many see the relationship between creation and creator with awe and wonder akin to romantic love and many of our more vulnerable virtues are stirred and stimulated by itpersonality, humility, modesty, wonderment, astonishment, pensiveness, hope, fear and trembling. </p>
<p>These days, we are directed to see the relationship between process and nature; one is a thing, one is not. It is difficult, to say the least, to get all warm and fuzzy over a processthe process itself has no content or meaning. However, it is easy to be intrigued and then to desire to command the process by mastering it. Many interesting things will come from such a process; love, romance and veneration are unlikely to be any of them–that is, there is nothing sacred about a processnot even if it offers a great explanation, as evolution does. </p>
<p>As to the teaching of this process, it seems either naïve or coy to assume that this process, evolution, is not very often used to replace the awe and wonder of creation (a romantic notion) with another explanation (a mechanical one); that is, in the hands of many teachers and laymen, the process itself is supposed to stand-in for and abolish the creator/created relationship, not simply supplement or explain a natural process or supernatural relationship (a quick glance through a few of these posts will confirm this)… </p>
<p>A good parallel would be the scientific teaching of Love and romantic relationships (even the relationship between mother and child). Certainly science and technology will soon desire to explain and master this relationship within the mechanical strictures of the scientific method. I wonder how parents will feel when their children come home from school and inform their parents that love is just a myth and mommy and daddy are superstitious to believe in something so silly and quaint.</p>
<p>If I have to choose to live in either a world of science (mechanical-process) or a world of faith (the romantic-sacred) I will choose the latter with a lucid appreciation and understanding of the former.</p>
<p>Ill take Pascals wager; not for the next life, but for this one.</p>
<p>Since when has the understanding of a phenomenon diluted the experience of it? Do we enjoy sunsets less knowing they are a function of the earth’s rotation and that the sun isn’t really “setting?”</p>
<p>For many, there is a terrific feeling of awe and appreciation when we learn new scientific explanations for what is or has happened in our world. Science is a beautiful thing.</p>
<p>It doesn’t dilute it at all ([I don’t think I said it did] might change my subjective experience of it, but no more); science is simply not the phenomenon appreciated but a fluid explanation of the phenomenon experienced or predicted. </p>
<p>Science can explain why honey taste like it does and I find that interesting, informative and productive–even terrific. However, to appreciate the beauty of honey I will actually prefer to taste it, might even write a poem about how good it tastes in all its ecstatic amber honeyness and then praise god and nature for allowing that it should exist on the shelf of our local Shop-Rite.</p>
<p>As a scientist, I will find out why I experience taste and what chemical composition caused the taste, but unless I taste it I will not really be able to say I know or appreciate what honey is: Same thing with sex; God knows, I heard about it for years but it wasnt until…well, Ill leave it there.</p>
<p>As to whether or not science is a beautiful thing, IMHO, paintings are beautiful; art criticism is interesting and elucidating–even terrific, but it aint pretty and rarely inspires poetry or music or romantic embraces in its honor (maybe John Ashberry, or Carl Sagans wife, but thats about it).</p>
<p>TheDad -</p>
<p>Actually, in the first few centuries AD, there were several competing interpretations of Christianity. The most prominant were the Ebionites, who believed that to be Christian, you must be Jewish and keep the Laws of the Torah, the Marcionites, who wanted to completely abandon the Law, the Gnostics, who believed in two gods, the creator of the Torah and the new God of Knowledge, and the proto-orthodox eventually emerged as the “one” Christianity.</p>
<p>Why did the proto-orthodox succeed where the others did not? For a few very simple reasons: (1) It was based out of the Church of Rome, which was conveniently in the city of the seat of political power; (2) It did not require a person to be a Jew before being a Christian, allowing the possibility of many more converts; (3) A Roman Emperor converted to proto-orthodox; (4) And finally, later, the church engaged in an extensive campaign to root our heretics and heretical writings and destroy them to make sure there were no competing ideas.</p>
<p>The divinity of Jesus was debated even within the proto-orthodox until the decision at the Council of Nicea (325AD) to declare all of the tenets of Christianity that we know today. Until Martin Luther, there was only one form of Christianity since that 4th Century Council. And even after Martin Luther, there still is just one basic Christianity since even Protestants declare their belief in “one catholic church.”</p>
<p>Why must science and religion be considered opposites? I enjoy science. I enjoy finding out how things work, how complex the world is. In fact, it’s in learning about this, and how orderly it all is, that I am finally convinced that a higher power does exist. As a child, with only the religion part espoused to me by relatives, I could find no comfort. As an adult, I hold both the belief in a god as well as a belief in science and a hope for it’s future. I feel comfortable now, secure. I am no longer lost. Science cannot explain everything, but neither to me could God. I think the two complement each other. Of course that’s just me.</p>
