As I listen to politicians, pundits and people talk about how they desire equality, fairness, and the like, I realize it begins with a similar misconception. We have been convinced that anyone who is different is wrong. Different opinions, different style, different beliefs, different perspectives, all combine to compete with what we know works. The trouble is that it works for us just fine but won't work necessarily as well if at all for someone else.
One of my biggest criticisms of the foreign wars in which we're involved is the notion of 'nation building'. There seems to be this misbegotten notion that we can and should spread democratic government to other nations, irrespective of whether their beliefs, values and norms are compatible with Constitutional government. Like it or not, the Constitution was written largely by men of a Judeo-Christian moral persuasion, and so it fits that particular creed the best. Without the same values, I do not see how it can work as well for anyone else if it works at all.
We all know that 'men are from mars and women are from venus'. I do not think there is anything wrong with the differences between men and women. We are different for a reason. If it were wise or God's point to make only one form, there would only be one gender. That is true of other species that are hermaphroditic, because their physiology and intelligence is of a different category than ours. What works for men does not necessarily work for women and vice versa, and I do not want them to be the same. I have a few close friends with whom I get along well, but I do not want one of them to be a woman. There is a reason men and women are different: we are complementary. Her strengths may counter my weaknesses and vice versa. Also, it has been said that two heads are better than one, and I have been willing in previous posts to admit I am prone to mistakes because there's no other human mind at home with whom to consult about what I do or think.
Last night I felt prompted to jump back into the discussion of science versus creation. I come at this with a different attitude and perspective of many people because I am a scientist who also believes. I do not see that the two are incompatible or competitive. I believe that ultimately they can and will prove to be complementary to each other, assuming of course that we're 'open-minded' to that eventuality. There are lots of quotes flying around the internet right now being propagated I suspect mostly by people looking via ad populum to validate their beliefs by associating them with famous people. Even if these speakers are correct, it doesn't mean the Bible isn't also true. We are prone oft to speak in absolutes, that if A then B cannot possibly be, but they are not always mutually exclusive. Sometimes the answer is 'all of the above'. Even though I rarely have that on my exams, mostly because they're not multiple guess, sometimes there is more than one right answer, and people cannot seem to wrap their heads around the notion that science and faith might and can be complementary to one another. They are different ways of looking at the same questions; neither one is wrong; they are just different.
The funny thing I notice is how people who study their genealogy like to point out how they are related to this or that famous historical figure. Well, I am too, but I am also descended from King John Lackland, the tyrant, brother of Richard II, and if we ignore the bad in favor of the good we are foolish. He who does not look has no advantage over him who cannot. We see what we choose to let ourselves see. When I was in high school, there were lots of things that happened in the hallways of which I wanted no part. I remember focusing on an emergency exit sign that hung from the ceiling, walking with my gaze focused on it so I wouldn't notice things I chose not to see. What you choose to allow yourself to see changes very much the way by which you live your life.
I keep telling people that creationism doesn't belong in science. Science is the realm of the testable, the measurable, and since we cannot design experiments that would help us with that end in 'proving' God, religion belongs in philosophy and not in science. Consequently, I resist and protest efforts to teach creationism as science or evolution as truth, because I cannot conceive of a way for humans to measure that either. I also remind my students every semester that "Science never proves anything. It removes all other possibilities until only the truth remains," and that is a VERY long process. It presumes that we are smart enough to conceive of all the ways to test a hypothesis, inventive enough to build the apparati by which to accomplish those tests, and good enough to manage all the unexpected variables that inevitably arise. I really like the following graphic that illustrates our feeble attempts to understand things far beyond our poor power:
http://xkcd.com/638/
Like the ants, we assume that our ability to measure includes all the possibilities or at least the right ones. Humans do not make ant pheromones, and some humans don't make any at all. Our inability to detect their signals does not mean there isn't life more intelligent than we are. We're measuring things from our perspective, and even scientists confess that we live in the 3rd Dimension. How many more beyond us there are they are not sure, but people insist based on lack of evidence that there is no God. If we insist on evidence, then there are likewise a lot of people out there who have no brains, and there are a lot of people who speak one way and live quite another. We take a lot on faith, even people who worship at the altar of science.
I find it funny that people who believe in aliens disbelieve in God. If beings from another planet can hide themselves from us, the Being that created those planets can certainly do in kind if He chooses. The painting does not comprehend the artist any more than the hammer comprehends the smitty. I believe that time will show as our ability to answer questions improves that science and faith are complementary to one another. They are two different roads that arrive at the same source because they are both ways by which men search for truth. If you are really open to what is true, no matter which road you take, you will at least reach the outskirts of that distant emerald city. Most of all, it is important to be open. As long as you insist you are right and know everything, you cannot be taught, you cannot be corrected, and you cannot accept new direction to help you arrive where you claim you desire to be. Rather than those who secretly hope the truth will corroborate what they already believe, consider that the manner of investigation you opt not to choose might also be right, just different.
No comments:
Post a Comment