Evolutionary Theory vs. intelligent design
For once, this topic was brought to class in which a bunch of undergraduates (including myself) were tasked to discuss what we would do if we had to deal with the subject in the mainstream media. What surprised me (or maybe it shouldn't) was the level of belief that evolutionary theory was scientific and that it was PROVEN to be true while ID remains the subject of superstition (among some of the future media practitioners in Singapore). Oh and by the way, I think the media should not handle an issue like this (not if they want the simplest explanation - that aims to cover both sides of the debate - within 400 words).
Interestingly though, one schoolmate (whom I suspect is pomo) commented that evolutionary theory is "rational" and "fits with the scientific system"- did I hear correctly?
Another thing: It seems that even academics do not see the sociological consequences of evolutionary theory (read: Hitler and the Third Reich) but are mostly contented to accept what other evolutionary proponents say.
And check out this quote: "Journalists reporting the evolutionary theorists perspective can conveniently rely on the fact that many sources who are "authoritative" by traditional standards - biologists of all kinds, with the credentials traditionally recognized in their professions - will happily state for the record that evolutionary theory is the theoretical foundation of moderm biological science...moreover the evidence they present is traditionally recognized as credible - it is gathered using the scientific method"
This common consensus - that evolution is science - has permeated so much of society that it seems to be the most "rational" explanation. To make things even more challenging, those who hold to a creationist (or intelligent design view) often use "religion" as a reason to support their belief.
So for once, let me play the postmodern skeptic and say "how do you know whether evolution or creation (ID) is true?" The fact is: many who claim to be evolutionarists or creationists simply do not know why they believe what they believe. Most of the time, we don't bother to find out and simply hold on to an opinion because its the most convenient thing to do.
You know what? I think we should take the science (the form of science that accepts wholeheartedly what some scientists say) out of evolution and the religion (by this I mean the institutionalized form that erked Kierkegaard so much) out of creation. As what the prophet Elijah might have said: "How long will you waver between two opinions? If evolution is the truth, follow it; but if creation is the truth, follow it" - but of course, the postmodernists will reject any notions of truth (and still they claim that evolutionary theory is the correct one)... biased indeed...
Interestingly though, one schoolmate (whom I suspect is pomo) commented that evolutionary theory is "rational" and "fits with the scientific system"- did I hear correctly?
Another thing: It seems that even academics do not see the sociological consequences of evolutionary theory (read: Hitler and the Third Reich) but are mostly contented to accept what other evolutionary proponents say.
And check out this quote: "Journalists reporting the evolutionary theorists perspective can conveniently rely on the fact that many sources who are "authoritative" by traditional standards - biologists of all kinds, with the credentials traditionally recognized in their professions - will happily state for the record that evolutionary theory is the theoretical foundation of moderm biological science...moreover the evidence they present is traditionally recognized as credible - it is gathered using the scientific method"
This common consensus - that evolution is science - has permeated so much of society that it seems to be the most "rational" explanation. To make things even more challenging, those who hold to a creationist (or intelligent design view) often use "religion" as a reason to support their belief.
So for once, let me play the postmodern skeptic and say "how do you know whether evolution or creation (ID) is true?" The fact is: many who claim to be evolutionarists or creationists simply do not know why they believe what they believe. Most of the time, we don't bother to find out and simply hold on to an opinion because its the most convenient thing to do.
You know what? I think we should take the science (the form of science that accepts wholeheartedly what some scientists say) out of evolution and the religion (by this I mean the institutionalized form that erked Kierkegaard so much) out of creation. As what the prophet Elijah might have said: "How long will you waver between two opinions? If evolution is the truth, follow it; but if creation is the truth, follow it" - but of course, the postmodernists will reject any notions of truth (and still they claim that evolutionary theory is the correct one)... biased indeed...
posted by Benjamin Ho at
5:27 AM
4 Comments:
hi Benjamin,
This debate IS being played out predictably in our Malaysian media even as we speak:
http://hedonese1.blogspot.com/2005/10/chicken-cross-theological-roads.html
From the look of things, it is the creationists who are taking a beating rite now... hehehe...
Your friend who believe evolution is scientific is probably a 'mo' (not 'pomo', as the pomo wud probably say the entire scientific enterprise is a false illusion of rationality masking will to power)
So he's perfectly consistent in adopting the Kantian "evolution is hard-fact science, creation is noumenal values/faith"...
If u ask me, many creationists grossly underestimated the 'scientific arguments' behind Darwinism... We must be prepared too so we dun get shocked when we encounter the real McCoy.
I think Strobel's Case For Creator is a good START for us... then some stuffs by Michael Behe or Dembski won't hurt. :)
Only then would we have an inkling of why our non-C friends think Darwinism is so darn solid.
Also, if you want to get a really got explanation from a solid Christian perspective on why some have choosen Theistic Evolution, check out "Science, Life and Christian Belief" by Malcom A. Jeeves and R. J. Berry.
I personally have learnt to respect evolution from these guys, but I stil think its just a means to and ends - the means being naturalism.
Not so long ago, I too thought that evolutionary theory was scientific. Several books & writers have been useful in understanding of this issue.
I have read "Science, Life and Christian Belief" by Malcom A. Jeeves and R. J. Berry (Baker).William Demski's Intelligent Design (IVP)seems useful but complicated(to me!), but haven't had the time to read it. For reformed writings,R. C., Jr. Sproul's "Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology" is helpful.Yes..., Strobel's Case For Creator may be a good START for us...
However, as you have said, "evolutionary theorists perspective can conveniently rely on the fact that many sources who are "authoritative" by traditional standards", the "fight" would not be an easy one.
According to the Cambridridge Advanced Learner's Dict, a "theory" is a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based OR of ideas which ARE SUGGESTED to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an OPINION or explanation.
Evolutionary theory is only a theory, & not a fact. If it is 100% true, it should be renamed.
yeah got to agree with that. Evolutionary theory is just one fantasy made up by neo-Darwinist. One thing for sure, we have never seen or observed monkey turning into a man. If it does, then it is something we call scientific.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home