<p>What disturbs me is when religious beliefs deny scientific fact and call scientist frauds and liars because their findings don’t agree with a book written thousands of years ago. I am not debasing the bible. But even now research is showing us different interpretations regarding bible stories- the Parting of the Red Sea (Reed Sea), the Flood, the story of Moses are just some examples. The way Mary Magedelene was written about. “People blaming Judas for turning on Jesus, but if he hadn’t then the prophecy could not have been fulfilled.” I could go on and on; but with the Bible people will use it as it feels their needs. </p>
<p>It seems that for some people, learning about science some how takes away the mystery of life. Its like learning how sausages are made. Denying that sausages are made a certain way does not make it so. </p>
<p>Interesting read about the Grand Canyon Book:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/08/MNGOI452ET8.DTL[/url]”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/08/MNGOI452ET8.DTL</a></p>
<p>but with the Bible people will use it as it feels their needs.</p>
<p> unlike science, ;)</p>
<p>@Woodwork: It is unscientific to tout research that supports your cause without addressing the results of research that tests alternative hypothesis.</p>
<p>
. . . exactly, just without the sarcastic wink.</p>
<p>Digi, you get the beginning synopsis. Throw in the history of the Bible for another chapter in the process. And then the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. And…</p>
<p>What did and did not become canonical was part of a bitterly fought set of political and ideological skirmishes rumbling over three centuries. Revised Standard is frankly good enough for me but I appreciate where it stands in history, context, and…evolution.</p>
<p>Nom,</p>
<p>It was my understanding that citygirlsmom was talking about the social uses of religion and not religion per se (the Bible, Koran or Veda as such). I am therefore addressing the social uses of science as I believe her remark addressed the social uses of religion. </p>
<p>Atomic/nuclear theory would be a good parallel. Science uncovers a fact of theory (Einstein etc.), then other scientists (Oppenhiemer, Teller etc.) use that fact to produce atomic bombs that will fall on civilian populations; this would be one of the negative social implications of science. Wonderful medicines and knowledge which breeds knowledge is one of the terrific implications. </p>
<p>Scientific racial theories and there uses–until very recently–in support of racial hierarchies would be a negative social use. </p>
<p>A little further back, science also had a few not so kind things to say about the intelligence of women. </p>
<p>Scientist also did some interesting things with the mentally disabled in the last 50 years. Of course, science is self correcting in the main, but then, so is religion. Its slow, but it happens.</p>
<p>I dont know about you, but over the last 30 years I was a little more worried about the uses of science than I was about the uses of religion: nuclear war/power, chemical and biological bombs, the pollution of the environment (remember, science is often the hand-maiden of technology, and power), etc.
I was concerned by, but not worried about, some fundamentalist preacher in Arkansas or South Carolina with his own TV show preaching creationism to trailer-parks across America.</p>
<p>Im not anti-science; Im not a Luddite either. My wife and I often take courses together at the local community college to get away from the kids on the weekend (dating at this late age xox) from biology and botany to philosophy and literature, my wife has a graduate degree in bio-tech but, alas, Im a woodworker and no expert.</p>
<p>The debate going on over religion seems to me a bait & switch scam. There are things we should be more worried about on a human/cultural level and at the level of our very survival. The so-called religious right is, IMHO, a paper tiger. The real tigers do not live in trailer parks and ghettos. In the grand scheme of things, whether or not intelligent design is taught in Kansas or not seems no more than a faint blip on the cultural radar screen of the 21st cent. We’ll live through it.</p>
<p>That’s an impressive post, Woodwork. Thank you. I fear, though, that we must agree to disagree.</p>
<p>I had written much more than this, but I decided it was not worth debating. You know where you stand and I respect the thought you’ve put into making this decision. I feel that I have done the same.</p>
<p>Nom (Norm?),</p>
<p>I’m sure we could have a few intriguing and challenging conversations. That was a very classy response, and I appreciate it. I’m sure you could teach me allot; although, at 45 I’m almost past training–as old, and salty, dogs often are–I try to maintain the appearance of open-mindedness and on rare and cherished occasions live up to my own billing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhhh, come again?</p>
<p>[ul]
[<em>] Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists
[</em>] Catholic priests as child molestors
[<em>] Ritualized female genital mutilation
[</em>] Palestinian suicide bombers
[<em>] Explosions and deaths at abortion clinics
[</em>] Treatment of women by fundamentalist Mormons
[li] The attitude by many individuals and governments that because “God is on their side” anything they do is Right with a capital R[/li][/ul]</p>
<p>The annihilation of the planet in Nuclear/ecological destruction?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Few people need to feel that “God is on their side” to believe that everything they do is right: People like, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Potnon-believers all, atheists to be clear. </p>
<p>Believing history is on your side or that you are scientifically correct (read: objectively right, no discussion) is also a pretty big ego booster when it comes to political and cultural agendas.</p>
<p>Of course, the same is true of those who believe “God is on their side”. It seems that we have a difference without a distinction.</p>