One of my favorite things to learn about is me. Not from the standpoint of examining each cuticle or new gray hair, but more along the lines of why am I here, how did I get here, etc.
Dum vivimus servimus.
With that in mind, being a Christian with a love of science can be a difficult thing these days. On one hand you have people telling you we are products of a vast number of coincidences, in contrast to the Biblical writings that tell us we all made in the image and likeness of God. Who are you going to believe? Especially when we are told that the scientific community is basing the discussion on scientific facts and the religious community is only about proselytizing?
Audiatur et altera pars.
Well, in my humble opinion, the real issue in this, as well as many other topics, is who controls the terms of the debate. While there may be supporting science for both sides of a discussion, the side that controls the terms used and has a larger voice in the forum is usually considered right. At the very least, they tend to get more votes...
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor.
Specifically, in the Creationism/Intelligent Design vs. Big Bang/Evolution Theory debate, the anti-Biblical, we-don't-know-about-this-God-thing people (see how I spun that) happen to control the forum and the terms of the discussion. And, because they have controlled the secondary and post-secondary education realm for the last century or so, they have shaped the minds of the next generation. Guess what they chose to emphasize? :O
Discipuli nostrum bardissimi sunt.
This in turn, has meant that, whenever possible, any new discovery in practically any field of science has been spun to be an integral part of their side of the argument. If it could not be made to fit their current ideology, it was hidden or dismissed as an anomaly or used to shape a new branch in their school of thought.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Take for instance the aspect of the Earth's age: evidence regarding the regular decay of the electromagnetic field strength, lunar dust accumulation, polonium radio halos in granite, and atmospheric helium-4 levels would lead to extrapolating a sub-10000 year age for the Earth thereby obliterating the macroevolutionist argument.
Veritas omnia vincit.
So, conveniently, these and other incompatible items are not taught to science students by the accidental-existence intelligensia. Instead, they will point at the gradation of organisms in systematics; the biogeographical distribution of the species; the existence of homologous and vestigial structures as viewed in anatomy, embyology, and molecular biology; and the presence of transitional forms and gradual sequences in the fossil record. Oddly enough, these all are observances that rely on a worldview propagated in the most part by them; in other words they are inconclusive in and of themselves.
Circulus vitiosus!
I'll pause here for tonight because I have other papers to write. I'll revisit this topic in the future because it eventually gets to the part of who I am and why I am here.
Disce quasi semper victurus vive quasi cras moriturus!
Dei Gratia, Deo gratias!
Dum vivimus servimus.
With that in mind, being a Christian with a love of science can be a difficult thing these days. On one hand you have people telling you we are products of a vast number of coincidences, in contrast to the Biblical writings that tell us we all made in the image and likeness of God. Who are you going to believe? Especially when we are told that the scientific community is basing the discussion on scientific facts and the religious community is only about proselytizing?
Audiatur et altera pars.
Well, in my humble opinion, the real issue in this, as well as many other topics, is who controls the terms of the debate. While there may be supporting science for both sides of a discussion, the side that controls the terms used and has a larger voice in the forum is usually considered right. At the very least, they tend to get more votes...
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor.
Specifically, in the Creationism/Intelligent Design vs. Big Bang/Evolution Theory debate, the anti-Biblical, we-don't-know-about-this-God-thing people (see how I spun that) happen to control the forum and the terms of the discussion. And, because they have controlled the secondary and post-secondary education realm for the last century or so, they have shaped the minds of the next generation. Guess what they chose to emphasize? :O
Discipuli nostrum bardissimi sunt.
This in turn, has meant that, whenever possible, any new discovery in practically any field of science has been spun to be an integral part of their side of the argument. If it could not be made to fit their current ideology, it was hidden or dismissed as an anomaly or used to shape a new branch in their school of thought.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Take for instance the aspect of the Earth's age: evidence regarding the regular decay of the electromagnetic field strength, lunar dust accumulation, polonium radio halos in granite, and atmospheric helium-4 levels would lead to extrapolating a sub-10000 year age for the Earth thereby obliterating the macroevolutionist argument.
Veritas omnia vincit.
So, conveniently, these and other incompatible items are not taught to science students by the accidental-existence intelligensia. Instead, they will point at the gradation of organisms in systematics; the biogeographical distribution of the species; the existence of homologous and vestigial structures as viewed in anatomy, embyology, and molecular biology; and the presence of transitional forms and gradual sequences in the fossil record. Oddly enough, these all are observances that rely on a worldview propagated in the most part by them; in other words they are inconclusive in and of themselves.
Circulus vitiosus!
I'll pause here for tonight because I have other papers to write. I'll revisit this topic in the future because it eventually gets to the part of who I am and why I am here.
Disce quasi semper victurus vive quasi cras moriturus!
Dei Gratia, Deo gratias!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment