El_Jairo
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
|
  Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 14:26 |
 
|
To those who are interested in the never ending debate btween religion and science.
Here is a collumn by one of my favorite autors.
| Quote: | Evolutionary Monkey Business
Those of us sitting on the sidelines watching the heralded “origin of the species” debate between creationists (God's team) and evolutionists (Darwin's theory of natural selection) might be excused if we've failed to understand the significance of the large stack of chips each side has in the pot. The ongoing mud slinging and legal wrangling dished out by both sides have obscured their real agendas and turned this otherwise innocuous issue into a major political hot potato.
The latest argument countering the “random causes of change” and “survival of the fittest” tenets of Darwinism is Intelligent Design (ID), the concept that nothing in creation is incidental, and that the existence of much of the universe and all living things is best explained by an intelligent cause. Creationists attribute everything in the universe to God as the supreme architect, from whose hand all things are wrought. Those holding this view see science merely as the bastion of little men endeavoring to rediscover the inner workings of the divine plan. Further, they argue that ID is not only a valid scientific theory; it stands on equal or superior footing to current scientific thinking regarding the origin of life.
Science, on the other hand, dismisses religion as the realm of faith providing solace to those who lack the desire, intelligence, or disciplined curiosity to hypothesize and investigate. The majority of scientists contend that ID is no more than a pseudoscience, not meriting the serious consideration of peer review in scientific journals. Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, summed up their position: “To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like ‘God was always there,’ and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say ‘DNA was always there,’ or ‘Life was always there,’ and be done with it.”
To religion, science is Godless; to science, religion is burdened by a predetermined agenda that precludes unbiased thought. It's faith versus science, pure and simple. Each side is not only defending its territory but fighting for supremacy as the link between humankind and the mysteries of the cosmos. There is respectful detente between the two opposing forces except when the topic turns to the origin and development of life. Here the stakes are so high that the combatants openly engage with both fists bared. How can one not fight to the bitter end in defense of his God, whether he sits on a throne in heaven or is the perceived champion of objective reasoning?
How might a Zen master resolve this seemingly insoluble dilemma? Perhaps he would employ a koan – one of those paradoxical questions such as “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” used in Zen Buddhism to train monks to recognize the futility of dependence on reason and move them into the realm of sudden, intuitive enlightenment.
Imagine if the creationists and the evolutionists alike were made to sit in extended silent meditation alongside the monks and ponder the koan, “What was your face, before your parents were born?” In time, they each would very likely begin to see a small crack in the shells encasing their convictions. And if a flash of sudden intuitive enlightenment shone through that crack, in that magical, transcendent moment they might just burst into fits of uncontrollable laughter.
With elevated awareness, both sides would soon see that they had been in complete agreement all along. The debate continued only because each was blind to the one critical factor that would have united them from the start. In the state of enlightenment, boundaries dissipate as everything dissolves into the One. There is no separation – even between God and the creation. There is only One – a vast field of consciousness from which every galaxy, every star, mountain, tree, and insect arises. Each aspect of creation is a unique point of that consciousness through which the Oneness explores the ever-changing possibilities of its infinite existence.
By adding the element of an all-pervasive and self-directing consciousness, the two previously rigid arguments soften and intertwine like the two halves of DNA's double helix. Every species is now perceived as an integral part of the Oneness, mutating neither by random chance governed by the survival of the fittest, nor by God's mandate, but by the self-directed impetus of its own curiosity. Is this creation? Of course. Is this evolution? Absolutely. How else could one possibly explain the existence of the Australian duckbilled platypus, a curious egg-laying mammal that looks like a beaver sporting the webbed feet and bill of a duck? I submit that this delightfully unique creature is the product of a whimsical curiosity that fiddled and tweaked until, combining the best of creation and evolution, it found its own perfection, as we all have, in a process we may as well call crevolution.
__________________________________
©2006. Jean-Claude Koven. All Rights Reserved. Jean-Claude Koven is a writer and speaker based in Rancho Mirage, CA. He is a featured weekly columnist for United Press International's Religion & Spirituality Forum and the author of Going Deeper: How to Make Sense of Your Life When Your Life Makes No Sense judged the best metaphysical book of the year by both Allbooks Reviews and USABookNews.com. For more information, please visit: www.goingdeeper.org.
__________________________________
This article is copyrighted, but you have permission to share it through any medium as long as the complete copyright and credit line is included.
__________________________________ |
|
_________________
By the way Pheadrus, do we need anybody to tell us what is good and what is bad?
NAF n°: 21249 |
|
monboesen
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 14:47 |
|
So they should shed their respective religions (science is a religion too) and commit to a third religions point of view. Somehow I don't see how that solves anything. |
|
|
Skeloboy
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 14:52 |
|
Interesting...but...I cant really see the point...is the point to explain about zen-buddhism and elevate it to a level above religion and science?
And the crevolution and the platypus...we have 1 really funny looking animal, and thats the evidence of a synthesis between evolution and creationism? And whimsical curiosity...who's curiosity? Some creator, as in ID? or natures curiosity? In the latter case, how can nature be curious? It implies some sort intelligence in nature. And the whole deal about the Oneness could be said about a omnipotent god to.
As I see it, ID, evolutinism, creationism is just forms of religion which all has one mission: To make the world more intelligible, to make sense in a senseless and confusing world, to develop chaos into kosmos and make at least some answers to some of lives big mysteries.
And now to pointless arguments about small parts of the text:
How can one not fight to the bitter end in defense of his God <<< One easily can, in fact a lot of people of people hold the beliefs to them self, and rarely talks about it, no matter what other people says.
“random causes of change” and “survival of the fittest” <<< Darwinism is not about random cause of change, and darwinism has partly been dismissed.
