WELL, I CERTAINLY ACCEPT THAT evolution is the current best explanation of how the diversity of life arose on Earth and I certainly accept the current estimate that life began about 3.5 billion years ago. I said something to that effect in the pieces you slam so, not a careful reader, are you. I certainly go along with the current theory of Big Bang cosmology, though I am certainly curious about whether or not that will last through the latest telescopic discoveries at the edge of the known universe. If there is a revival of steady state cosmology, I have to wonder why things haven't devolved into entropy infinitely long ago in the past but I have to wonder if even some of those holdings of classical physics will turn out to not have been complete at best or in some other way less than fully effective.
Having been extremely critical of Genesis 2 around the end of last year and into January, I have to say that Genesis 1, when you aren't stupid enough to believe it's either a historical or scientific account of the creation of the universe instead of a philosophical experiment into explaining to People how their world and the heavens (as much of the universe as they could know about) and life on Earth arose to produce their life and what they experienced isn't bad considering what they knew.
The idea that it began all at once by the will of God is certainly analogous to the Big Bang, that was obvious enough that many scientists rejected it on that basis alone, the ideological bigot in charge of Nature, John Maddox raging against it as late as the 1990s. Only Genesis has an explanation of where it came from whereas materialism can't come up with one. And that a choice of order over chaos was necessary for the creation of the world, of the heavenly bodies that those People so long ago were so sophisticated in observing and noting their regular patterns, the separation of water and land, necessary for the rising of different kinds of life, including themselves. Probably as impressive as any of it was the repeated observation that it was good, not some dreary and oppressive system tied up with human beings being tortured puppets of the all-too human gods that were common at the same time among other groups of People coming up with their own ideas about such things. The pagan gods tended to be real assholes and existence under them, a nightmare.
It is one of the unremarked things about the Jewish Bible that until the rise of the Kings of Israel and, then Judah, they didn't have kings to lord it over them. I've noted before that when they were demanding Samuel anoint a king for them God had him tell them how awful it would be to have one, how they'd lose their freedom, their rights, even their children to one. That, to me, is one of the most impressive passages in the Jewish Bible, I think in those things the best about the modern period is anticipated even as modernism as an ideology has been far more destructive than it has been a blessing. Modernism, indeed, is a failed project on balance. If human beings survive it that might be a miracle of the Biblical type. In fact, I already suspect it will take one of those for us to survive.
If the Jewish monotheistic tradition, which includes Christianity and Islam, has to answer for the sins of those who claim to follow it, even as they don't, "science" in your adulation of it should have to answer for nuclear weapons, other modern weaponry, automatic rifles, biological weapons, chemical weapons, global warming, etc. Science doesn't happen without scientists making it happen. Very few of the perils we face do not have their fingerprints all over it. Few if any of those would have come about without credentialed scientists knowingly producing them or credentialed hirelings by things like the fossil fuel industry to pooh-pooh scientists to propagandize against environmental science. As I recently pointed out, they have a lot more in common with the profession of lawyering which doesn't kick out people for being mercenary, self-seeking scum. I wouldn't be surprised if such science as well as such lawyering didn't account for the actual majority of those who go into those professions. There is nothing like moral content in science and little of it in the secular law to discourage that kind of lying and destroying life and creation for the profit of scientists and those who hire them. Yet modernistic, materialistic, atheistic sci-guys never seem to notice any of that.
It's kind of funny,
someone so much older than you leaving a 20 year old fad behind while
you want to keep it going. Atheism strikes me as kind of like an
intellectual leisure suit worn at the turn of the millennium.
No comments:
Post a Comment