Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Speaking of Beginnings
Ongoing discussions between those who believe in evolution and those who hold intelligent disign as the corner stone of life are all over the news. Sorting it out isn't easy, probably because most of us see big picture answers: God created the world vs. it just happened. Should children learn in a public school science classroom about intelligent design or just about evolution or neither or one or the other? Science has nothing to say about intelligent design. Can't be proven. Can't write an equation for it. Is it science? Is it speculation? Is it faith?
To clarify the position: "Consider these words from George Gaylord Simpson, widely recognized as one of the principal architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis: “The process [of evolution] is wholly natural in its operation. This natural process achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer; and it has produced a vast plan without the concurrent action of a planner. It may be that the initiation of the process and the physical laws under which it functions had a purpose and that this mechanistic way of achieving a plan is the instrument of a Planner - of this still deeper problem the scientist, as scientist, cannot speak.”
Exactly. Science is, just as John Paul II said, silent on the issue of ultimate purpose, an issue that lies outside the realm of scientific inquiry. This means that biological evolution, correctly understood, does not make the claim of purposelessness. It does not address what Simpson called the “deeper problem,” leaving that problem, quite properly, to the realm of faith." ----by Kenneth Miller
I can't see not telling children about a biological process that is provable--how life evolves. It does. When did it begin? We don't know. We can't even agree when life begins now. At conception? At implantation? At birth? How are we gonna teach its beginnings of so long ago. Basically, people are going to believe, really sink their teeth in believe, what makes them feel comfortable. If they aren't comfortable with it, they look for and/or are fairly easily converted to something that does make them comfortable. We like to be comfortable. Except saints, they don't mind a little discomfort. Draw your own conclusion.
Do certain scientists not believe in God and dismiss intelligent design? Sure they do. And really smart ones, too. Like Sagan. But he has by now found out the real truth. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE--billions and billions of stars away. The knowledge of our time makes it difficult to believe in things unseen. Yet, we all seem ready to believe in quantum physics and the magic therein. Afterall, we have seen the dark side of the moon. The knowledge of science makes it very difficult to believe in heaven. Heaven is out there, too. But we can't seem to find it. Or maybe it isn't OUT THERE. Maybe it's closer than we think. It makes us uncomfortable that we don't know anymore what it looks like [--see Dante's illustration]. Makes us take life more seriously, hang on to it with both hands, and very uncomfortable with life after death. Hard to believe in things that make us uncomfortable.
Ongoing discussions between those who believe in evolution and those who hold intelligent disign as the corner stone of life are all over the news. Sorting it out isn't easy, probably because most of us see big picture answers: God created the world vs. it just happened. Should children learn in a public school science classroom about intelligent design or just about evolution or neither or one or the other? Science has nothing to say about intelligent design. Can't be proven. Can't write an equation for it. Is it science? Is it speculation? Is it faith?
To clarify the position: "Consider these words from George Gaylord Simpson, widely recognized as one of the principal architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis: “The process [of evolution] is wholly natural in its operation. This natural process achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer; and it has produced a vast plan without the concurrent action of a planner. It may be that the initiation of the process and the physical laws under which it functions had a purpose and that this mechanistic way of achieving a plan is the instrument of a Planner - of this still deeper problem the scientist, as scientist, cannot speak.”
Exactly. Science is, just as John Paul II said, silent on the issue of ultimate purpose, an issue that lies outside the realm of scientific inquiry. This means that biological evolution, correctly understood, does not make the claim of purposelessness. It does not address what Simpson called the “deeper problem,” leaving that problem, quite properly, to the realm of faith." ----by Kenneth Miller
I can't see not telling children about a biological process that is provable--how life evolves. It does. When did it begin? We don't know. We can't even agree when life begins now. At conception? At implantation? At birth? How are we gonna teach its beginnings of so long ago. Basically, people are going to believe, really sink their teeth in believe, what makes them feel comfortable. If they aren't comfortable with it, they look for and/or are fairly easily converted to something that does make them comfortable. We like to be comfortable. Except saints, they don't mind a little discomfort. Draw your own conclusion.
Do certain scientists not believe in God and dismiss intelligent design? Sure they do. And really smart ones, too. Like Sagan. But he has by now found out the real truth. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE--billions and billions of stars away. The knowledge of our time makes it difficult to believe in things unseen. Yet, we all seem ready to believe in quantum physics and the magic therein. Afterall, we have seen the dark side of the moon. The knowledge of science makes it very difficult to believe in heaven. Heaven is out there, too. But we can't seem to find it. Or maybe it isn't OUT THERE. Maybe it's closer than we think. It makes us uncomfortable that we don't know anymore what it looks like [--see Dante's illustration]. Makes us take life more seriously, hang on to it with both hands, and very uncomfortable with life after death. Hard to believe in things that make us uncomfortable.
