Blackrook
Diamond Member
- Jun 20, 2014
- 21,211
- 10,863
- 1,255
Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?
I think not.
Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the world flat.
Would planetologists spend time debating with the proponents of the Flat Earth religion?
No, they would not.
Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the Moon out of cheese.
Would astronomers spend time debating with the proponents of the Moon is Cheese religion?
Absolutely, no.
Imagine there was a religion that taught that the entire universe was nothing more than an imaginary construct in the Mind of God?
Would astrophysicists seek out the believers in this Universe is the Mind of God religion to convince them they were wrong?
No.
Then why is it that Darwinists are constantly engaged in endless debates with Creationists and promoters of Intelligent Design in a pointless effort to convince them they are mistaken?
And -- here's the thing, I admit that I myself have expressed doubts about Darwinism on this forum because (1) I find it interesting that a scientific theory is defended by its proponents with the same zeal as a religion, and (2) I find it amusing to watch Darwinism's zealous defenders get upset when I express the slightest doubt that their beloved scientific theory might not be true.
So -- what's really at stake in this debate?
It's not about science. Not at all.
The debate between Darwinists and Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design is a debate about God and his role in creating the universe.
Both sides of the argument believe that if Darwinism is accepted as true, God's role in the creation of the universe is disproven, ergo: there is no God.
With the belief in the existence of God at stake, both sides fight fiercely because no issue can be more important to the human race than that.
Both sides of the debate believe that if Darwinism is true, and God doesn't exist, life is a struggle where the strong prey on the weak, and there is no room for mercy because the weak should die out. This philosophy is called Social Darwinism, it is the belief system that inspired Adolph Hitler and his Nazis.
I believe there is a middle ground.
Darwinism is true, but God exists and had a hand in the universe's creation. The story of creation in the Book of Genesis teaches us important religious truths about God, man, and our role in the universe, but was not intended by its authors to teach science.
Social Darwinism is a wicked philosophy when applied to relationships between humans, and the role of government in the lives of humans. Social Darwinism inspired a genocide that cost the lives of millions of humans under the Nazi regime.
That, I believe, is the correct position. If I had the power, I would end this endless debate between the Darwinists and the Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design by saying: "You are both right -- but you are also both wrong. The theory of evolution and belief in God can co-exist."
I think not.
Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the world flat.
Would planetologists spend time debating with the proponents of the Flat Earth religion?
No, they would not.
Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the Moon out of cheese.
Would astronomers spend time debating with the proponents of the Moon is Cheese religion?
Absolutely, no.
Imagine there was a religion that taught that the entire universe was nothing more than an imaginary construct in the Mind of God?
Would astrophysicists seek out the believers in this Universe is the Mind of God religion to convince them they were wrong?
No.
Then why is it that Darwinists are constantly engaged in endless debates with Creationists and promoters of Intelligent Design in a pointless effort to convince them they are mistaken?
And -- here's the thing, I admit that I myself have expressed doubts about Darwinism on this forum because (1) I find it interesting that a scientific theory is defended by its proponents with the same zeal as a religion, and (2) I find it amusing to watch Darwinism's zealous defenders get upset when I express the slightest doubt that their beloved scientific theory might not be true.
So -- what's really at stake in this debate?
It's not about science. Not at all.
The debate between Darwinists and Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design is a debate about God and his role in creating the universe.
Both sides of the argument believe that if Darwinism is accepted as true, God's role in the creation of the universe is disproven, ergo: there is no God.
With the belief in the existence of God at stake, both sides fight fiercely because no issue can be more important to the human race than that.
Both sides of the debate believe that if Darwinism is true, and God doesn't exist, life is a struggle where the strong prey on the weak, and there is no room for mercy because the weak should die out. This philosophy is called Social Darwinism, it is the belief system that inspired Adolph Hitler and his Nazis.
I believe there is a middle ground.
Darwinism is true, but God exists and had a hand in the universe's creation. The story of creation in the Book of Genesis teaches us important religious truths about God, man, and our role in the universe, but was not intended by its authors to teach science.
Social Darwinism is a wicked philosophy when applied to relationships between humans, and the role of government in the lives of humans. Social Darwinism inspired a genocide that cost the lives of millions of humans under the Nazi regime.
That, I believe, is the correct position. If I had the power, I would end this endless debate between the Darwinists and the Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design by saying: "You are both right -- but you are also both wrong. The theory of evolution and belief in God can co-exist."
