Religion in the NEWS

I’ve seldom been more encouraged than when Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for culture, made a comment at a Vatican news conference June 20, 2005, “that the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, and warning that religion risks turning into “fundamentalism” if it ignores scientific reason.” (From a Comcast news article titled “Vatican: Faithful Should Listen to Science, by NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer).
The Cardinal lamented a permanent lesson learnt from a historically recorded bad treatment dealt out by the church to Galileo in the Sixteen hundreds. This is, of course, a good first step. I commend Cardinal Paul Poupard. Both sides need to come closer on purpose and values. That does not mean that they agree in every interpretation. Yes, reconciliation often begins with small steps from both sides.

Here, I'll interject a little anecdote that I thought up: . . . Is it true? What I heard reported in the news. Is it true? America has outlawed the teaching of evolution in our schools as well as stem cell and other genetic research in all science labs. Is it true? Great scientist are leaving America in droves for Europe and the Far East . . .

. . . I thought that I'd heard the news man report something interesting and ominous. Is it true? A group of maltinational scientist in Korea being lead by a great biologist from that country, announcing an incredible scientific breakthrough in genetic engineering. They have discovered the technical ability to change human nature, and the world, with little physical or mental risk to mankind. Furthermore, they can remove bad memories and scared experiences. They can implant knowledge directly into the human brain.

The news is awesome . . . but then, this time America is not in the forefront of those scientific advances. Worse than that, fanatics around the world condemn the reports and charge the scientist with playing God. They threaten to arrest and jail the scientist should they leave South Korea.
You say that it can't happen (de ja vu), then I say, 'READ HISTORY' . . .


NOTE: The religious extremist of the Intelligent Design proponents often argue that evolution is just-a-theory. Well, gravity is just-a-theory. Relativity is just-a-theory. You might say that all of science is just-a-theory. But then, oh what of all the creations and inventions that have arisen from this JUST-A-THEORY.

Science has created technologies and inventions so miraculous and incredible that had they appeared in any other period in human history they would be called MIRACLES.

One could argue that all of the various religions are DIFFERENT just-a-theories on ancient history. Notions, hypothesis, theories, laws are all just different degrees of accumulated evidence for something. Gravity may seem so certain that we call it a law, however, it's still just a theory . . . In science there may be more to gravity than just-a-LAW. Nonetheless, these are all just differing degrees of accumulated evident for something. In fact, a theory is merely a stronger proof of a hypothesis. In this universe, the next evidence may prove it to have been no more than just a hypothesis.

Making a statement that evolution is JUST-A-THEORY has little, to no meaning.

If you think that you can disprove it, then argue your case, and the evidence, point by point. Even though not all the pieces are in their place, the evidence for EVOLUTION is OVERWHELMING. More common evidence like: Carbon 14, Argon/Potassium, and isotopes such as uranium 235 dating, etc.; All Mammels, including man, having exactly the same number of vertebras (seven) - even a killer whale and giraffe; All mammels having hip bones, or the remnants of hip bones - even a killer whale; the appendex in humans is a dormant remnant from ruminating animals, like cows, that chew their cuds; humans have been known to be born with tails, and breast nipples, right down the chest in the same locations as with dogs and pigs, etc.; animals isolated for thousands of years on islands, are unique in their physical characteristics; primates, including man and monkeys are almost identical from genetics, and RNA/DNA examples; DNA is only different in its complexity in all living things; in the early stages of birth, one can not tell the difference between a Chimpanzee fetus, and a human fetus; one of the greatest examples for evolution has been created by man in only a few thousands of years from wolves called, DOGS; layers of stratum, the deeper one measures time, the older the rocks and bones discovered; erosional conditions of weather, dating of other erosions from earth quakes, volcanoes, water and ice; dating of meteors strikes and the extinction of dinosaours, etc.
This just represents a few, out of thousands, if not millions of pieces of evidence, explained no better way, than by EVOLUTION. Did God create evolution? You can go there if it makes you feel better, but evolution best explains the evidence as discovered in reasoned knowledge.

Oppositely, even though many in science don't agree with the various interpretations of religions, they are not generally in the business of proving, or disproving, the existence of a GOD.
BLOG: (Love is blind). In some ways religion is akin to being in love, or being in the world and things seem terrible, and you feel horrible and things aren't going your way, and all of a sudden your in love with a perfect partner, a soul mate for life, and the world seems like an entirely different place, like perfect, wonderful, and really....It's the SAME OLD WORLD. There's a reason why we attempt to teach our children about the blindness of love, so that they don't walk off the cliff together. Reasoned knowledge is an attempt to experience those same old feelings of religion and love, without going blind, and walking off the cliff.

I, for one, believe that there is an intelligible form to the universe that we think of as God. This intelligible form is a part of all intelligence and is why we think in terms of perfection, absolutes, all power and security. This intelligible force gives direction to the universe. We all are following its rules and forces to that final question and answer, maybe, at the end of time. That we are a part of it is why we can understand it at all. We possess all the characteristics of lesser Gods, being good and evil to all degrees; but without the omnipotence and power of an all encompassing single GOD.

My hope and supposition is that good is a little more constructive and will govern wholly supreme by the end of time. We would become one with our imagined God that already exist by earning it the old fashion way, because as in deism, there is no evidence that God is doing it for us. This, of course, does not prove that a God can not tweak the entire universe - unbeknownst to any of us - helping someone, or the process. If it should happen, we have not been able to see it through reasoned knowledge. It can only be believed by faith, and when that faith is in direct conflict with reasoned knowledge, it is BLIND FAITH.
Yes, most assuredly, science has not discovered all of the forces and effects of nature and the mind; and this is good reason for keeping an open mind. But not facing the evidence at the moment is not justification for accepting what doesn't make critical sense.
Copyright 2005

Click Below

First Page
Previous Page
Next Page
Last Page