EDIT: Spelling |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
(all the following IMHO of course)
Well I'm sure this guy has written some great stuff. But this isnt some of it.
Utter tripe in fact.
He postulates a third concept that is clearly in line with his own ideology, and arrogantly assumes it trumps and betters those put forward by the oriniganl 2 hypothoses.
The mistake is the classic hubris of assuming that because the superiority of this third theorum is clear to him, it will be to others, without taking into account their beliefs and rationale beyond the single issue.
Evangelical Christians would be offended at the concept that their God isnt 'seperated' out from his creation and that humans (created in his image) were weighted equally with other aspects of his divine will. And probably a lot of other stuff that wouldnt make any sense to me.
Scientists would simply point out that that is sweet romantic way of looking at things, and on a molecular and quantum level they would agree with it. But it explains nothing, answers nothing and has no scientific backing whatsoever.
To draw a classic simple annalogy for you:
Person A worships X
Person B worships Y
person C says 'Hey A and B, X and Y are basically the same thing. Lets call it Z and worship that'
person C belives they are offering consensus and including A and B. But persons A and B belive they are being excluded, as C is rejecting their beliefs (by expanding them in C's view) and worse still telling them that their beliefs are part of an entirely different and rejected belief. They find this usually more offensive than their own dissagreement, ie: We think its X, they think its Y but it sure as hell isnt both of them, and called Z.
At this stage there is usually a war. Or two.
To dismiss, or worse still appropriate, someone elses beliefs without first understanding those beliefs and the culture and rationale that has led to them, is laughably kindergarten level philosophy displaying both arrogance and ignorance of breathtaking levels.
Maybe he should stick to fiction? |
Last edited by PurpleChest on %b %06, %2006 - %15:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
El_Jairo
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 15:03 |
|
@monboesen: It does solve some important problems: like the lack of moral in science and the lack of logic in religion. As I see it, it is necessary to put both together to save humanity from itself.
@Skeloboy: This is not about elivating anything, it is more about the fact that looking at things from a different point of view can be very enlightning.
I also think it is interesting to see the information theory develop in science. With what I know about it: it says that everything is information, is does seem to support the thought that everything is part of the ONE conscioussness (or All-That-Is).
@Purple: Sure, I don't expect both parties to embrace this thouhgt. But it is rather for people standing on the sideline because the are more free in their thoughts and believes on this matter. I feel that this third solution is the closest the thruth (which we will never know, of course, we only know our truth)
I'm glad to see people want to discuss about this. |
_________________
By the way Pheadrus, do we need anybody to tell us what is good and what is bad?
NAF n°: 21249 |
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 15:20 |
|
I don't want to discuss it here, though I love the debate. The short version is that both require faith, and I will not discuss it with anyone who thinks that they can "prove" the other wrong, as long as you want to, you can maintain belief in either, if you want to discuss various strengths and flaws of each, I'm you man. MY God just doesn't think it's very important  (well, at least I don't, I'm guessing on God's opinion based on other evidence). |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
lord_real
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 15:29 |
|
My God could kick your Gods ass! 
Wait!
This is neither a thread about stalling nor fouling!? Are people actually discussing other things?
I tought that was against the teachings of Nuffle! |
|
|
MrMojo
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 15:33 |
|
I have a distant feeling of gods kicking gods, but that must've happened in the age of myths. Nowadays it's just believers kicking other believers. |
_________________
My post count
Jesus loves me this I know, 'cos my Bible tells me so. |
|
Mezir
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 15:34 |
|
Is it worth my time to start arguing against the "science = belief" schtick? |
_________________
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day; set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. |
|
monboesen
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 16:22 |
|
[/quote]Is it worth my time to start arguing against the "science = belief" schtick?[quote]
Well science is the "95% of results means proof" religion. It's real advantage compared to many other religions is that it accepts that it could be wrong and the non-believers could be right 
(and yes, I am a scientist; my subjects are biology and chemistry) |
|
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 16:26 |
|
2*sigma is not enough, 3*sigma is minimum
... unless you claim to be unlucky on Fumbbl |
|
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 16:27 |
|
Ok, well.... here we go. I'm bored anyway. I'm not talking about science. I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution. A Theory that is un-testable, and has no solid statement of dis-proof. Due to the lack of a hypothetical dis-proof, it can be maintained on "faith", that is un-assaultable. |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
Karhumies
Joined: Oct 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 16:29 |
|
Why don't we all just become atheists? There, problem solved. |
_________________
Main Organiser of
Grudge [L]eague, #GrudgeLeague @ irc.fumbbl.com
and Stunty Spinoff Series, #GrudgeLeague |
|
BB-Pad
Joined: May 05, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 17:20 |
|
| Macavity wrote: | | Ok, well.... here we go. I'm bored anyway. I'm not talking about science. I'm talking about the Theory of Evolution. A Theory that is un-testable, and has no solid statement of dis-proof. Due to the lack of a hypothetical dis-proof, it can be maintained on "faith", that is un-assaultable. |
I think it depends on how you define the Theory of Evolution. If it means that all living organisms are not just the mixture of their predecessors but have mutations & random changes then I think that can be proven in a petri dish. What is MRSA (methilin-resistant Staphylococus aureus - the superbug) if not an example of novel traits and survival of the fittest?
If you just focus on it suggesting that men derived from monkey-types, then yes it's un-testable. |
_________________
Wanna win a trophy that's made from a donkey's bladder? Then join the Ulysses Maverick Trophy! |
|
Rijssiej
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2006 - 17:20 |
|
I believe in the luckmeter. |
|
|
|
|
| |
NBFL Season 32: The ...
Search
