In a recent interview with CNN, prominent atheist Richard Dawkins said the following:
"Evolution is almost universally accepted among those who understand it, almost universally rejected by those who don't."
For a moment I was enfuriated by his statement, until the following one popped into my head:
"Christianity is almost universally accepted among those who understand it, almost universally rejected by those who don't."
Quid pro quo.
I am not claiming my response as absolute truth, rather as a necessary perspective.
I am not claiming my response as absolute truth, rather as a necessary perspective.
The concept of the straight line is almost universally rejected among those who understand it, and almost universally accepted by those who don't.
ReplyDeleteThink on that one Darling Rose
~<3 Blue - Miss you and keep the new ideas coming... I like trying to keep up with ya :-P
One more thing, when I was sitting in the same pose as the thinker, I found this article and thought you might be interested in it based on it's relevance to your post.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Nov2009/Feature2.asp
It is one christians view of how Evolution interacts with Faith. Lemme know what you think of it :-P
~Blue
Blue, Thanks for reading! I had no idea you'd been tracking me here. :b And thanks for responding. I skimmed through the article you recommended. I would have read it more in depth but didn't b/c I am already familiar with many of those ideas. I disagree with the point of view espoused in the article basically b/c of two things:
ReplyDeleteFirst: Creation was complete as God made it. Genesis 2:1-2 says "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done." I have no reason to believe that there were any necessary changes that needed to evolve slowly over time. God acted as is consistent with His character. He completed that which He began.
Second: We may see evidences for micro evolution within a species, but there is no conclusive evidence for macro evolution, or species changing into other species. It just hasn't happened. When mutations have been successful, such as the liger, or a fly with extra wings, the resulting creature is either sterile, weaker, or both and cannot continue reproducing.
And that pretty much wraps up my thoughts on that.
Oooo interesting...
ReplyDeleteWell to address your first, why could not God have made those things with the ability to adapt and change. In his love for all things he gave all the opportunity to live as they saw fit. Free will and all would show a psychological adaptation of the human condition. Our ability to change, I supposed that part would lead into a totally different discussion of pre-destiny, but let's not do that here, we can discuss that some other time :-P
As for the second... great reference to the liger, although the only real form of macro evolution I like to acknoledge is more cultural than biological.
Other than that, keep up the posting, and I'm not gonna get a blog yet but you can keep pestering me about it and maybe I'll get there :) at the very least I look forward to deep discussions about topics that neither of us can yet forsee.
~<3 Blue
P.S. doesn't the ~<3 look like a heart shaped balloon?!! I just noticed that!