Bush remarks on 'intelligent design' fuel debate - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com. I must say that I am quite amazed at all the ruckus caused by the Intelligent Design (ID) group. I remember back in 1991, I sat down with a Catholic priest and discussed that I was sure evolution happened, but I believed there must be a plan as I did not believe it could have been by chance. I guess that was ID. The thing I find amazing is that the only fact in ID is evolution. I think people that support ID in a veiled attempt to teach creation as shooting themselves in the foot because to accept ID, you must accept evolution. I am sure beyond any doubt that evolution happened. For me, I have faith that there was an intelligent designer behind it. This does not mean I believe in creation. I think the story of the garden of Eden is a fairy tale. Creation was through evolution -- there is far too much scientific evidence to sustain anything else.
The place the ID people lose me is if today it is teaching that there is an alternative to evolution, then tomorrow we say, well; that thing we said about a creator was right, but not the evolution part. It really took place in seven days!." That is where the ID people will do more harm then they can imagine.
I say that the scientific community should embrace ID as it means people in churches that have been closet skeptics of the story of creation, can now openly believe in evolution. So what if they believe an intelligence was behind it. In the end, regardless of if there was an intelligence or not, the agreement is that we evolved from lower forms of animals -- in both camps; that is indisputable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
If the story of the Garden of Eden is a Fairy Tale, based on what we comprehend as humans, how much more of the Bible is a fairy tale based on that criteria?
Jonah and the Fish? Daniel and the Lion's Den? Jesus bringing back Lazarus from the dead? Jesus returning from the dead?
To accept some of the Bible but not all assumes we can discern history based on human knowledge, which changes generation to generation.
If God is truly God, He could have used evolution, creationism, or a combination of both, or anything else He chose. All we have to go on is the account that has survived through the Bible.
To accept the Bible at face value may or may not be an error, but who am I to say this event happened and this event did not? It is by faith we believe.
Good comments! What I mean is that to think that we all of a sudden popped on the Earth and a few days later, we had a world -- does not hold up to scrutiny of the scientific data. Evolution is a fact. Evolution happened. Pure creation in literal terms (again an issue of how we understand the words) could not have happened. I believe the same goes for the story of the flood. I have a problem with the idea that every animal was on the ark. I admit the scientist in me has some problems with the logic. I am perfectly willing to accept that there are things I do not understand. I also accept it is all a mater of faith. Just as I believe in the power and plan of God, I also believe the Bible is not the literal word of God. As the countless "take my ball and go home" religions attest to, man lacks the humility to let God be God -- and cannot resist tinkering with God's work. I believe the Bible is the greatest success story ever written. I also believe religion and God's name have been used as a control mechanism for far too long. That being said, the place I learned that the Garden of Eden was an allegory was in religion class in Catholic School, so I am not necessarily on terrible footing here -- at least in my faith.
Tom,
I partially agree with you on the Intelligent Design Issue. But I think that its proponents are making a mistake trying to teach it as a science. It is a soft science, like anthropology. In other words, it is part philosophy, part social science. They should not include it in the science curriculum.
Otherwise, I would refer you to a book by Ray Kurzweil, called The Singularity is Near. To me, this book proves that there is a mathematical basis to existence and evolution that is "inevitable" and thus the product of a higher intelligence. . . . I would elaborate, but I don't want to bore you. I have a theory that goes along with this. If you are interested, we can discuss it some time over IM or whatever.
Anyway, I think the debate is dumb. Why should it be left out of the curriculum if it has merit? But why should it be taught as hard science, when it bares no resemblance to the scientific methods that distinguish those fields.
EC
Post a Comment