Friday, April 25, 2008

I want proof, not leads!

Warning: This post is a follow-up to the previous. Reading is highly recommended for context.

It’s funny how I mentioned not having to do homework, yet, I found myself spending the entire day doing homework. Not because I wanted to, though. I had to make up for some stuff I hadn’t done for college, history class, to be exact. So there I was half-assing the whole thing when the subject of “Creationism VS Darwinism” came up.

The first thing that struck me is that those were the names used for the two parts. Even though both insist the expression is wrong. I read more about it but there was not much I didn’t know, or needed to know. I had been thinking of a follow-up to that post since I posted it. That was a very busy day and I had no time to sit and think of a proper analogy to convey my logic. I’ve had enough time now. Please, consider this chain of events:

  1. Bob tells Timmy at school that his mom told him his dad made his little sister out of sugar and spice.
  2. Timmy decides to further investigate, and discovers Bob’s sister is made of neither.
  3. Timmy and his friends analyze this and come to the conclusion that Bob’s father does not exist.

This is an exaggerated way to explain it, so that it is even more obvious. What happened back at the days of Darwin was not unlike this schoolyard tale. Then, mankind in general had decided to explore the universe around it, and to seek understanding beyond what had been taught to them, mostly by the church. Those were times of religious wars, Inquisitions, witch hunts and such. One day, this great man discovered what he called evolution… he explained how creatures would adapt to their surroundings over the generations until a new species was born, and eventually, how man had done the same.

  1. The church taught Darwin that God made Man out of dirt.
  2. He investigated further and discovered man as not made of dirt.
  3. The masses analyzed this and came to the conclusion that God does not exist.

What went wrong there? Let’s go back to the schoolyard. Timmy’s discovery was one of great value. And I’m pretty sure Bob figured out his mom lied, or at least was mistaken. Maybe his dad lied, or was mistaken. If Bob and Timmy sat down and discussed this they would probably end up talking to Bob’s mom. Bob’s mom would either tell the truth, if she was lying, or if she was mistaken she’d tell Bob to ask his father. Let’s suppose Bob’s mom was actually convinced her husband had said the truth. Bob’s dad is in a country far away. What would be the next logical step for Bob and Timmy? Set out on a quest to find Bob’s magical baby-making powers? Sure, Bob would eventually grow up and make his own children, but he has no proof his dad could not have used sugar and spice, and this troubles him.

I’ve heard people making fun of Ben “the shiznit” Stein’s expression “Lightning striking a mud puddle”. Have they not figured out that is what Darwinists are telling the masses? “We know man evolved from apes, and apes evolved from Jurassic tadpoles, but that’s all we know, therefore your God does not exist”.

Where did these… Jurassic tadpoles or whatever-the-lowest-species-known-to-mankind-is-called-thingies came from? Where did this world, capable of sustaining life come from? Did it just appear out of nowhere? How come it is so perfect? Even if time and space are infinite, the odds of this just happening are overwhelmed by the odds of the whole thing being destroyed before it was finished! This crap used to keep me awake all night as a kid.

Science will never be able to deny the existence of God, because of his Godly nature. Science may one day prove the existence of God, if, say, God one day decided to appear in Oprah.

This is where the argument ends. Timmy will continue to research, while Bob will actually write his dad every day, hoping for an answer. Timmy and Bob hang out after school and go to the arcades. Mr. Scientist, please, I beg you, continue your research. Mr. Believer, keep on praying, maybe one day God will show up.

The conclusion, based on simple schoolyard logic (I make myself giggle sometimes) is that the terms "creationist" and "darwinist" are inappropriate, that there is - or should - not be such "points of view" and that both are neither opposite, parallel or perpendicular.

Post a Comment