some philosophy of science
Charles Krauthammer in a Time Magazine essay entitled “Let's Have No More Monkey Trials:”
How many times do we have to return to the Scopes "monkey trial"? There are gaps in science everywhere. Are we to fill them all with divinity? There were gaps in Newton's universe. They were ultimately filled by Einstein's revisions. There are gaps in Einstein's universe, great chasms between it and quantum theory. Perhaps they are filled by G-d. Perhaps not. But it is certainly not science to merely declare it so.I think Krauthammer presents a good argument. Using G-d to fill gaps is not only unscientific, but could be detrimental to scientific discovery. That is, science would be a stagnant field if not for the unknowns, and using G-d to explain things that are not understood is somewhat of a dead end and might thwart further exploration. That being said, I still think the “theory of creationism” is equally as "scientific," if not more so, as* the theory of evolution.
*than? someone help me out with the grammar here...
posted by Goldie @ 8:19 PM
6 Comments:
"and using G-d to explain things that are not understood is somewhat of a dead end and might thwart further exploration."
And makes a mockery of religion when the prolem is solved...
"That being said, I still think the “theory of creationism” is equally as scientific, if not more so, as* the theory of evolution."
How so?
And makes a mockery of religion when the prolem is solved...
Nah, just makes those who try to mix religion with science seem silly.
How so?
I meant to write "scientific" (with quotes). Does that answer your question?
"Nah, just makes those who try to mix religion with science seem silly."
You haven't been doing mivtzaim long enough.
"I meant to write "scientific" (with quotes). Does that answer your question?"
Only if evolution is a "soft science, ie. baloney".
You have the right idea, but I was thinking more in terms of hocus pocus, as in:
And POOF! the single celled amoeba gets transformed into the highly developed and complex organism otherwise known as the human being. Is that train of thought really more logical than G-d forming man by blowing a soul into a lump of dirt? At least religion, by definition, is not expected to be logical, since it relies on faith, the opposite of reason.
Mivtzaim long enough? I’ve never done mivtzaim. Although, yesterday, upon request, I gave Alex the 15 minute summary of Jewish history and religion. Non-Jews seem to have this misconception that most Jews take great pleasure in being G-d’s “chosen people.” Guess he hasn’t seen Fiddler on the Roof: "I know. I know. We are your chosen people. But, once in awhile, can't you choose someone else?" (Tevye)
Actually I think the bigger leap is from nothing to the single cell. Cells are extermely complex, containing technology and information storage beyond our own capability.
In my own opinion, just because we know how something works, does not mean that there is no room for God. For example, just because we know about condensation, does not mean God can not control the rain. God does not just fill the gaps. He is all over it.
Also, I do not see faith as the opposite of reason. Reason for example reveals that there is much evidence for the existance of God, so it is reasonable (and therefore not opposite) to have faith in that existance.
Post a Comment
<< Home