';This is a great book for learning just about anything you could ever want to know about insects. It discusses insect sociality, body systems, reproduction, interaction with plants, evolution, environmental tolerance, pest control, and other topics. I learned so much from this book. It was amazing to me to learn just how intricate insects really are. This understanding really strengthened my faith in God and the creation.';
How can 'evidence' ever be convincing enough if it depends on the POV of the person interpreting it? Is it clear that no amount of scientific evidence can lead some people to naturalistic explanations?
When someone has been indoctrinated from birth into a certain way of thinking by people they instinctively trust: parents teachers, pastors, it is very difficult to break out of it. Evidence alone will never persuade them otherwise, they don't care about evidence, clearly, since their entire world view is already independent of the world. There's not a lot that can be done for them accept that hope that in time the rational parts of their brain will encroach on the faith parts.
It reminds me of the story of Kurt Wise, a young Earth creationist who attended a Geology course at the university of Chicago, and did a PhD in Geology at Harvard under the great Stephen J Gould. During his education, which you understand was the best kind of education it is possible to receive, he became aware that the science he was learning and the geology he was studying out in the field himself, completely contradicting his childhood YEC indoctrination. This came to a head one evening when he took a pair of scissors to a Bible and took out everything that would need to go if he took science seriously. He reports that there was barely anything left, and the book fell apart. With great sorrow he cast away all hopes and dreams of ever becoming a scientist and teaching science.
';What nagged me was that even if the days were long periods of time, the order was still out of whack. After all, science said the sun came before the earth鈥攐r at least at the same time鈥攁nd the Bible said that the earth came three days before the sun. Whereas science said that the sea creatures came before plants and the land creatures came before flying creatures, the Bible indicated that plants preceded sea creatures and flying creatures preceded land creatures. On the other hand, making the days millions of years long seemed to take away most of the conflict. I thus determined to shelve these problems in the back recesses of my mind.';
';if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.';
I find this absolutely astonishing and terrible, and I feel utterly powerless against it. We can clearly see how religion itself can be seen as a form of child abuse when all the efforts of his parents, teachers and pastors left his mind as wrecked as that.Is it clear that no amount of scientific evidence can lead some people to naturalistic explanations?
You ever notice these atheists are all angry. Look at Bill Maher...a fifty year old still rebelling against the world cuz some preacher in the family probably copped a feel. That's why I enjoy letting them all know that they're going to burn in the pit of HAYELL! Spending your life having to prove something against religion makes you just as much of a brainwashed slave as you claim are those that you persecute.
Maybe there's a genetic explanation for why some people are predisposed to religion and the supernatural. It's almost like their brains are especially susceptible.
I noticed that the person mentioned ';evolution'; as part of one of the things he/she learned from the book. So this person apparently does not see a contradiction between naturalistic concepts like evolution, and faith in God ';and the creation.'; In fact, the person seems to believe that all these things lead to a further appreciation for God and His methods of Creation. That's great. (Darwin wrote something similar, by the way.)
The goal of scientific evidence is not to lead people to naturalism. It's to lead to scientific understanding. There is no contradiction to believing that naturalistic processes are guided by supernatural powers (like God). The mistake is only in believing that *evidence* will support that belief in the supernatural.
People who have true faith (like this person seems to be, from this passage) are not threatened by science. They don't look to *alter* science to provide verification and evidence of their faith. Since they are perfectly happy knowing that their faith requires no empirical verification, no evidence, then *everything* strengthens their faith. The beauty of nature, and in our ability to understand it through science, only strengthens that faith.
--- {edit} ---
To Bullet Magnet ... indeed a sad story. The problem with Kurt Wise was that he was caught in the trap of Biblical literalism ... which is a form of idolatry ... worshipping a Book instead of God. The Bible is supposed to be an inspired *path* to God ... not an object of worship itself. Wise had never been given the tools for knowing how to read *allegory* to find deep Truth. He thought that meant reinterpreting ';day'; to maybe mean ';X million years in God time'; ... and this is still *MISSING THE POINT*. The Bible *CAN* be reconciled with science *IF* you recognize the Bible for what it is ... allegory and guidance ... not a literal chronicle of mundane events (like whether birds were created before land animals).
Trying to ';fix'; the Bible to fit science is just as misguided as trying to ';fix'; science to fit the Bible.
---- {edit ... for Additional Details} ----
%26gt;';There is a conflict, because it supposes purpose behind creation and reasons for why things occur.';
What's wrong with that? As long as one doesn't look to nature itself (evidence) to reveal its ';purpose';, then there is nothing contradictory in *believing* out of pure faith, that a purpose exists.
%26gt;';Extrapolating from nature in this way throws up silly moral problems that ought not to occur.';
I am not talking about extrapolating a purpose *from* nature'; ... but specifically ascribing purpose from *outside* nature.
And I disagree that these moral problems are necessarily ';silly.'; E.g., global warming, or ethical treatment of animals (or each other) are moral questions that (for some people) come out of this interpretation of ';purpose'; in nature, and are far from ';silly.';
%26gt;';I don't think that evolution can destroy faith, but that tenacity is not scientifically grounded at all.';
I am being very clear that I don't think it is scientifically grounded either. But that doesn't make it wrong, inconsistent, or ';silly.'; That tenacity can be a beautiful, *powerful* thing. Religious leaders can manipulate that tenacity into ignorance. But in the hands of someone who puts their faith *above* religious leaders, or literal interpretations of the Bible ... that very tenacity can be a source of inspiration, comfort, responsibility, and justice.
What I'm saying is that defenders of science should NOT be in the business of diminishing the worth of that tenacity. Faith is NOT the enemy of science. Ignorance is.
No comments:
Post a Comment