This is really great. Thanks for the interesting feedback on my previous post. I love hearing honest and open discussion about this stuff. Even Robert Luhn from the NCSE thought it was worth his time to post a comment on my highly influential blog with a world wide readership of 10. Robert, feel free to chime in more on this topic, I'm interested in what you personally have to say more than what the anti-Ben Stein documentary has to say.
Yeah, I guess my issue with it is that there seems to be all this heated opposition to the possibility that there was a designer to account for the design. Is it really so bad to say, "we don't have all of the answers. Something like this is a possibility."
Robert Luhn mentioned in his comment that "While there are some scientists who simply dismiss ID out of hand, there are many many many more scientists who can tell you precisely why creationism/ID don't hold water." Wow, THREE "many's," Robert must really really really believe in science. These things happened millions of years ago, can you really prove to me that there is no POSSIBILITY of a creator/designer? Lawyers couldn't prove to a jury that O.J. Simpson killed his wife, despite the fact that everybody on Earth was 99% sure he did.
It seems that either way it comes down to faith. On one side, you have faith that a creator, designer, or even "alien" if you want to call it that is responsible for known creation. On the other side, you have faith that known creation came about completely spontaneously.
You really can't prove either. One side certainly seems more logical to me. I could read a million books about how spontaneous creation occurred would not be convinced because, according to my logic, known creation would not currently function according to laws that were not followed during its inception.
As in all things in life, it is up to us what we put our faith in. We should think, study, discuss, form opinions, and make judgments for ourselves independently. We shouldn't be afraid to state our opinions. We also shouldn't repress other people's opinions.
5 comments:
Jesse-you are a true renaissance man.
Great discussion. Reminds me of one of my favorite episodes of Friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXr2kF0zEgI
Oops. And to add my opinion, I have no difficulty at all believing that both theories work together and are pieces of the same puzzle or plan.
Jesse, I don't want you to take what I've written below personally and I certainly hope you'll correct me if I've misread the situation, but to me it seems that you're trying to take a tongue-in-cheek personal jab at Robert Luhn's comment.
If I'm interpreting this correctly, it makes me think that you aren't actually interested in an open discussion from both sides at all. In fact, it would seem like you just want people to agree with your side of things and to dismiss any differing viewpoint.
While it's certainly valid that you don't want people to call your ideas idiotic, it seems hypocritical to address his comment in such a manner simply because he used the word "many" three times in a row.
Jesse, I think you're not only a great guy but also a good friend to many (including me). However, I also think good friends should call each other out when they see the other person being ignorant. That's what I'm doing now. You are welcome to respond or ignore.
I think this post is absolutely perfect. Just as it's okay to call out good friends, it's also okay to express our opinions and call out scientists when they're being idiots and closed-minded. Just like the rest of us. Jesse, your humor shined through, it was easy to read, and it didn't feel like you were trying to demean anybody, including Mr. Luhn. Don't worry about it. I appreciated the humor because Nacho Libre rules. I have watched it "many, many, many" tumes. Your attempt at light-heartedness succeeded with me at least. The point is, and I think you have clearly articulated your point, is that we are all close-minded. And to me it definitely feels like you do want an open discussion.
Post a Comment