 |
|
 |
|
 |
||||||||
Science, Religion: |
 |
|||||||
Brad- Rather than immediately following this thread along, arguing ever more specific points, please bear with me as I take a step back and talk about the context of this discussion, as I see it. Whether evolution or special creation is true is a dull topic. It's dull for me, anyway, as there's no scientific controversy on this topic and I've been having these debates for 20 years now. But evolution theory and its implications is an interesting topic, partly because so many people who buy into evolution don't have a thorough understanding of the theory. Sometimes I find exchanges with creationists valuable because they deepen my understanding of evolution theory and allow me to better articulate that theory to others. The essay that started the debates in these pages is not about whether evolution or special creation is right. It's about how evolution theory and special creation doctrine are different kinds of knowledge. In fact, I'm surprised that creationists would want to argue that creationism is the same kind of knowledge as evolution. (Some creationists do so when they're trying to force creationism into public schools or evolution out if it.) After all, theories are human-invented, provisional models for understanding the world. Is creationism really meant as a human-invented, provisional model for understanding the world? Also, I don't intend a criticism of creationism to be an attack on Christianity. Plenty of Christians, especially in Europe, have no problem with evolution. Even that stalwart conservative the Pope is on board with evolution. Nor do I consider someone's belief about the origin of the world to be terribly important. It seems that you are a compassionate human being, as you refer to compassion as a defining part of your being a Christian. That's wonderful. The world needs compassion. One thing I like about Jesus is that he said it's what you do that counts. It's not whether you've said the right prayers today that matters. It's whether you help the fellow hurt by the side of the road. One thing Christians have to be proud of is their tradition of compassion. It's even a tradition carried on by my church, the Unitarians. Like Jesus, I say "By their fruit you will know them." I don't much care whether someone thinks that the earth is 6,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old. What matters is whether they help those who need help and treat others the way they themselves want to be treated. As to your specific comments: "[T]he Mormon religion, and the Catholic religion are not Christian religions. Why? Because both teach doctrines that are contradictory to the very Bible they claim is Holy." The doctrine of inerrancy is useful to some religions. Most claims a religion makes are frustratingly unverifiable, such as what happens to someone when they die or whether it's a sin to have sex with a woman during her period. Looking for some verifiable way to be right, religions often turn to the doctrine of inerrancy. You might not be able to prove the there's no Purgatory or that virtuous men don't become gods after they die, but you can prove that these tenets are at odds with this or that religious text. While inerrancy is useful to certain religious denominations, especially to Christians who want other Christians to be "not Christian," inerrancy not necessary to Christianity, per se. Jesus didn't write the New Testament. He didn't tell his disciples to write the New Testament. He didn't prophesy that the New Testament would be written. He didn't tell anyone to believe in the New Testament (or the Garden in Eden). He never told anyone to believe a word that St. Paul said. Belief in the inerrancy of one or another version of the Bible is not part of Jesus' teaching, and not necessary to Christian belief. Jesus said it's by others' fruits (not by their creeds) that you can tell who is faithful. That approach has proven inconvenient to Christians because it demands goodness from them and denies them the ability to denigrate the goodness of outsiders. Doctrinal tests are therefore disappointingly common among those who say they're following Jesus. "Second part: On another point, the Bible does say that Serpents once walked... hence, hip bones," It was sloppy of me to miss that point. I'll revise the original essay to take that into account, as it's a perfect example of creationism not being a theory (requiring logically unrelated details to explain things that the principle can't explain). "Since the first law of thermodynamics works against the upward evolutionary scale, how is it that an organism as complex as the human being can even exist." The first law of thermodynamics is that energy can't be created or destroyed. Perhaps you're referring to the second law of thermodynamics, which is that energy dissipates (and entropy increases). The second law says that closed energy systems tend to become more homogeneous, less ordered. An example of this would be our sun diffusing its concentrated mass and energy all over the cosmos and eventually wearing out. If the laws of thermodynamics prohibit evolution, then they also prohibit a snowflake from forming. Both events are instances of increased order (locally, but not globally). The first law of thermodynamics doesn't prohibit snowflakes or evolution. Still, your question is a useful one because it leads to a deeper understanding of entropy. Complex systems are able to develop on planets because the sun is constantly pouring energy into them. On Venus, Mars, and Jupiter, you get storms. On earth, you get storms and life. On a local level, it looks like entropy is running backward. On a system level (the solar system), entropy is proceeding apace. Whether there are self-replicating forms on the skin of one of the planets or not, the system as a whole is running down. Here's another thought experiment to demonstrate that increased order (at this level or that) doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. A child stacking blocks creates more "order" than there was before. 1. If you think that a child stacking blocks violates the laws of thermodynamics, then you should run to the nearest physics research lab, stack some blocks, and demonstrate that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong. 2. If you think that a child stacking blocks represents an exception to the laws of thermodynamics because the child has "intelligence" or "a mind," then run to the nearest physics lab, stack some blocks, and have them document a source of order and energy that's beyond the ken of current physics. Intelligence can serve as an exception to the laws of physics only if intelligence isn't a physical phenomenon. Measuring the extra-physical effect of "mind" on a closed system would be an earth-shattering breakthrough in physics. Go for it. 3. If you think that a child stacking blocks represents the laws of physics as we know them, then you see that there's no contradiction between thermodynamics and a local increase in order (such as evolution). 4. If you think that a child stacking blocks represents the laws of physics as we know them, but you can't really see the mechanics of how life could evolve, welcome to science, where people are always trying to figure things out that don't make any sense until they're figured out. (Daniel Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea would be a good place to start.) "Third part: If you use the very calculations that most macro-evolutionists use to figure out how long it takes for a change to occur and be assimilated as a dominant trate within a population it is not possible to have humans in even the billions and billions of years that we are said to evolve in." That's a very interesting statement. When scientific observations and theories are in conflict with each other, it means that somewhere along the way we've made a mistake, and we have the opportunity to learn by investigating the conflict. For example, when Darwin first published his theory of evolution, it was in conflict with the then-current theory of heredity. Creationists used this conflict to "prove" that evolution was impossible. Scientists used it to direct their inquiries, and our modern hereditary theories are based on the discoveries made trying (in part) to resolve this conflict. So some good, hard evidence for your statement would be really interesting. If it's really a conflict, it will lead either to a revised estimate for how fast traits enter populations or a revised understanding of how evolution works. "Maybe just another silly opinion, but from what I have found, it takes more faith to believe that we are an accident than that we were created with a purpose. Not that I mind if I were an accident, I could ignore my conscience and just do what I wanted for the benefit of me... but then again. Lots of people seem to have this needless trait of compassion..." And not that I would mind if I were a Christian fundamentalist. I could ignore my rationality and just believe myself to be the spiritual superior to almost everyone who's ever lived... but then again. Lots of people seem to have this needless trait of intellectual honesty. Is that unfair? As unfair as your statement, so I retract it. Seriously, if you want to believe that evolution's not an accident, be my guest. Believing that God created the world with a purpose doesn't preclude understanding that the world is 4.5 billion years old and that life evolved. —JoT other responses to "Creationism"
top |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|