i don't really find it all that absurd that one might believe in the theory of organic evolution, or the idea of our existence merely happenstance. that is "natural" or what i might call "ideal." in opposition, i think about life on this planet and the biblical account where god has strategically placed earth where it is in order for life to even subsist. i dread the summer months had he positioned it one inch closer to the sun. likewise, imagine our plummeting temperature during our winter solstice had this wonderful land been placed slightly away from our natural heater. there is no doubt amongst all communities the earth is in a position that is so unique in all our known solar system that it holds the only element no other planet holds...humanity. my tendency to be drawn to the chance theory of my modernistic counterpart and their unique case when it tickles my curious funny bone. much has been concluded concerning life on other planets in our solar system. the distinctiveness of earth makes me wonder what the big deal is. how come earth displays such uniqueness? what makes it so great? i would "naturally" conclude nothing. which makes the "per chance" theory seem so plausible and real.
so realistically, what i find is that science can't solve this issue. because the focal point should be on humanity and not the environment/location. meaning, naturally, if you deny an influence with a higher power this will close a door to any possibility, whether desired or not, of understanding there is more to us than location. so absolutely there is no reason to wonder why a naturalist would seek organic evolution as an explanation of the origin of the earth. this is STILL the age old philosophical inquiry of man and his purpose. the truth about science, besides it NOT being the enemy of faith, is that it will give us mortal/finite/transient/perishable entities a limited glimpse of a current reality that will barely even fit into our current scope. it has no antidote for diseases, sufferings, death, or psychological abnormalities. if this seems to not be true please buy tomorrows newspaper and/or watch the evening news. things aren't necessarily getting better. modernism, which birthed much of what we find in our journals of health today, is only what we say it will be, due to empirical research on ourselves as subjects. in 150 years a different, regurgitated, heretical ideology that has was breathed from the mind of satan long ago will be reintroduced in a different pretty painted package, permeating society in depth.
the issue then is not a scientific one but a spiritual one. i like g. k. chesterton's way of putting it, "there are some people, nevertheless i am one of them, who think the most practical thing about a man is still his view of the universe." rightly put, if there were not a god there would not be an atheistic mindset to have to try and deny the truth of his existence. i find myself embracing all the more this so called "game." god's riddles and unanswered entities are far more satisfying and enjoyable to pursue than anything man has thought he has been able to answer or solidify. i know man to be finite that is all. how are we to judge what part of the story we are in when our supreme text (the bible) seems to place our redeemer's actions in the middle of his story, not at the beginning as we would have hoped, nor at the end as most epics carry out. we have no way of knowing where we are or at what point we find ourselves. so i end this segment with one question that will continue on in the next entry...
i find the real issue is not whether evolution is right or wrong but rather who is quicker to admit they are finite, and who is willing to admit they are defective outside a moment in which they have been caught in such defective behavior?
No comments:
Post a Comment