an image of an eye glowing green...

0wn yourself


harvard's looking back through time *cough*

tee enn dubs again, y'all... harvard is starting a study of the origins of life.


ok. my first problem with this whole debate is that nobody's ever gonna win (unless god makes a guest appearance or somebody builds a time machine)--that's it. i don't care _how_ good your conclusions are, you CANNOT PROVE IT!!

secondly, why do the theories have to be two separate, disparate entities? why do they have to conflict? why can't evolution be the method the Creator used in the Creation? is that too far fetched or something?

and meanwhile, what are we teaching the kids? and on _that_ topic (y'know, the whole 'church and state' thing?) i'd have to say that evolution (as the point people are arguing, not necessarily the definition of the word) seems to be pushing the view of atheism--which, like it or not, is definitely a religious point of view.

but when i think about evolution, working backward it all makes sense--you can see the changes over millions of years and even see the planets and stars and nebulae formed from spinning dust and gas, right back all the way to the moment of the big bang.

and then we're left with the question 'and what caused that?' when i think of creationism, i'm thinking not just about life on this planet, but the creation of reality as we know it (and reality, as it may exist beyond what we know).

we live in the fourth dimension (six degrees of freedom, plus time) there are a few people who may understand more (though many have trouble just getting past three (on either side)) but much beyond that, we just don't know.

i just think that's what we need to be teaching our kids--we don't know. this is what we _do_ know, these are the things that people _think_, but nobody who was there is here, now, so we just don't know.


No comments: