Science & Technology

Rant

The Christian Hand In Evolving The Theory Of Evolution.

Posted 23 months ago|22 comments|715 views
I'm Charlie The Author of this Rant.
Written by
The Google Doodle For July 20, 2011 is A mosaic of pea plants. It is a tribute to Gregor Mendal, a Moravian monk who was born 189 years ago. He is considered the father of modern genetics because of his ground breaking experiment with peas that helped validate Charles Darwin's theory by disproving the conventional wisdom of the day that peculiar traits are diluted through successive generations instead of spreading when handed down. Gregor Mendal's experiment with pea's demonstrated how peculiar traits can and do spread leading to genetically distinct varieties in future generations.

The Christian Science Monitor does a fine job of elucidating why, as they put it, you should care about Gregor Mendal. I find this caring tipping of the hat by a Christian news establishment to a man who according to the Christian Science monitor, "was working on a solution" while "Darwin struggled to reconcile his observations" contradictory to the Evangelical view that modern science is a cultish religion of which Christianity does not participate.

Especially when the reader considers that Charles Darwin was a disheartened Christian who was studying to become a minister before taking his fateful trip to the Galapagos Islands and Gregor Mendal was a devoted Catholic Friar monk who seemed committed to backing up with proof the work that Mr. Darwin was struggling with. I'm no genius but obviously these pioneers did not see the divisions that current Evangelicals see between science and religion. Science to them helped make clear the mysteries of God. They were not afraid to let their experiments and observations dictate to them the meaning of their discoveries.

If Christians were to follow in the foot steps of their fathers I think they might come to the inevitable conclusion that their predecessor came to. Their religion was pocked with holes that had long since been filled with fairytales and that the truth is far from the fabrication which they follow.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
23 months ago: Good insight.

Yes in the past Christians were not afraid of learning and knowledge. Back then if you wanted an education the church was about the only game in town. I think most people were free to explore the mysteries of nature but sometimes people like Galileo became an embarrassment because he was well known.

Here is a list of other Christian "Scientists" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...
23 months ago: Yep. Brilliant men of the past like quantum physicists Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg set the stage for where we are today.

However, I'm glad that many Christians today are not afraid of learning an knowledge either. The past is great but to today is far more critical.

It's great to have folks like Steven Meyer, Jason Lisle, Hugh Ross as well as others who will continue to seek and explore.

The neat thing about being a scientist and understanding the reality of creation is that it makes the whole thing that much more wonderful and meaningful not to mention awesome.
23 months ago: Of course, Steven Meyer, Jason Lisle and Hugh Ross are creationists notable for preferring the authority of the Bible to allowing evidence to be taken to its conclusions.

"The neat thing about being a scientist and understanding the reality of creation". Very funny.
23 months ago: Evidence taken to a conclusion screams for a Creator. That's word.
23 months ago: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
A. Einstein
23 months ago: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So said Albert Einstein, and his famous aphorism has been the source of endless debate between believers and non-believers wanting to claim the greatest scientist of the 20th century as their own.

A little known letter written by him, however, may help to settle the argument - or at least provoke further controversy about his views.

Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".

Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.

In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/m...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: I really don't see any division between Evangelicals and real science. I'm certain that all but few wack jobs believe anything that science has proven, tested and /or reproduced in a laboratory setting. Earth not flat? Proven! Earth appears to rotate around the sun? Proven! Germs, and not demons, cause illnesses? Proven! Big bang? NOT PROVEN!! Quantum mechanics? Not proven!! Common ancestor? Not proven!!

However, interesting is the quantum mechanics, which appears to be totally unprovable, due to the fact that particles appear to behave differently when being observed. Hmmm. Why would that be? The theories that support multiple dimensions beyond ours would also support the possible existence of God.

If you were a three dimensional creature, and you created a two dimensional world, you would be a mystery to the two dimensional creatures. They would have a very limited perspective as to your true nature, because they would only be able to detect a thin slice of you even if you were standing right smack in the middle of their plane. You would be able to enter their world from out of nowhere. You could put things into their realm that would seem to appear out of nothing (like maybe all the stuff our universe is made of), and take things out, that would seem to vanish into thin air.

So I say bring on the science, prove the existence of seven dimensions, and get ready to accept the possibility of extra-dimensional beings.
23 months ago: You are what I respectfully call a thinker, OOTB.
23 months ago: But God, is going to be mighty suprised when the Uber-God that made him steps out of the 15th dimension.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: Quite possible, I suppose. And possible is the notion that our God is but one of many. I believe His statements about being the First and Last, and the One True God would only apply to His own creation, which would be at the very least everything in our universe. Outside of our universe, who knows?
23 months ago: Charlie says, " I kindly resubmit my ending statement in this essay for consideration, just incase it has gone unnoticed.
If Christians were to follow in the foot steps of their fathers I think they might come to the inevitable conclusion that their predecessor came to. Their religion was pocked with holes that had long since been filled with fairytales and that the truth is far from the fabrication which they follow.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: How do you know?
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
23 months ago: Stan said about Jews "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power."

Curious what you meant by that. My experience has been that most of the Jewish people I have met have been very nice caring liberal folk, yet Israel seems to be aggressively right wing, warlike, and intent on oppression.

Considering they are only .22% of the population of the world, their power is probably greater than any other religious group. Because of the their military power and the power of AIPAC which is radically right wing, most of the policies of America, the most powerful country in the world, give Israel considerably more power than any other small Middle Eastern Country has ever had.
23 months ago: I should have made it clearer that I was quoting an article that was, in turn, quoting Albert Einstein.

Einstein was wrote those words a long time ago.

It may be the case that Israel having become powerful is not protected from the worst cancers.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: Israel is not aggressive, nor is it oppressive. However, they will not sit back and be pushed around ever again. They've been through 3000 years of oppression, slavery, and general abuse, and they aren't going to take it any more. When someone starts rattling sabres in their direction, Israel takes action and nips it in the bud.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
23 months ago: What I meant to say is:Stan What do you think Einstein meant by that, and what do you think he would think of the immense power of Israel today?
23 months ago: Like Spiderman, or someone said, with power comes responsibility. It's hard to do great evil without much power. Thus, being weak protects you from doing great evil. Being powerful often tempts people to evil.
23 months ago: PMS - Power, money and sex.

Whenever we see individual downfall, it usually can be traced to one of those.

"To whom much is given, much is required." - JC
23 months ago: Zimbardo Prison Experiment.

In the Zimbardo experiment, subjects were randomly assigned to be prisoners or guards.

Some of the guards treated the prisoners with brutality. The "nice" guards didn't treat the prisoners with brutality, but did not oppose the actions of the brutal guards, out of solidarity. So, the "niceness" of the "nice" guards actually worked to make the brutality more sustainable.

An interesting experiment to consider in relation to religious solidarity.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: That would apply to any social construct. Even high school.
23 months ago: True.
23 months ago: Had a typo.

If you've ever read Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" you'll see that's made abundantly clear.

The barbarism of the eugenic gestapo pigs was made more tolerable by even the kindest (though often unpredictable) mercy shown to the inmates.
Content Removed by Huey Newton

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.