How to make the devil smile
The whole problem with the creation vs. evolution debate is that it is a question with no real importance. The only result of any debate is anger and division.
Here's why I say that - if we really believe that God created the world, then why does it matter how he did it? He could have done it in six days, in six minutes, in six hour, in six billion years. He's God. He does it how he wants to do it. And if someone were to ever prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is complete fact, then how does that affect God? It doesn't. It would merely highlight an aspect of his character, namely that he is a planner; everything he does has a purpose and a plan and he is in charge of it all. In my mind it is almost more impressive if he did take that much time to evolve things to the level we see them today. If you think about the amount of details that had to go right, the exact perfection of the genetic mutations so that one species dominated over another is astounding. Why couldn't God do that as an example to us of how much care he has for his creation.
This 'debate' is a microcosm of a larger science vs religion question, one that also does not make sense to me. I cannot see how any scientific discovery or advancement precludes God from the equation. If I truly believe that God exists, that He is a personal God who cares for His creation and that He is still active today, then how can I say that science rules Him out. Is He not in charge of the entire universe, from the largest of planets to the tiniest of molecules? Then should it not follow that everything we discover about the world around us is how He planned it out? Yet so often it seems like christians are constantly trying to tear down science, or to subtly twist it to show God's specific fingerprints on it. I even have examples of both cases.
First is the issue of a bumblebee's seemingly defiance of the laws of nature when it flies. Usually a christian will say something like: 'according to the laws of science [or aerodynamics if they're being more specific] a bumblebee cannot fly, yet it does anyway.' The point is then made that science cannot explain everything, or that these creatures do not rely on science but on God. There is usually a bit of smugness in the relating, a sort of 'take that science' attitude. There are two problems with this statement, however. First, science can explain how a bumblebee flies. I spent about five minutes looking up information on Google and learned that it is related to stuff I don't understand because I am not in that sort of scientific field. Basically according to an extremely narrow (or possibly incorrect, the origin of the myth is hard to pin down) calculation, bumblebees cannot fly, but to show how they fly a different set of principles and calculations have to be looked at, something that has not quite been able to be figured out exactly until that last few years, partly due to the small size of bees and the limits of computers, if I understand the articles I read correctly. Second, it was never really a matter of bees not being able to fly as it was a matter of scientists not quite figuring out how to explain (mathematically) how it does so. Just because it cannot be explained fully does not mean it cannot happen (the Trinity, anyone?). Read an example and simplified explanation of the myth here.
Next is the issue of tweaking science to make it seem like God is laying down little hidden messages to people so they cannot miss Him. An example of this is a story floating around about laminin molecules, which are apparently molecules in people (and possibly in all animals as well) that are very important. As one article I read states - they "hold one cell of our body to another cell". The amazing part, according to these stories, is that these molecules look like tiny little crosses. Isn't God so amazing? The problem here is that diagrams and models of extremely tiny things like atoms and molecules are wildly inacurrate. They are designed to make it easier for a person to understand them. If I remember my high school science, the common diagram of an atom - a dot with some orbits around them (the proton being circled by electrons? something like that) is wrong simply in scale - the orbits would have to be room sized or building sized to be accurate to the size of the tiny dot. The same is true with the laminin molecules - the cross shape is a visual representation of something that would be hard to do on flat paper otherwise. In reality it looks nothing like a cross. It is discussed more fully here.
Science is not the enemy of religion. Evolution is not the final nail in Jesus' coffin. God is so much bigger than that, and that is what makes it so amazing that He would want to hang out with us. He is beyond the universe (not the known universe, but the entire universe). You could easily say that the universe is in Him. So the next time someone tries to convince you that evolution is better than creation, just ask them how evolution proves God does not exist, rather than wasting time arguing a moot point.
Here's why I say that - if we really believe that God created the world, then why does it matter how he did it? He could have done it in six days, in six minutes, in six hour, in six billion years. He's God. He does it how he wants to do it. And if someone were to ever prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is complete fact, then how does that affect God? It doesn't. It would merely highlight an aspect of his character, namely that he is a planner; everything he does has a purpose and a plan and he is in charge of it all. In my mind it is almost more impressive if he did take that much time to evolve things to the level we see them today. If you think about the amount of details that had to go right, the exact perfection of the genetic mutations so that one species dominated over another is astounding. Why couldn't God do that as an example to us of how much care he has for his creation.
This 'debate' is a microcosm of a larger science vs religion question, one that also does not make sense to me. I cannot see how any scientific discovery or advancement precludes God from the equation. If I truly believe that God exists, that He is a personal God who cares for His creation and that He is still active today, then how can I say that science rules Him out. Is He not in charge of the entire universe, from the largest of planets to the tiniest of molecules? Then should it not follow that everything we discover about the world around us is how He planned it out? Yet so often it seems like christians are constantly trying to tear down science, or to subtly twist it to show God's specific fingerprints on it. I even have examples of both cases.
First is the issue of a bumblebee's seemingly defiance of the laws of nature when it flies. Usually a christian will say something like: 'according to the laws of science [or aerodynamics if they're being more specific] a bumblebee cannot fly, yet it does anyway.' The point is then made that science cannot explain everything, or that these creatures do not rely on science but on God. There is usually a bit of smugness in the relating, a sort of 'take that science' attitude. There are two problems with this statement, however. First, science can explain how a bumblebee flies. I spent about five minutes looking up information on Google and learned that it is related to stuff I don't understand because I am not in that sort of scientific field. Basically according to an extremely narrow (or possibly incorrect, the origin of the myth is hard to pin down) calculation, bumblebees cannot fly, but to show how they fly a different set of principles and calculations have to be looked at, something that has not quite been able to be figured out exactly until that last few years, partly due to the small size of bees and the limits of computers, if I understand the articles I read correctly. Second, it was never really a matter of bees not being able to fly as it was a matter of scientists not quite figuring out how to explain (mathematically) how it does so. Just because it cannot be explained fully does not mean it cannot happen (the Trinity, anyone?). Read an example and simplified explanation of the myth here.
Next is the issue of tweaking science to make it seem like God is laying down little hidden messages to people so they cannot miss Him. An example of this is a story floating around about laminin molecules, which are apparently molecules in people (and possibly in all animals as well) that are very important. As one article I read states - they "hold one cell of our body to another cell". The amazing part, according to these stories, is that these molecules look like tiny little crosses. Isn't God so amazing? The problem here is that diagrams and models of extremely tiny things like atoms and molecules are wildly inacurrate. They are designed to make it easier for a person to understand them. If I remember my high school science, the common diagram of an atom - a dot with some orbits around them (the proton being circled by electrons? something like that) is wrong simply in scale - the orbits would have to be room sized or building sized to be accurate to the size of the tiny dot. The same is true with the laminin molecules - the cross shape is a visual representation of something that would be hard to do on flat paper otherwise. In reality it looks nothing like a cross. It is discussed more fully here.
Science is not the enemy of religion. Evolution is not the final nail in Jesus' coffin. God is so much bigger than that, and that is what makes it so amazing that He would want to hang out with us. He is beyond the universe (not the known universe, but the entire universe). You could easily say that the universe is in Him. So the next time someone tries to convince you that evolution is better than creation, just ask them how evolution proves God does not exist, rather than wasting time arguing a moot point.
posted by Pants since 1986 @ 2:23 p.m.
1 comments
1 Comments:
YEA!
Post a Comment
<< Home