|
Can't belief in evolution and science be
interpreted as an acknowledgement -- even a celebration -- of God?
Isn't God really Nature? ( I am a "semi-practicing Catholic".)
Evolution may discount the Adam and Eve story,
but certainly it only enhances the belief that there is something greater than
humans.
Sarah Murray
William Paterson U of NJ
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 9:05
PM
Subject: TEACHSOC: Re: Teaching
environment
In the definition that you use do you see no difference
between creation and setting in motion? Do you see a difference between
creating and beginning?
Would the creator have to be a
being? If so was the creator created?
To get this from
faith to science there must be evidence. So far we have almost reached the
beginning of this universe (there may be many others) without a hint of
evidence of
a creator. It has been thus from the time of Giordano Bruno
and later Copernicus. Where is the evidence of a creator by any
definition.
Basic to life is the passing on of genes/information.
Darwin found that this is not a mechanical process where the next generation
simply adopts
from the former. It is to the contrary messy, in flux
and requires adapting. In a word learning. This requires language
or code... and a science of sociology.
Getting back to the
classroom.
Should we be scientific or faith based? The Pope has
declared war on the "dictatorship of relativism." Perhaps that is better
than being the great satin.
Relativism is a code word for science and the
questioning that comes with it. Yet some claim that science causes the
departure from orthodoxy the mechanical adopting
of what is passed on for
our forefathers.
The problem is made worse as both science and
religion have attached industries.
I don't think you can have it both
ways. I use Jefferson as an example. He could have said that he
would not let his belief in slavery get in the way of the constitution.
Yet
it did. And we are still paying a dear price for it.
To be a
religious person, a Christian for example must on believe that the
universe was created by a supreme being? If not perhaps there is a
meeting ground.
Del
Gerry Grzyb wrote:
At 05:40 PM 8/29/2005, Del Thomas Ph. D. wrote:
Hi,
I'm getting double and triple mail that
seems to defy what we know about time.
Gerry Grzyb wrote:
At 10:51 AM 8/29/2005, Del Thomas Ph. D. wrote:
A recent report found that 90+ Americans
believed that the universe was created by a supreme being. I
have no more information, and it could be spin.
However, there
have been a series of "findings" indicating that close to half the
population has been born again and or rejects Darwin.
Students and
sociologists will be included
in these findings. That leads
me to the following questions.
1. Can you be a
sociologist and believe that the universe was created by a supreme
being?
Sure. Sociology has nothing to say
about the origin of the universe--it isn't even an object of scientific
inquiry for sociology.
If the universe was created by
a supreme being Darwin would not be correct.
Define
"created." I see no conflict whatever between the idea of
a creator (or creators) setting the evolutionary process in motion, and
Darwin.
With out Darwin there is no science of sociology.
How so?
As such, sociology can neither confirm or deny
such a belief. More generally, any scientist could hold such a
belief since there is no way for such a belief to be subjected to a
scientific evaluation of evidence.
There are ample
ways to test this question. The use of Hubble has bee able to see back 10
billion + years. Durkheim distinguished between the created,
mechanical and the evolving, organic. Things that are created or
made behave differently from things that happen.
That
assertion (and that's all it is) is based on a very narrow definition of
creation, and I doubt it will hold up to scrutiny. For example,
people create organizations all the time, and then they often proceed to
"happen"--sometimes quite contrary to the intentions of their
creators. The social world is full of such examples, where
"create" and "happen" become hard to distinguish.
Science is usually based on observation of
happenings.
As opposed to things created? Again,
I don't think that is a defensible point.
The problems arise when believers convince
themselves (and try to convince others) that their beliefs ARE based
upon scientific research. As such, a big part of my job is just to
get students to see the difference between scientifically-established
fact and belief.
I personally believe in a jolly, roly-poly,
red-coated guy with a beard who brings an end to every fall semester
just before I go nuts.
Oddly part of my comments were
a result of Brock Chisolm's paper on world mental health. He cites
Santa as the first of many lies in the adopting process, handing down
information
to the next generation that is not to be tested or
adapted. He says it much much better.
Santa? What Santa? I was talking about
the guy who closes up the residence halls and forces students to return home
for clean clothing between semesters (we've got a 6-7 week break).
Gerry Grzyb
|
