Yes, I know. Why on earth did I, of all people, start a blog? The answer is "Randomicity" [new word I just invented]. I was bored, not wanting to do any more school work for the night.
So what can you expect to find here? Who knows? Probably lots of historical or scientific thoughts/questions will emerge, however. I might even delve into the forbidden art of politics. There will also be the occasional poem or prose, some original, some ...shall we say unoriginal? [Plagiarist is such a strong word].
Really, the reason that motivated me to start this blog was getting frustrated during research for my Origins paper. I came across so many blogs that were rather one-sided towards evolution and bigoted towards ID or other non-Darwinian theories; after all, they are all theories. None of them are provable. There isn't a Darwinian law in science...yet. They're coming close though. Apparently, Darwin Day is celebrated in several states.
[Forewarning for the questions section: I will pose many questions that my offend, enrage, dismay, or bug certain people. I may also put forth answers or other conjectures that have the same effect. I do not personally hold to any or all of the questions or answers posted in this blog unless explicitly written so. I write these questions/topics/answers for my own personal mental games, often so that I can view them and continue to roll them around in my head. Feel free to post/comment, but please avoid the use of profanity and other abusive slurs, slangs, and terms.]
First question to ponder over. Why does the government support natural selection AND wildlife conservation. The two are contrary to one another. Almost 99.9% of the species found in the geologic column [I'll talk about it later] are not alive today. What's one more species gone from the world? Nature obviously recovered just fine after those species were gone. If a species is not fit to survive in the world we live in today, then it is obviously on its way out. Why should humanity go out of its way to prolong the inevitable destruction of a species?
#2: Why does the government support evolution in the first place? Why does it refuse to allow an open forum in science textbooks. Why are people so afraid of Intelligent Design in a textbook? Intelligent Design is not a religion. It is a theory just like Evolution. People got angry even over a foreward in a textbook saying that evolution is not a proven theory but merely a theory. Why such animosity? How does Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Creation Science go against the Constitution? [Bonus points if you can answer that one.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yes, I am so the first to post on your blog. While I would agree with you that the vast majority of science is Darwinian, if only for the reason that they cannot allow the supernatural into the scientific method, I do comprehend why scientists seek to preserve wildlife. There is, of course, the basic love of creation that is within every human soul. In addition, what conservation does is fight artificial, not natural, seclection. These animals are not being killed by "natural" factors (though I, along with Chesterton, would ask why materialist Darwinists make human selection anything but natural); rather, human inferference is killing them. There is even a self-interested reason for species preservation. The majority of our medicines have been created from plants. If we wipe them out, we may be harming our own ability to learn how to aid humanity, so there is some very utilitarian benefit.
As to your second point, I can understand why some scientists reasonably fear the inclusion of ID into science. They believe that for science to have integrity it must be able to deal with observable, repeatable phenomena. Science must assume that all things have natural causes, because science can only deal with natural causes. ID, obviously, is not repeatable nor is it purely within the realm of naturalism. What many of these materialists fail to realize is that naturalist evolution is not an observable, repeatable phenomena, nor is it treated as a natural event by some evolutionists (e.g. Carl Sagan). Thus, I can see why some scientists do not want ID taught in classrooms. The problem arises that these scientists do not look at evolution with a proper scientific mind. A good, honest scientist can say ID should not be taught, but a scientist cannot be good or honest to apply different standards than those which science has set up when dealing with evolution.
Just as a note, I would also caution your usage of "theory." In scientific terms, a theory is something which describes how something works. When non-scientists use the word "theory" they mean what is called a "hypothesis" in the scientific realm, so just be a bit careful with your usage of theory.
I would say that neither creationism nor ID go against the constitution. I remember something about having freedom of speech, but not freedom from ID.
My final point would be that I have no problem with those who do not want ID in the classroom. I only want a level playing field. There are biology teachers who honestly cannot teach ID, and that's OK, but they cannot, at the same time, teach evolutionary theory as fact when it fails the same criteria that ID does for being taught in a classroom. Truly, I would almost argue that evolution and ID should be in the departments of history than science because neither deals with the observable, repeatable experimentation needed for scientific research. Alright, that's 'bout it for now. God bless.
-The Pope
"The cross cannot be defeated . . . for it is Defeat." -G.K. Chesterton
Post a Comment