As the world gears up for Darwin's birthday celebration, I'm finding myself niggled by the presuppositions of science in the past century or so and wishing that a civil discourse on the origins of life wasn't so difficult to achieve.
I have lost count of the number of times that any mention of intelligent design has provoked the heated and incredulous response, "Come on! Do you really believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago?!" Perhaps the better, fairer question would be, "Do you have any evidence to support that theory?" Is it possible that Darwinian evolution doesn't have the monopoly on good science, or that there may be evidence that contests or at least raises valid questions about the theory of evolution? Is it possible to discuss this evidence in a way that temporarily suspends the assumptions of biology and gives unbiased credence to both sides of the debate?
As an example, it's fairly well-known that the fossil beds of Montana have given up a T-rex skeleton, a femur of which appears to have red blood cells--marrow! Instead of challenging the notion that this tissue could possibly be as old as science assumes, the headlines read, "70 Million Year Old Bone Marrow Found!" If we're intellectually honest, is it really easier to suppose that blood cells could survive for 70 million years in the ground, than to raise the uncomfortable question of whether they're really that old?
Another issue that plagues my mind is the fact that biology was so unsophisticated in the 19th century, when it was assumed that, on a cellular level, structures were pretty simple and lacked the complexity of larger organisms. Darwin couldn't have imagined that, 200 years later, we'd be peering into the heart of the atom and being amazed to find still more levels of complexity and precision, something that likely wouldn't have fit well into the idea of macro-evolution. What will we find when we finally dismember a quark? My understanding here is vague at best and probably grossly under-informed at worst, but wasn't it Darwin's assertion that life arose out of simple structures and gradually became more sophisticated through selection, and that on a cellular level any organism would bear the imprint of its primitive self? As it turns out, pond scum is more complicated than we could possibly imagine, and the deeper we look, the more complicated it gets.
I realize that a good debate hardly ever changed anyone's mind, but I do believe that it's the spirit of informed, respectful dialogue that reveals the intellectual core of any system of thought. As much as I have a problem with half-cocked creationists dreaming up half-baked arguments to support their beliefs, I have an even bigger problem with self-assured Darwinian evolutionists smugly failing to ask honest questions. If one theory or the other is credible, it should be able to withstand the rigors of cross-examination, and I think it's only reasonable to assume there should be a reasonable discourse between the two.
--Teri.
6 comments:
Great thoughts, Teri! I feel that a similar open discourse would also benefit the birthing world. It seems that, like creationism vs. Darwinism, birth professionals often also set up their camps based on beliefs or assumptions, and refuse to budge. I like to imagine that doulas can be communicators and peacemakers within that great divide.
I agree completely, and I'm sure that this vein could apply to any number of informational deadlocks that we encounter. Heck, I guess war wouldn't be an issue anymore if people could just stop and talk, would it!
--Teri.
Hi Teri! Great post. I'm far more ignorant on the creation vs. evolution debate than I would like to be, but I think you are right that some honest, open dialogue could be very helpful to both sides of the fence. I'm sorry your last e-mails didn't get to me. We switched internet providers, so that account was closed and I didn't do a very good job of informing people of that (obviously:). Our other e-mail address is vaturks at hotmail. And I'm honored that you had a dream about us that made you happy:) I guessing you might have heard that we have a #4 on the way:) I'm about 16 weeks now and feeling really great. We're having the baby at home and just found a wonderful midwife that we love. We're all really excited about it (well, Jimmy is comfortable with, though it might be a stretch to say he's excited about the home part of it:) The kids can't wait to be a part of it! Thanks for your encouraging e-mails. They definitely helped to get the ball rolling in the right direction. I guess I do still have your e-mail address and I could just write all this in an e-mail. Oh well. You'll just get a super long comment that has nothing to do with your blog post:) Hopefully I can chat with you soon.
-Amanda
Teri, I wonder, once again, how it is that we come from the same bloodlines as your thought processes are so far above mine.
Jeff has a very interesting theory regarding evolution vs. creation which I would love for him to tell you some day. When entering into conversations like this, I am woefully aware of how ill-studied I am on the subjects and have no business arguing one way or the other.
The older I get, the one thing that becomes clearer and clearer to me is that there is one God, one Son, and one Spirit. That is all I know for sure. Everything I say or do must be guided by that one thing alone. He has gifted me with certain abilities and scientific reasoning is not one of my gifts.
I love you, cousin, and your ability to think in a way that I can only imagine thinking about.
Sooo, Erin, you're saying that you think about thinking about the thinks that I'm thinking about? And you say my thought processes are complex! ;)
--Teri.
Teri, Your 19-year-old cousin put forth the opinion that it doesn't really matter how old the earth is or who made it. His opinion is it is all a matter of belief, whether you choose to believe in one God, several Gods, science or technology. You choose a belief, and if it's a strong belief, the others don't matter and can't sway your determination or your belief. I hadn't thought of things quite like that.
For many, it is easiest to dismiss opposing views as nonsense, and use hostility and rudeness in an attempt to show superiority. That certainly doesn't make it right. Instead, I think it shows weakness if you are so unsure of your opinion that you must be rude to someone who believes differently.
I'm not sure when rudeness became the norm, but I wish it were not so.
Ginny
Post a Comment