We’ve probably offended everyone’s political convictions on this blog by now, so let’s work on religion for a change. Somebody said more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other cause, and surely that is true. For this and other reasons, I don’t have much use for organized religion, but I’m much less sure what I think when it comes to the existence of God.Surely for every person killed in the name of God, many more have been comforted by the knowledge that there is a God who loves them. There is so much evil in the world it is easy to discount the possibility of a benevolent, supreme being overseeing our lives, (much less accept the idea that “He needs your money” as George Carlin liked to remind us). Disbelief is the easy path; belief is hard work.
I have no ambivalence when it comes to teaching creationism or intelligent design in public schools however - that’s not the place for it – but I was listening to one of my favorite podcasts while humping away on the elliptical at the gym today and got to wondering about something.
“Studio 360” devoted the whole program to Darwin in honor of his 200th birthday. If there was ever anything you could characterize as intelligent design, wouldn’t it be evolution? It would be hard to imagine a more complex, elegant and logically structured system. Whether it was invented by God or just happened, it is certainly an intelligent design.
So why can’t evolution be the intelligent design certain Christians want to be taught in school? And why don’t scientists propose this idea? Wouldn’t it stop a lot of arguing and make society just a little more harmonious?
Posts
13 comments:
Your hypothesis carries the fatal flaw: how does the creator get created. You have this master planner start from scratch out of nothing and emerge as the final word while us mere mortals are arguing about pieces of the blue print.
Besides, as an Endodontist, I don't find aspects about the biology of the tooth to be intelligently designed. As much as we find going to the dentist repugnant, consider a toothache without dentistry. Why have eons of people suffered with toothaches when, until recently, and with access to care, there was no recourse? Divine retribution? My take is, once again stated by George Carlin: "When is Jesus going to bring on the pork chops?" He ain't because he ain't.
Francis Collins MD is the director of the NIH. He was the head of the Human Genome Project that unlocked the genetic code. He has written a book, The Language of God, that addresses some of d'Blank's issues. He combines science and a strong faith to "explain" evolution in an intelligent design framework. His arguments are compelling but I remain a skeptic.
I don't think there's a great deal of middle ground here. On the one hand you have a group of people that treat the Bible like a text book and fanatically adhere to the notion of creationism. On the other you have another group of people that adhere to the scietific theories of Darwin. The majority of the planet doesn't give two hoots one way or the other (especially in China, India and sub-Saharan Africa).
We'll never, ever know how or why life started on our little pebble in the universe. Creationism just seems to me to be so intellectually lazy that it should be dismissed out of hand. Getting dragged down an intellectual rabbit hole discussing the origins of life and its purposes is ultimatley unfilling. From what I've seen those that engage in it have a preconceived, inevitably faith-based philosophy which they are trying to convince themselves and others is correct and everything else is wrong.
My intention was not to debate the existence of God - although, have at it if you want - I'm asking why we can't take a point where ideas intersect and turn a point of social conflict into a place where people can agree on something, which might lead to greater social benefits.
Kurt Andersen from Studio 360 here, glad to have provoked this discussion. There is a middle ground. But people who believe in a creator God have to do more work to come to it -- i.e., they have to accept (as many obviously do) that the empirical findings of biological evolution (not to mention geology, archaeology, etc.) are true, and then assume that evolution was, eons ago, their God's (long-term automatic algorithmic Sims-like) mechanism for creating the world and its creatures. There was a guy in our Studio 360 episode, an amateur paleontologist in Texas, who takes pretty much this position exactly. (You can listen to the show at http://www.studio360.org/episodes/2009/11/20.)
Kurt Andersen? Really? I thought you were everywhere before but this is pretty amazing.
If you agree that a major motivation for belief in intelligent design is justification for a belief in a personal god, a hands-off life process like evolution is anathema. An open mind cannot approach evolution with an agenda. You might be skeptical but you have to leave the door open. The disconnect from processes of the natural world as science becomes a political issue. To accept that aspects of life are not hands-on by oversight questions the covenant as well as belief that the bible is literally the word of god. For this person to take a step in the direction of evolution, even as a mechanism, would be no small thing.
To the best of my knowledge all societies have created Gods. It may be because of an inherent need to believe someone or something is watching over us or man's inquisitive mind attempting to make sense of the randomness of nature.
Science has begun to explain a small portion of this sense of randomness and given us some insight into why. It still does not fill the void of the need for a caretaker watching over us. Science does not give us courage when the shit hits the fan. It is often then that we call on a God to protect us. The good news for western cultural is that we have just one God to handle all our worries, it was much more difficult when you had to figure out which God was responsible for your current affliction and where the virgins were to help pacify him.
OK, Professor Yatzee where is the missing link? At what point and where we did we seperate from the apes? I too think there is plenty of room at the intersection of religion and science.But like everything else the lunatic fringe on both sides have to be open.and not put all ideas in a little box. I have been involved with some 4th and 5th graders at Horace Mann Elementary. It's real close to the Panthers old rivalry WWR.Inner city poor. In Ohio at least, public school education is as bad as the Browns.
I'm not sure how we debate not learning/teaching something,other than,no thanx I dont want to know. I think not learning/teaching is studied in the same school as,providing healthcare will make us communists.
Yes, finding the intersection of common ground (beliefs) should be a doable way for resolving differences. And it does work when discussing scientific linked data. Unfortunately in the case of evolution the argument is of an ontological nature, where there must be a Supreme Being. Descartes and other discussed it as a need to believe in something greater and is good, not evil. That is a big leap...it detaches us from the one Being that can seek what is right and for our redemption.
Thanks for posting...it got me thinking.
I think this is one of the most significant info for me.
And i'm glad reading your article. But want to remark on some general things, The web site style iss great,
the articles is really nice : D. Good job, cheers
Feel free to surf to my web blog; m88
For those who have issues with this particular tool after you have downloaded it, you are able to
contact our team at support@ or simply leave a
comment here and we will respond as soon as possible!
Feel free to visit my web page ... brave frontier hack tool no survey
Post a Comment