Eminent Domain Stuff
New London Update (2/24/06)
Bad NLDC!
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
I am pleased to see that David (A Physicist's Perspective and fellow Homespun Blogger) has decided to take on the Evolution vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design debate. His first post is a nice introduction to the debate complete with definitions of Evolution and Intelligent Design.
I suggest that anyone interested in this debate take a look at his post and watch for future discussion both here and at David's blog.
Before getting back to currently more pressing matters (the impending victory of the BoSox =)) I would like to make one comment on David's post. He said:
So, I guess I'm trying to reaffirm the point that Evolution is not in any way incongruent with religious belief or the existence of God. Evolution is incongruent with the idea that a supernatural being is required to directly cause the existence of each and every living thing on Earth.
I belabor this point for a very important reason. As we continue this debate we must all bear in mind that this is not necessarily a battle between Science and Religion. Rather, this is a debate pitting a well-established scientific hypothesis against a very old idea that has been revamped in an attempt to give it scientific legitimacy. Whichever side wins the debate, religion will not vanquish science, nor vice versa. Rather, when this debate is resolved (and I don't suggest holding one's breath) the only loser will be flawed reasoning.
|
I suggest that anyone interested in this debate take a look at his post and watch for future discussion both here and at David's blog.
Before getting back to currently more pressing matters (the impending victory of the BoSox =)) I would like to make one comment on David's post. He said:
So Tom is correct in pointing out that, at some level, it all boils down to belief. And that's why this is so controversial -- the evolution camp, committed as many scientists are to materialism, thinks that the ID/Creationism camp is practicing bad science because it's allowing God into the game. There's no fundamental reason that science can't allow God into the game -- after all, many of the most famous scientists until the 1900s were devout Christians, like Newton and others -- but most modern scientists are scientific materialists, so they won't stand for this.Without a doubt, many scientists are committed to materialism (although I am not one in the absolute sense). However, Evolution does not necessitate that God be entirely shut out of the game (as I pointed out in Round 2). Rather, Evolution is the mechanism that I choose to explain the origin and diversity of life I see around me. That does not mean, however, that I would dare suppose that the very existence of matter can be explained without the supernatural. Far from it, I believe (a la Miller) that God got it all started and then let the chips fall as they would (which is to say as He found acceptable through the creation of His Laws of Physics).
So, I guess I'm trying to reaffirm the point that Evolution is not in any way incongruent with religious belief or the existence of God. Evolution is incongruent with the idea that a supernatural being is required to directly cause the existence of each and every living thing on Earth.
I belabor this point for a very important reason. As we continue this debate we must all bear in mind that this is not necessarily a battle between Science and Religion. Rather, this is a debate pitting a well-established scientific hypothesis against a very old idea that has been revamped in an attempt to give it scientific legitimacy. Whichever side wins the debate, religion will not vanquish science, nor vice versa. Rather, when this debate is resolved (and I don't suggest holding one's breath) the only loser will be flawed reasoning.
|
