It’s pitiful that grown-ups get into a lather over such silly things as whether their beliefs are fact or theory? Really!!
And “scientists” so petulant they spend their time writing books like Richard Dawkins’ The God Illusion and call those who don’t agree with them a long list of hateful names.
Does Gutter Talk Win Debates?
I have to wonder what legitimacy there is in claiming yourself a scientist if you stoop to such hateful gutter-talk instead of conducting more serious scientific inquiry.
Here is a quote from another Dawkins’ book, The Blind Watchmaker:
“It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that.)”
I haven’t the least interest in whether Darwinists or Creationists win their latest debate.
They attract crowds. Debaters make some big bucks, but change no minds.
And I can’t see that it moves science one small step farther along, except to get lock-step scientists bigger slices of the funding pie. And even bigger earnings from their books. Like, just figure the royalties on 3 million copies of a book!
Is that what is called “science” today? Honestly!
What I’d like to see is more of the “science” of evolution discussed.
And by that I mean observations of both founders of evolution theory, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Also views of followers of each, not just one of them.
Wallace has been excluded intentionally from discussions because of his doubts about a lot of the “origins” of species, especially the application of his own term, “natural selection” to the origin and development of the human species. His last essays spell this out very strongly.
That Naughty Three-Letter Word!
Toward the end of his life, Wallace was probably the first to use the term, Intelligent Design, in evolution, despite his atheism.
The best way to learn about Wallace’s considerations is to read his last essay, “The Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man.”
It’s the final chapter of his last collection of essays, Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection.
Darwinists argue that Wallace did not mean that forbidden word, “God,” by his mention of a Supreme Intelligence. And they point out that Wallace said so in a note to the essay where he discusses the “Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man.”
So why not include Wallace’s scientific doubts in school courses on evolution?
That ought to be easy, since Wallace was also an atheist and not a creationist. So the religious issue would not be involved.
But many religious people are actually more sophisticated today and do consider a Supreme Intelligence to be just that, God, in the same spirit as Einstein’s speaking of God not playing dice with the universe. And Einstein’s comments have not been banned from schools. Or have they?
This “my belief is better than your belief” is a silly, sophomoric, semantic argument.
Very un-scientific. Very un-Christian.
As Voltaire said, it would be nice to “Define your terms before discussing these things.” I’ve paraphrased, I know. But the gist is there. And I have a right to translate from the French as I please.
Thank God, I have my trails to go hiking, so that I can get away from such silliness!
Subscribe Free to Backpacking Footnotes