>Please, let's not continue this thread on the cp list. There are more
>appropriate venues on the net for discussions such as these. The only
>comment I will offer is this:
Fine for you. Then you go ahead and do what you ask others _not_ to. ;-) I
agree that this has gone on long enough >:-(, but if you can do it, as well
as the others, then so can I. Besides, I been busting a gut.
... and I quote Liane Cochran-Stafira:
>Evolution by natural selection is a
>MECHANISM by which we can explain the diversity of life on earth. So if
>you want to believe in some sort of supreme being, whose to say this entity
>didn't simply lay down the laws of the universe (including natural
>selection and the other components of modern evolutionary theory) and let
>things follow on their own course. At least this is one suggestion
>presented by one of my evolution professors several years ago. Seems to
>make more sense to me than wasting time and breath trying to deny that
>evolution has and is occurring or trying to tear down millenia of cultural
>and religious beliefs and mythologies. There is far too much concrete
>evidence supporting Darwin's theory to deny its validity (and remember, a
>scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation for phenomena that
>can be used to make predictions - it is NOT a "best guess" as the term is
>used in common parlance.). Frankly, if I were really pressed to reconcile
>religious belief and an acceptance of the theory of evolution, I'd say
>that's one mighty clever higher being who came up with such a nifty system
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>for producing such wondrous things as carnivorous plants.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And I would agree. However, one would have to take this on _faith_. A
creator belief, which all of the extant great Biblical scholars of the
common Christian denominations (quoting Jesus), Old Testament (Books of
Moses), and Prophet (Koran) texts insist is the measure of a true believer.
One _has_ to take that leap of faith to have a belief in a god. Arguments
of proofs aside, "Without faith, you are nothing."
Now, I have only mentioned a few of the religions in this world that
believe in any Biblical God, according to their own interpretation. I think
that, because of my lack of knowledge of the various beliefs in the
supernatural (the Bible insists upon its God as a supernatural entity) that
predominate the vast numerical majority of the rest of the world, I will
stay away from making any comments upon them. I am in no way suggesting
that the above references comprise, or even scratch, the diversity of
religious belief systems that exist in the Americas or Europe. Or anywhere
else.
A _theory_ is just that. A framework for the addition of knowledge, that
allows for speculation, but decries unsupported assumption. It is not an
end, but an organic collation of observation, integration and conclusion
supported by evidence: the descriptions of what are thought to be
understood about something, melded. These sometimes change, in part or
whole, with additional findings, as recognized through various stringent
protocols. This is "fine tuning". Things are rejected or incorporated. A
theory is one _questioning_ manifestation of the human desire to make sense
out of things.
A good theory is pliable, yet offers logical conclusions to a question. A
bad theory, when scrutinized, does not and is soon discarded, or cast under
doubt. A theory is made to fit the facts as are understood, not the other
way around. Most theories have loose ends, because it is extremely rare
that _everything_ is known about a single thing, much less an ongoing
system or process.
The theory of evolution has demonstrated staying power because it allows
that _all_ is not known. It makes room, even _requires_ addition to its
complex. It is exceptionally well supported from the evidence that has been
gleaned from scrounging around in the earth and observing what is before
our eyes and beyond, into the cosmos. Because of its very nature, it is
open ended.
It seems to me, if there are facts to be found that fit into a logical
progression, ie: a theory constantly updated according to new discoveries,
why should that affect faith, or those that profess to have it. There are
countries today, the United States of America and Canada included, wherein
parts, if you simply question the doctrine of a particular religion, you
stand a good chance of ostracization and, if persistant, a fair chance of
becoming dead. _That_ IMHO is less than open minded. There are people in
the country you are paying taxes to, who will kill you if you suggest that
they are anything but "God-Fearing-by-the-Bible-Christians". Thankfully,
most of us do not buy into this, in North America and Canada, although
there are whole countries that believe in the same Biblical God, that do.
If one has "Absolute Truth", where is the problem with theories? Or is it a
problem with the insecurities of people that fear being "not right",
without innate confidence in their own belief system? Faith is hard to
sustain. The semantic mulch thrown out by various recruiters must be
excruciating painful for those with honest spiritual quests. No one _has_
to do anything with theories. The common ones are secular signposts that
work quite well, thank you very much. We _all_ surmise every waking day.
Most of these are right - the postman _usually_ delivers the mail, even
near the same hour (except in NB, Canada). Is the lack of ongoing external
confirmation therein a real threat to someone's "Absolute Truth" belief
system? Or is it just lack of faith?
I don't have any pat answers, but as long as someone does not try and shove
anything down my throat before I've had a chance to wake up in the morning
and look at it (and doesn't mind if I already have and disagree with it),
then - take your shoes off at the door, there's coffee on the stove, tea on
the shelf and sit yourself down wherever it fits comfy. There's room for
all, here.
This I believe.
>No need to respond to this.
(...)
>Cheers,
>Liane
Too late.
Kindest Regards,
Rand Nicholson
Great White North.