Chasing the Sun

Here's to one of those nights, wherein I found myself lost. Totally lost. Nothing new. I know, I'm always lost. I've read a two-paged article entitled Evolution and Design, and come up with this. So yeah, I suddenly thought of writing about this. Something. I know this is something. Keep reading. :)

Note to self: A product of a boring night.

“Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof. – Ashley Montague 

The universe has always spurred men to wonder about its origin. Men have labored continuously, seeking an explanation for the universe, an explanation that can be considered ultimate and universal or all-encompassing. In this effort, various schools of thought arose throughout the course of history, each one offering its own explanation.

The short essay entitled, “Evolution or Design” by Ervin Laszlo awakens the on-going and never ending debate about the existence of the universe, on whether the universe is the result of natural phenomena and explanations, known as Science; or out of supernatural explanations and beliefs under the creation of God, as the ultimate creator. What Laszlo is trying to excruciate in his essay is that there is no conflict between Science and Religion. Hence he was able to prove his stand all throughout the end of the essay.

Science does not hold that the way things are is a result of intelligent design, also known as special acts of creation. On the other hand, Christians who believe in a benevolent and omnipotent God cannot accept that everything results from random mutations and natural selection. Laszlo’s claim was that there must be more to this world than what Darwinian evolutionist claim. Initially, the truth about the world, it says is either design or evolution. It cannot be both. This however is a common mistake for thinkers.

Now, these questions are not purely speculative; on the contrary, they exert a deep influence on human existence. It makes a difference, however for a man to believe that everything, including himself originated from inert matter and will go back to it. Rather, to believe that he was created by God, who brought him into being from nothing. To regard men as beings subject to the whims of blind destiny, or as an absolute masters of their own existence, or as creatures capable of freely knowing and loving a personal God.

Existence of the universe, some identified the most radical basis of reality with one particular element intrinsic to it, such as matter, the spirit, thought or motion. This then implies that everything in the universe is just an offshoot or derivative of that element.

On the other hand, some maintained the existence of a transcendent principle which made the universe without forming part of it. Some thinkers proposed the existence of only one origin of the universe, while others held that the universe came to be from two or more sources.

Nature itself is indifferent to their fate. This is a world of blind physical forces and genetic replication, where some get hurt and others flourish. Evidently, such a world contradicts belief in creation by intelligent, and above all, by benevolent-design.

Initially, the study of these questions formed only one undifferentiated body of knowledge called philosophy, wisdom, and or science. There is a widespread perception that whatever their present relation, historically science and religion have continually been at each other’s throats. The natural sciences have notoriously challenged religious beliefs and are even credited for having destroyed religion’s rational defensibility.

The popular cultural perception is that religion has not fared well in its contacts with science, and it is commonly suspected that religion’s problem has resulted from attempts to speak in areas where it has no rightful authority or competence. This is problematic for there have been really no standard demarcation on the rightful domains of science and religion.

Once the barriers are lowered and science and religion are construed as potential competitors in the same arena, interaction and conflict become very real, some would say inevitable, possibilities. There is naturally a disagreement over who gets eviscerated in such conflict, but some cautions are in order.

Conclusion:

All this inter-fusion conjoined with the lack of absolute boundaries between science and non-science means that science and religion issues will not be clean, simple, no-strings-dangling phenomenon many would like them to be. There is unlikely to be any single elegant, all-encompassing solution-at least any available to us humans.