Second Cause, Same as the First
A few nights ago I channel surfed to some station with a program about alien technology. I think it was the Sci-Fi channel (although it could have been History Channel or Discovery), but the program was about a book called The Day After Roswell. The premise of the program assumed that every major technological advancement we've made since WWII can be directly linked to the UFO crash near Roswell, NM. I'm sure you've all heard about this silliness.
Now, don't get me wrong. The idea of other lifeforms, other species, other cultures and civilizations on other planets is facinating to me, and I am certain they exist in the great cosmos. The story of a saucer crash in New Mexico is a little beyond belief.
A portion of the public is willing to believe that the amazing wave of technology came from an alien source because of a First Cause Theory. This is the same belief that there is no way that our existance could occur without some intelligence making it so. In other words, there must be a "creator." This portion of the public, I think, is quite narrow minded.
I have gone through a day of changing my mind about a thousand times. I will begin the day with one thought of beauty, then I have to deal with some dude who wants to ruin my day, but I say, "hey dude, it's all beautiful." Then he procedes to say, "blow it out your ass," so I say, "Your mama." Before long, I've completely changed my perspective.
Now if such a Zen guy like myself can change religions in a 24-hr period, why couldn't the entire technological structure of humanity be adjusted in just a few scant decades?
Okay, silly example, but so many people seem to be looking for a first cause to explain where something comes from, but with every new idea, there was probably a thousand ideas that inspired it. However, when a new idea (like the silicon chip) hits, is it really necessary to explain the detailed science that lead up to the new finding in order for it to be valid? Is it only real if we say it must have come from some alien starship that we retro-engineered? At the same time, is it necessary for the entire history of evolution (step by step - which takes a long time to decipher) to be understood by every religious person in America in order for the theory to be valid? I'm thinking... no.
What's my point? Keep Inteligent Design out of our freaking schools!!
posted by Tim @ 10/02/2005 12:48:00 AM
2 Comments:
I find the whole "intelligent design" debate incredibly disturbing, and I don't know all the details about this issue but it just gives me a quesy feeling. I value science and facts, and I hope this is just a fad.
Intelligant design... I see two main reasons behind it.
1)parents want their kids to learn the 'right' way things happened.
2)Evangelicals want to convert highschool kids by way of intelligant design.
Since when is it school's job to teach kids things that should be their parents job? I'm an evangelical Christian(God forbid!) and regardless of my views on the evolution debate(I'm still not completely sure what I believe yet), one thing is for sure: my parents didn't wait for the schools to teach me what they thought I should know, they did it themselves.
And how can intelligant design help in any way when 'evangelising'? It can't. I know of no one who has converted to another religion because it fits with the current scientific theory. People convert because they think they've found something they were missing... something life-changing. Teaching Intelligant Design in schools kind of seems like a covert way to convert( I should write a book, "Covert Converting") somebody. Trying to force the issue of Intelligant Design in schools is only going to make Christians seem bull-headed. Great way to turn kids on to Christianity.
btw, great blog... it's a pleasure to read.
Post a Comment
<< Home