Truth Is [Coming]

Yesterday, my D-group was discussing blogs again.  I realized that my blogs have not been writing themselves, so I figured I’d step in and help out.  If for no other reason than that I simply want to start blogging again.

We were discussing a number of ideas, but it mostly boiled down to the new/old earth debate, science v. religion, and evolution.

So I thought I’d just write down my take for the three people who read my blog to look at.

It seems to me that this feud between science and religion is really just two different schools of thought in pursuit of the same thing: truth.  And yet, they both try to show why the other school is wrong in their approach instead of just pursuing truth in and of itself (I believe that the exact same is true of political parties, but I digress).

I’ve never understood why science and religion are considered mutually exclusive.  And those that argue that the two are not exclusive receive criticism from both sides.  (Sounds familiar.)

Now I understand perfectly well that science is not perfect (e.g. carbon dating, string theory), but neither is religion (e.g. duh).  So why is it that so many people fall prey to the fallacy of a false dilemma?  Why are we so unable to just pursue truth for ourselves?  And why can’t we do it together?  Why do we have meaningless bloodshed over issues that are 1) irrelevant and 2) never going to be fully understood anyway.

No one has ever shown how evolution disproves God.  No one has ever explained the difference between the earth being four billion years old and four thousand years old.  We’re still here now.  If anything, coming to grips with the mystery that surrounds us should be even more motivation to work together for the here and now, the only thing we really “know”.  It should put us in awe of the world around us.

Yesterday, Jake said something like, “Yea.  It doesn’t really matter, but it’s still fun to talk about.”  And I would agree.  I just think we need to put a little more emphasis on the fact that these conversations are “for fun” and not “for truth”.  Otherwise, atheists will never believe in a God who loves beauty and Christians will never believe in gravity.

So I just watched Ben Sten’s documentary: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

First off, great film.  I highly recommend it.  Just as a film it is entertaining.  From cinematography to music – just awesome.  Well done.

Bu the content is phenonmenal as well.  The film follows Stein’s journey through the infamous Evolution v. Creationism debate.  Or, rather, the religion v. science debate.  Or, perhaps most appropriate for the film: Darwinism v. Intelligent Design.  And it turns out to be very interesting.  He interviews many scientists from both sides of the coin, and the thing I think I love the most is that when he’s talking to people arguing for Intelligent Design, he sounds more like a Darwinist.  And when he talks to Darwinists, he sounds like someone who believes in Intelligent Design.  Talk about unbiased.

Contrary to what I was expecting though, the film is not about facts and technicalities of Darwin or the Bible.  Stein points out how in the field of science, something very dangerous is going on.  Anyone who speaks even remotely of Intelligent Design in a good light is immediately dismissed from the academy of science and loses every ounce of dignity among “real” scientists.  My favorite example is a man who had discovered several planets during his career – planets! – and mentioned in the classroom the possibility of Intelligent Design being onto something.  He lost his job at the college he was working for and was unable to gain another at any scientific establishment at all.

There is a wall, Stein argues.  And you have freedom to search for scientific truth and ask whatever questions you can think of as long as you are on the right side of the wall.

Otherwise, you get excommunicated.

This was a different approach than I was used to hearing.  The “conversation” was so fundamental it made talking about teaching evolution in schools almost irrelevant.  The issue is not political correctness.  The issue is simply that science is not actually being science.  It’s drawing lines and saying, “You are not allowed to ask these  certain questions.”  Which is a huge problem, obviously.

Toward the end of the film, Stein also goes down a second road almost.

Stein (a Jew I found out) started exploring Naziism.  I had heard but didn’t really know much about Nazi “philosophy” having ties with Darwinism.  However, Naziism is in fact humans taking Darwin to the next level.  Nazis were essentially trying to speed up natural selection in humans.

Two different people in the film both said that they did not think Hitler to be insane (particularly).  Evil maybe…  But he had made a “rational” decision, which made him sane.  Stein then made an important point: Hitler rationalized his evils in the name of science.  He justified killing innocent people because of Darwin’s teachings.  Now when we see this happening, it is awfully important that we go back and take a closer look at Darwinism.  Now I understand that there was much more to it than just this; but what I am trying to show is that if Hitler’s actions are a potential result of Darwin’s teachings, then there is probably a pretty good chance that we can find some fundamental flaws in Darwin’s teachings.

I will be writing more on this topic soon, but you should really go see this film.  It’s worth it.