Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Chpt 10 Darwinism
This link is about God & science, so tangentially related.
http://life.salon.com/2011/10/02/how_science_and_faith_coexist/singleton/?mobile.html
Christopher Hitchens on cancer & mortality
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/books/christopher-hitchens-on-writing-mortality-and-cancer.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha28
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/07/07/sober-and-god-guided-mutations/
ReplyDeleteI still would like to stand by my argument in class that God could have created the mutations that resulted in the phylogenetic and hierarchical relationships of extant and extinct organisms that biologists today agree on. To recapitulate my argument, God could have increased the probablity of a given mutation that natural selection would consequently act on (via its traditional mechanisms) to elicit the creation of a distinct species.
To counter the argument that God could have created the mutations responsible for the symptoms of cystic fibrosis or Down's syndrome, I do not agree that an all-or-none stance is required of God's actions. I think that it can easily be argued that God increased the probablity of some mutations, while others simply occured by chance. Therefore, God could have allowed for the evolution of species without being directly responsible for the development of debilitating or destructive genetic diseases. Even if the all-or-none scenario is forced and all mutations are at the hands of God, I think that I could apply this to matters outside of biology to argue the inconsistency of this idea. According to the all-or-none scenario, God has complete control over everything that happens (the alternative would be a deist perspective that God has nothing to do with what happens and has no hand in the happenings of the world), which means all of the evil in the world is his fault. On these premises, I then disgree that God must always act in an all-or-none fashion.
To reconcile my argument with the Biblical text, I remember someone mentioned in class that God does not necessarily operate on the same time scale as we do and therefore a day to God might be much longer to us. I did more research and found that the Hebrew word for "day" (Yom, as in Yom Kippur) does not refer to a single 24-hour period but rather some extent of time, from as little as a trillionth of second to millennia. Therefore, God could have created the universe, followed by the Earth and early life forms which were then divinely acted upon in the form of new mutations that ultimately resulted in the formation of the life present today.
The link included above is an individual who expressed ideas somewhat similar to mine in a talk given at the University of Chicago.
I agree with you that God aided in the creation of evolution and that God is not on the same time scale that we are, thus the creation story cannot be taken literally. However, I am not sure about the all-or-none stance. I think that God "allows", for lack of a better word, the evil to get through and that is why there are some mutations that are so terrible and why there is hunger and poverty in the world. It is not that God created it exactly, but it's just how some things came to be. (If that makes any sense)
DeleteHitchens-I'm a little confused by this aritcle because this very outspoken aethiest is diagnosed with cancer. It says he has embraced his cancer and hasn't let it bring him down. He is so aprreciative that he is still able to write everyday because that is his life. What I am confused about is at the end of the article his best friend says that he has turned out like a Tibetan monk. So has he become religious after his diagnosis? or his he just more appreciative and happy living out his last days on Earth?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the first article I wanted to get back to the discussion we had in class about the possibility of mixing God and evolution. With being a biology major, I have studied evolution and do in fact believe in it as well as God. I think that God's creation of the world in 'seven' days could be in fact the billions of years in which evolution took place. Evolution is only a theory, but keep in mind that gravity and the germ theory are also only theories. Like I have said in previous post, it is about finding the balance in everything. When I studied evolution, it was found that people who receive and undergraduate degree are more likely to accept evolution than theology.I also believe it was around 43% of people who believed in theistic evolution.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the cancer and mortality article..
ReplyDeleteI found this article pretty intriguing. He seems to put a new spin on knowing you are possibly going to die in the near future for me to not let it drag you down or get in the way of living life and doing what you love. You really do have to live life to the fullest you can and be happy in what you do. I feel that this results in such a positive affect on an individual's life. I'm in the same boat as Kelsi though as to wondering if he became religious from all the cancer and life he has lived??
I read all the comments and have to agree with what Lydia said about the time frame in which God acts and the seven days of creation and genesis. It sounds the most rational for me to believe and fit evolution in. Also, the cancer and morality article was very interesting for me because a lot of people in my life have been effected by cancerous disease. To see first hand how someone embraces being told they are going to die soon helped to connect with the article. You have to embrace your fate and figure out what you're going to do to live the rest the best you can and understand what will happen to you after you pass on. I was trying to get a religious standing while my friend's mom was still alive because she said she knew she was going to heaven and there was a plan so she related to the man in the article.
ReplyDelete