Can both be true? I say yes too both. In a fascinating new book Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. speaks to this issue. His Citations
in his field are impeccable. He is a devout Christian. Albert Einstein’s entire life, and especially his later life’s work, in Science revolved around trying to prove God’s plan. His later life’s work were considered by many of his colleagues to have been wasted. Science is moving closer to solving the theory of everything. Could it be that Einstein the second greatest mind (Newton generally considered the best) of all time was right. Scientist all over the world are beginning to take more interest in the work of his final years as they seek the theory of everything. Is God the missing element? Are men like Francis Collins about to add the final ingredient? God? Science shows us, people of faith, on average, live longer healthier lives and are happier. Have average people of faith already discovered the theory of everything?
I’ve long been torn between the two choices. I have always, on my own, studied science and technology. Science was always my favorite subject in school. Religion, and the many philosophies derived from it have also, always fascinated me.
I firmly believe that the day proto-human became fully human, was the day that someone, some where, at some point, realized that he or she was alive, and at some point going to die. That awesome realization IMHO was the wellspring, by way of religion, of civilization and government, rule of law, and all knowledge accumulated to this point in time. Perhaps even the basis for the development of true language. Even a primate as intelligent as a chimpanzee although able to, express many emotions, even grieve almost certainly have no true understanding of life and death.
Research has shown that there is even an area of the brain, as in speech, vision etc. dedicated to religion. Every one has heard the near death stories people experience. I saw my uncle reach for God as he died as spoken of in my post, “Where have the real Democrats gone.” I’ve heard another family story about my great grandmother, and the last day of her life. She would point up and say “Look at the Angels, aren’t they beautiful?”
Evolution is also with out question, a fact. We see it today in the appearance of new diseases. Man has learned to manipulate genes, to speed up evolution to create disease resistant food crops, dogs bred for specific purposes, or a horse that can run ever faster. Eugenics, although considered by most morally wrong, by way of speeding up evolution, could be the one thing that could truly bring equality to all people. Evolution by nature, or by plan does exist. Creation in Genesis follows exactly what evolution shows. First nothing, then the big bang. Matter is created. Then the planets and stars form from that matter. Next comes water and primitive life. Then finally man. The peak of life, in terms of God or of evolution.
Evolution is easy verifiable in a million different ways and examples. God is not so easy. God depends on the faith of the inner soul. And which God is the real one? There have been thousands. Always one main God and a host of lesser Gods. Or perhaps just one God and his angels (The Angels being the lesser Gods) expressed differently, by different cultures.
And with the knowledge of life and death, came the greatest knowledge of all. The knowledge of good and evil. What were the laws of nature, became the laws of good and evil, of God and the Devil. Evil and the devil in his many forms also have been worshiped.
Why do liberals hate God so much? How can they hate God at all as most do not believe? How could the teaching of intelligent design along with evolution, be so disturbing to them? What could it possibly hurt? We have watched liberals take over control of the media and the government. With each step forward in their plan, we see de-evolution. They seek to make equal, lifestyles and people who clearly are not equal. They seek to excuse almost every crime as the fault of the government or the religious right. The fault of God. Ann Coulter says it best. Liberals although denying theology are in fact neo-devil worshipers. They seek to make evil normal. Good irrelevant. But we see a dramatically rising violent crime rate. We see our cities and schools beginning to decay. Liberals see “progress.” I see a return to the laws of nature, the violent laws of the jungle.
I knew a very devout Jehovah Witness once. He believed it a sin to speak of anything but God and work. He was part of our work crew. There were eight of us. We all went to our jobs in two company vehicles. The other six tried hard to avoid him and his “preaching” and all ride in the one vehicle. But like I said, I was fascinated with this kind of thing so I would ride with him and debate the issue of God. He asked me once why the others were so uncomfortable around him. I thought I knew why but fained ignorance for the sake of his feelings. His answer was not what I expected but was very meaningful to a young 17 year old. He said it wasn’t them that was uncomfortable, but the devil in them, uncomfortable with the God that was in him. This was, and still is a powerful statement. Are liberals controlled by the devil? Is that why they are so scared of God. Is it the devil that is really so afraid of morality and good?
One by one the smartest, most talented, Scientist of our time are beginning to see God and his grand plan. I think it to be good thing for us all.
