As you can see, I've stuck up an icon for the Blog for Darwin carnival. Please click on it if you want to help celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birthday (12th Feb) by writing a post or just reading the resulting "blog swarm." Thanks to eTrilobite.com for making me aware of it.
The phrase "blog swarm" makes me a tiny bit nervous. It seems to imply more than just an educational opportunity. Of course, the carnival rubric makes it clear that the intelligent design proponents are not welcome, which could be criticized as a lack of open debate, but it will at least prevent the otherwise inevitable slugfest. It still amazes me that the battle-lines are drawn so sharply between the Evolutionists and the Creationists. When I first thought about writing a science blog, my initial browsing put me right off because it seemed that all science bloggers ever did was to trade insults with creationists.
Now I do realize that there are real battles to be fought over how children should be educated in public schools. But outside of this quite specific concern, I see no point in either side wasting endless hours attempting to logically argue their case, when each side comes to the debate with completely different axiomatic starting points. If the children whose education both sides claim to care about ever hear the vitriolic abuse that too many on both sides hurl at their opponents, I only hope they can learn to behave in a more civilized manner when they themselves grow up, whether they believe themselves to be made in the likeness of god or of monkeys.
There is something fascinating about how radically different are these two opposing viewpoints concerning where we all come from and where we're all headed. In so many ways, it makes almost no difference to how people objectively appear to go about their actual day-to-day lives. One might think that religious conviction would turn most adherents into monkish types who shun all earthly concerns and focus purely on some spiritual dimension. And the materialist atheists should surely succumb to despair over the meaningless of existence. The fact that most of us strive to make the most of our time on this earth fits in with Darwin's ideas but is also not incompatible with a religious search for something "higher."
I believe creationists to be tremendously misguided. I also find that many scientists exude an arrogance that leads me to have more sympathy with those who search for a greater meaning behind it all. Surely some of the hatred that passes for debate about evolution is a sign of an insecurity that exists on both sides because, let's face it, the existence of this universe, with us sitting around on this earth contemplating it, is in fact a complete and utter mystery to us all.
Sunday Soapbox: Rapists and Punishment
2 days ago
5 comments:
It's all about the approach, I think. I've managed to successfully argue the mutual compatibility of evolution and Creation to a Young Earther, though I'm not sure how well it took.
What I find most difficult about the argument is why so many people seem to find creation and evolution mutually exclusive; a member of the blog network I was on posted on the network forum at one point under the title "Bordering on Blasphemy" when it was suggested that they weren't.
I got involved in the discussion after a few pages. Now, I've always maintained there's no problem as long as you're dealing with Old Earth Creationists, since they'll cheerfully agree with you the planet's been around long enough for all this stuff to have happened. This one, though, was definitely a Young Earth.
You can't argue with them using science alone, much though you want to. So I didn't. Instead, I started with a few biblical references--Isaiah for one, and just about all the parables for another. Basically, the object of the game is to get the opponent to agree that God does metaphors. Because once you've got those, anything--particularly the Seven Days--could be a metaphor.
It worked. To a point. At least, I didn't have to deal with the "Blasphemy" line anymore, and I think I might've managed to at least convince her of the validity of Old Earth.
My conclusion? Civility and knowing how to speak the language will do amazing things. It's depressing how few people take that into account.
Good Gracious, my husband and Darwin have the same birthday!
I may have to give Lee precedence, though. If there is anyone on earth that defies evolution (not disagrees with it, just doesn't follow the rules), it's Lee.
I try to stay out of the evolution brouhaha because people get flipping crazy on that topic. I don't like to be uncivil, but I've lost my temper a few times talking physics. And, I agree with you, Newton's Ocean, that, except for the question regarding what's taught at schools, it's a wash for the rest of us.
What I don't get is the vehemence on what's taught in schools. What do you think kids'll do with that information? Try to take over the world? Turn their backs on God (um, why would they? Actually, it's the over-the-top attacking that, in my opinion, has pushed many a scientists into the atheist camp more than actual inclination.)
Take your kids to church, let them hear the other side and decide for themselves. Case closed!
And, Ravyn, I've seen a lot of scientists try to be polite on several venues, only to be belittled and accused of dishonesty and yada yada yada. I'm not saying it's right to lose your temper (It's why I don't often write on this topic), but I have seen courtesy and the logic you speak of used multiple times to no avail. Glad you were partially successful, though. There may be hope for us yet.
After watching a show on "string theory" I finally figured out where people were getting the idea scientists see science as a religion. *Sigh* Oh, well, live and let live.
I agree with you Newton's Ocean. The people who start the debates are the "Creationists." They can't seem to let it go that we share a differen belief than they do. They keep trying the impossible. They try to change us instead of themselves. This has been proven impossible.
Thank you for making this point so clear.
I too believe that all living things learn to adapt to their conditions. Therefore, I do believe that Darwin's theory is worth teaching.
But, I think it should be taught for what it is and that is a theory and not fact.
I believe that God or if you prefer a higher being did create life.
I am just not positive exactly how he did. Perhaps as you make reference to both views are truly not that separated.
Wonderful post and thank you for writing it and sharing with us!
Dear all
Sorry I didn't follow up on the comments here earlier.
Over the last few months I've thought a lot about the philosophical issue of which comes first, existence or essence, which might very loosely be translated as matter vs spirit (or concept or idea).
It seems to be an unresolvable conundrum because it leads back to some initial assumptions about how the universe came into existence. Neither the religious concept of a creator god (essence first) nor the scientific big bang model (existence first) seems even remotely adequate.
In this vast ocean of ignorance, it is perhaps folly to extrapolate too much from the apparent reality that consciousness (essence) evolved out of self-organizing chemicals (existence). Our thoughts are bound to reflect our experience as human beings. As such, we find it amazing that self-awareness could emerge from mere matter.
But physicists meditate hard on how amazing matter is, which is why they seem to have a sort of religious zeal to search for a theory of everything etc. And when you really think about what it means for, say, an electron to exist with the properties it has, and for an electric field to exist the way it does, the creation of self-aware matter seems almost trivial compared to the creation of "mere" matter itself.
So existence requires essence requires existence? In which case in some sense both sides are right and wrong.
Post a Comment