Science and Religion.

  Alot of religious folk are attacking science these days because they think that if science contradicts their beliefs, that science must be wrong.  But this is extremely arrogant because it assumes their theology is infallible.  But history tells us that theology is as fallible as those writing it.  When people thought the earth was flat, they interpreted the bible as saying the earth was flat.  When they discovered it was round, out of that same arrogance they exclaimed that anyone who disagreed with them were heretics, burn them and roast marshmallows.

It was only 200 years later that the Holy Church un-banned Galileo’s “heresy” (Heresy: n. any fact, theory or idea unknown to 1st century theologeans, syn: “discovery”.).

That was right about the time this guy named Darwin wrote a book about how maybe life isn’t exactly how it’s been since the beginning of time.

How maybe it’s changed.  And the same thing happened again, darwin’s “heresy” (discovery) was attacked blindly by people who supposed that their theology was infallable.

And people still attack it, most of whom from my experience know little or nothing about the science behind it. 

Darwin and the whole world knew that life could change.  Anyone who’s seen more than one breed of dog knows just how malleable life is. 

Farmers for thousands of years have known that if you want the corn to taste sweeter, you take the sweetest corn out of each crop and use those to plant for the next crop.  And repeat, and repeat. 

Same principle with dogs – you want them to be taller, thinner, fatter, shorter, dumber, smarter, faster, slower, whatever, just take the ones that are the most “whatever” out of that group, and breed them together.  You want taller dogs, breed the taller ones together.  Then breed the tallest of those together, and so on.

Now geneticists know how and why this works. 

All darwin pointed out is that the same thing appeared to be happening on it’s own in nature.  When we breed horses for speed we do like the above, we select the variations we want.  But nature does the same thing because the fast horses and the slow horses won’t survive and reproduce at the same rates.  The fastest ones will survive more often because fast predators will eat the slower ones.  So the genes for fastness are “naturally selected” and become more common in the gene pool, and over time the horse acquires greater speed, endurance etc exactly as race horses do.

A concept so simple a child can understand it.  But so many adults deliberately misunderstand it.

Note that nowhere in that explanation did I say anything about how there is no god.  Know why?

Nothing about evolution supposes there is no god.  In fact the two guys who came up with the idea (darwin and wallace) both believed in a creator.

Anyway, this is too long for my first blog, so I’ll stop here.  Lemme know if you found it interesting or offensive or confusing or whatever.


About agnophilo

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Science and Religion.

  1. agnophilo says:

    @mendicantmelly – It’s nice to see someone who is “religious” in a positive sense rather than a negative one : )I’m used to dealing with people who spell evolution “evilushun”.

  2. So sad, but so very true! Yeah, I refuse to believe that just because I might call myself a “Christian” that automatically means that I have to stop thinking. In fact, I think probably my most profound “religious experiences” have happened in classrooms, not churches.

  3. agnophilo says:

    @mendicantmelly – Hear hear!  Socrates said the unexamined life was not worth living.  So many people don’t examine this life because they see the world as the waiting room for the next one.  It’s tragic.

  4. yikuan says:

    While I agree that theological beliefs are indeed fallible, I don’t think it is as fallible as those writing it; Christian theology has shown some consistency throughout the centuries, particular, in the area of grace and salvation thereof.  And, on a more personal note, I believe in the Theory of Evolution (at least, micro evolution, not macro. There really isn’t much to be said against natural selection), and I am an ex-biology major and a Christian. Good post. You’re pretty good at explaining things; perhaps you should  become a teacher. šŸ™‚

  5. agnophilo says:

    @yikuan – Thanks.  I agree with everything you said except about christianity remaining consistent about some things – there are lots of books that contradict just about anything in the bible, they’re just considered “heretical” because they disagree with the ones accepted in the early church.  That is where that loose consistency comes from.In reality 4 gospels were adopted, and over a dozen more were rejected.

  6. Again, I just skim read, no I lie, I just read the first line and want to reply – Don’t attack science people!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hehe. I live with my sister and her husband and the three of us are Christians and SCIENTISTS. My brother-in-law is a genius, an astro-physictist and mathematician. My sister works in medicine, and me, I’m an environmental scientist with a major in zoology. I’m so not in the same ball-park as those two academic geniuses, but we have some of the best dinner table discussions. Hardly any of my friends are scientists. Makes it very hard – and yes, probably especially among my Christian friends. Sometimes I feel like I can’t talk about science with them and especially evolution.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s