TPI has a sterling example of the fact that theologists are much better trained thinkers than biologists when it comes to philosophy. Usually when biologists try to write articles debunking faith in favor of evolution, they come off as arrogant. Creationists usually come off as bitter.
However, for me, the evolution/creation debate has evolved (forgive me) into a question of the past overshadowing the present. The big thing religion, especially Christianity does, is paint a picture of how things were, are, and could possibly be in the future. Evolutionary biology has no ability to predict the future, in fact, evolutionary models of the rise of modern humans completely break down upon the advent of advanced civilization, where normal human breeding behavior radically changed. Add modern contraception into the mix, and human evolution is completely off the rails. The impact of humans, arguably, has altered the evolution of every other species away from the predicted evolutionary models. Adaption has had to increase at mathematically difficult rates, in order to keep up with how humans are changing the face of the world.
Contrarily, religion becomes an increasingly cloudy subject to take as fact the farther back you go. I am not arguing, however, that evolution explain our past and religion our future.
What I want to emphasize is that the smartest minds in all history are converged on this topic of where we came from. Did we evolve from little amoeba in the deep blue sea or did we come from the clay? Did we form via spontaneous creation of matter or did we evolve from ever-more-complex creatures battling for dietary supremacy? Did the world form 10,004 years ago, or is it billions of years old?
Why are these such important questions? Is it because both the religious and the evolutionary believe by debunking the beginnings of the opposing movement, the whole movement will collapse?
Evolutionary biologists and theologians must stop bickering about how or why the ancient past happened and start concerning themselves with what is going on today. Is there a way an evolutionary biologist can explain this behavior? Is there a way a Creationist can really, believably explain dinosaur fossils being dug up in North Dakota? There isn't. These two things, in their own way, are unreconcilable to the point that evolutionary biologists and Creationists must "agree to disagree" and move on to much, much more important matters, like curing cancer, or the 26,000 babies that died from starvation last night, or AIDS. Why do we put our complex, wonderful minds so hard to explaining an event so far in the past (to a point where it borders on irrelevance) when we instead need, I repeat need more thinking minds to concentrate on how to fix the present, and prepare for the future.
Stop trying to tell me that the world is 10,000 years old! Stop trying to tell me that I evolved from a phytoplankton that lived in acidic seas a thousand millenia ago. These are both so unimportant to the security of my life and health that I just shake my head that people waste their lives arguing them.
I think the reason Richard Dawkins is such an outspoken person is because he was wronged. Something must have happened to him that made him feel he must get even. I can only imagine what it was. His book, "The God Delusion", turns the ire of any religious person just by its title. If Dawkins wasn't an angry, vengeful person, but instead was trying to educate the masses and open the eyes of the close-minded to the possibility that evolution was the driving force for the creation of modern humans, his book would have been titled "Isn't It Possible That Something Other Than God May Have Caused Modern Humans To Arise?"
But books, and lectures, and debates meant only to debunk one side or another are typically angry, vengeful, and a complete waste of sharp human minds and resources.
And it seems awfully sad to think at the end of one's life, their greatest achievement was they wrote a book telling other people how wrong they were.
Back Into The Wild
13 minutes ago