My immediate reaction:
Coulter has let the devil control her more than I.
Maybe its the devil in you, turning you away from the fact that most libs do believe stronger than you or me. Does that make them (progressives) better or worse? I don’t think so.
Valuing the separation of church and state doesn’t make anyone devilish, a patriot , but not devilish.
“We see our cities and schools beginning to decay. Liberals see “progress.” -celtic
Actually progressives and some republicans are against the most damaging thing to the schools in the last 20 years. I’m talking about the federal and state standardized tests. Ya know, the one Neil “Left my wife foir an asian hooker” Bush’s new company produces exclusive curriculum for? Little purple robots that teach the test? I mean come on!
Well it didn’t work so here is the link again. http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1211593,00.html
Great post, celtictexan. Sorry it’s taken me this long to comment. I’ve been pretty busy trying to juggle two jobs and getting ready to leave one of them. I’ve used what little free time I’ve had for blogging to respond to some of Clint’s comments.
I’ve commented extensively at PTS on the topic of evolution, and even though it was probably before you started visiting over there, I don’t feel like repeating myself, except for a couple of points.
Evolution is also with out question, a fact.
Your old friend Spacedark once made this assertion, and I challenged him on it. In order for something to even be a theory (let alone a fact), it has to be observable and able to be replicated. Micro-evolution (variation and adaptation within species and perhaps even genum) is certainly observable; there’s the classic example of the moths that evolved from light color to darker color to blend in with the trees as Industrial Age pollution made the trees darker. I’ve heard that they evolved back to lighter color as the pollution was eradicated.
But then there’s macro-evolution, which is the development of life ex nihilo, creating it where none existed before, starting with single-celled organisms (which in and of themselves are enormously complex) and evolving them into trees, fish, birds, and finally a Democrat (the Crown of all Creation). Whereas scientific “theories” (in the generic sense) abound as to how this could have happened, no one has been yet able to create a Democrat (let alone a conservative) from something inorganic. The closest I know of is the creation of an organic substance (urea) from inorganic substances in a very controlled laboratory environment. I find it ironic that the best man can to is to create a little piss in a test tube. Of course, all this begs the question: Where did the inorganic material come from in the first place?
(cont’d)
As far as the explanation of God’s role in all this, I used this example over at PTS, and as far as I recall, nobody challenged me on it.
Here I sit at my computer, on July 29, 2006, typing letters on my keyboard that form words, words that form sentences, and sentences that hopefully represent reasoned, cohesive thoughts. But the physical evidence of this is just a lot of electronic 0’s and 1’s. The reason these 0’s and 1’s convey ideas to you is because they are converted back to letters, words, and sentences on your computer in a language you understand.
But what’s the source of these ideas? Celtictexan and Bodacious know because they’ve met the blogger known as Curious Texan and have at least some inkling of my persona. Clint, on the other hand, has never met me. How does he know that Curious Texan even exists? He has to take it on faith.
Now let’s fast forward to July 29 in the year 1,000,002,006. Let’s say there’s no one left who knows English, but somehow these electronic 0’s and 1’s have survived. Some clever scientist notices that there are patterns behind them. Would it be reasonable for him to conclude that the patterns are a result of the random coming together of these electronic impulses?
No one at PTS answered my question, so I did myself. I concluded that it was perfectly reasonable to come to that conclusion, given the amount of time that had elapsed. At that time, I didn’t pose the next obvious question (though I wish now that I had): Does that mean that Curious Texan wasn’t the source of those 0’s and 1’s?
I was beginning to wonder, I had thought it must have been a really bad post. LOL
Anyway your response just verifies the work of the scientists mentioned above. Macro-evolution is the spark provided by God. Micro, went on from there. (perhaps with a little fine tuning along the way) There has never been anything I know of to verify Macro, if you mean a sudden leap to something else. All has been in baby steps with most ending in failure. I think that many of the DNA mutations seen that, unfortunately result in deformations or retarded children, sometimes makes for an improvement. An improvement that might get carried on. Science at this time says most DNA is junk. Who knows what that might turn out to be. DNA is the 0’s and 1’s you speak of. This is a complicated issue and hard to discuss in this medium. We can talk about it more next get together. Maybe we can invite Clint. We will have to promise not to beat him up or anything.