It is a wonder, this brave new world. So varied, yet so grand, in all areas. A wonder really, that this all is possible, the verdant trees, the azure oceans, the glorious sunrises. To think: how is this possible? One man says one thing, another says another. Yet who is right, explaining this vast universe?
Is the man saying there is a Being, who formed this correct? Or the man saying due to many and various mutations, we formed correct? Or is the mediator?
Formerly, I was a quote fundamentalist, who believed in a literal six-day creation account. Appalled by the theory of evolution, and such untrueness. Now, I have somewhat changed my viewpoint.
I still would disagree with some areas of evolution; for example, the science they teach us at school (high school). Last year I had Biology, and have Chemistry this year, and we are not taught even the basics of science, just something that I seriously presume has been picked up out of a hat. For example, in Chemistry, we learn about moles and computing grams, just to find how many grams would be in a substance if another in the same equation has X grams. In effect, we learn how to use the formulas, but not why they are formulas in the first place. It would help if they teach us about former scientists observations, and a lecture about how and why, instead of “Here it is, input numbers here, get an A in the class, who cares.”
Thus, do to those and many other reasons, we are not taught to think rationally, but rather to accept information on faith. Which, in my opinion, is hypocritical to the scientific method. For we should be taught how it works, by formulas observable in the natural world (and how they came about), and use them (if needed) in applied sciences. Now this agreement is mainly for Chemistry, for Biology was slightly better, yet we just learn definitions, but not the evidence for evolution and such. Therefore, it achieves the opposite of what it is intended to do. This is not a plea for better education in public schools (although that would be enjoyable), but it is what inhibits growth and learning for science, and instead makes people ignorant that dogmatic atheistic evolution is the only world viewpoint due to what is narrowly taught (without mention of evidence or how it works) in the classes.
Therefore, the science that is taught today produces a two-fold effect. The first is that it keeps those ignorant of the true bounds of science, including how and what it is. Rather it tells us what to do with what is found, in order to complete the class; paternally. In addition, without pre-knowledge, people criticize other systems than evolution, having been taught it as the only way, where there are many other possibilities present (whether true or not).
Nevertheless, I have found fault in both the creationism worldview, and the evolutionary worldview.
This world, this good earth, on which we trample on, it was not merely an accident. How else would you explain the twinkling stars gazing down in the midst of darkness, the birds chirping in April? Evolution would not disprove a Creator of this universe. As a former creationist, our argument against evolution would be that it is against the Bible (a rather pitiful argument by itself, yet sincere). Yet the truth is, is that it is compatible with the Bible. Now the atheistic worldview taught at schools (yes, witnessed firsthand) that is unscientific, as mentioned above, is not true evolution or science. Would you think that Charles Darwin himself, living today, would look with pride at the progress of his system? No, on the contrary, he would most likely be appalled by it and its unrationality posing as rationality. In effect, it has become what it has vowed to destroy.
It can be seen that many United States citizens have a deficiency for scientific knowledge, and that is why. They are taught the milk, and not the meat and potatoes of the matter. They are also fed imitation-milk, posed as the real thing. Creates dogmatic, ignorant citizens of what scientific findings suggest, which is also achieved through censorship.
Now, on a tangent, these are my reformed beliefs. First, one cannot say with perfect preciseness how and when and why the earth is created. The closest thing we can do is observe the natural world around us. But that creates opinions; for one might say “Look at the handicraft of God,” while another, “It’s just a rock,” or another, “This must have eroded over millions of years.”
I would agree with some evolutionary beliefs; which include that it is happening around us, but would differ with such modernists and what is taught in the schools. There is, of course, evidence for this theory around us, yet is still a theory, and not fact, as many people believe (therefore, I would agree with some aspects, and not other pseudoscientific claims). And also, it would not negate the existence of a creator. Mind you, it might not be exidence exclusively denoting his existence, in big black letters written atop the sands. For, I ask you, what difference would it make if the evolutionary process was guided by a creator or not?
In some ways, I would identify myself with the Intelligent Design movement, if they stick also to the facts. But my views would not portray any mainstream viewpoint, I don’t think. And I am willing to bend, if my position is not the truth, and that is evident to me.
As for a creator: yes, I would believe there is one; some call him God. Perhaps He is everything, perhaps nothing of everything. He is. Let me explain my position this way: one is pondering in the dense forests, and sees a building pop up of seemingly nowhere. He wonders, for the idea of such a thing is foreign to him. Surely there is someone who built this, for he knows it is impossible for something to be made out of nothing. But he knows nothing of this builder, except that he built this. Perhaps out of love, or possibly for his own pleasure, to show off his workmanship. The man who witnessed this cannot make an assertion that the creator of this has certain attributes solely on this demonstration. He must have more evidence, but deductive and inductive. Nor can he say that this building is the result of millions of combinations of possibilities that just happened to coincide with one another to make that certain arrangement of particles. He would have to explore for himself to see how and why this was made. In effect, he cannot be dogmatic in his view so as to question others who are not in agreement based upon limited knowledge. If we were omniscient, then yes, but we are not so.
The route for science is scire, meaning “to know, to discern” coming from an Indo-European word meaning to cut. Its purpose is to cut up the world around us, package it into tiny pieces, and examine their contents. Religion, on the other hand, could possibly be traced to the Latin religare “to tie back” from ligare “to bind”. It is binded in order to study its overt contents, while science tries to study in inside workings behind that. One is not true, the other false, they are simply two systems of observing the same medium. Perhaps they might overlap, yet when one system shows the other not capable of such, explanations must be restrained. The religious should not be inhibited by science, nor the scientists by religion, is what I am saying. They are compatible.
I support science, and evolution. That does not mean I would agree in the way that it is traveling, with its sprinkled pseudo-scientific dogmas and political connotations associated to it. I also support religion, for their motives are pure, and teaches moral values somehow lost by a culture supporting evolution. I am my own category, supporting both, which most consider polar opposites. In this great country of America, we are given religious diversity and free speech. Let us not upset that by chronicling the faults of others, let us rise up, together, united. Let us break the bonds of our society, and rise up into a more glorious future. A future far greater than we could have imagined, far surpassing our expectations lies past this harbor, we just need to set sail. And traverse together, in light. Let us put aside our differences.
