Well, since insomnia still reigns supreme over my life, I figure I'll leave a little contribution to my blog.
I don't know if any of you have heard all the debate over "intelligent design vs. evolution." It's apparently all the rage. Anyway, I just figured I'd put in my two cents in on the matter.
Important Note: I'm just a senior at Chichester High School. I have no "street cred" as the kids are calling it. Meaning, I have no degree, and have not studied sufficiently in these matters to give my opinions. However, I'm really bored, so I figured I go for it.
Okay, the way I see it, both sides are part right. Shocking how often that happens.
The evolutionists have plenty of proof for their theory (side note: all the people making hoopla over evolution being called a theory obviously don't know much about science. It's ALL theory. Newton's Theory of Gravity. The Theory of Relativity. Yeah, surprise! That doesn't mean you're not going to fall if you jump of a cliff just cause you don't believe in the "theory" of gravity.). I mean, just look at a wolf and a dog. Something obviously happened. The dogs weren't made on the 6th day. No, they developed over many thousands of years due to selective breeding by humans. Evolution. Enough said.
However, the intelligent designers have plenty of stuff going for them too. No matter what they told us in Honors Bio, scientists have yet to make any of the rudimentary stuff needed for life to exist. You know, the basics, like DNA, RNA, and amino acids. None of it. Surprising how they fail to tell us that in Bio. So scientists don't know how that came about. But, hey man, that's just a little tiny (read freakin' giant) hole in the theory of evolution.
Now, these are just two very simplistic arguments for each side but they're characteristic of the claims that each side presents. The flaw I see in their views is this. The evolutionists refuse to see anything but their precious natural selection working in the background to drive evolution and the intelligent designers refuse to allow for any evolution that's the result of random / natural selection.
Why can't they both be right? There must (as far as I know) be some sort of driving force going on in the universe, whether or not it's "intelligent" is up for grabs. But it must exist because the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy can only increase (and now I must quickly retract this part of the argument because of this. Read the part about creationism. Oops. Well, I'll just continue with the rest argument. And just ignore this part about the second law of thermodynamics. :) )
But at the same time, the universe is evolving, and organisms along with it. To ignore this is pure folly. Even the laws of the universe have "evolved." Just go back to the Grand Unification when all the forces of nature were the same. They are no longer.
Well, I'm not the greatest pundit of all time. But I gave this a shot. Maybe I'll be able to fall asleep now. Maybe.
And I realize that a good part of America won't believe me on this anyway. Apparently 45% of American's (according to a poll cited in TIME magazine) believe the 6 day creation story from Genesis. And 54% believe that humans did not come from earlier species. How can you argue with that. The majority has spoken, right?
This is why the founders didn't believe in direct democracy (a.k.a. Mob Rule. Thanks, Mr. McKnett!): if it was so, Florida wouldn't teach evolution. Arkansas would still have segregated schools. Utah would make being gay illegal. Sometimes the masses don't know what's best. At least, not what's "best" by universal standards.
Hope, my friends, is what we must have. I have faith in the American people. If they truly are as devout as they claim, then they must understand Jesus' message of love. Love, in my opinion, will win out.
Namaste.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
David,
Long time, and based on what I've heard you've become every bit the intellectual giant I thought you'd be (applied mathematics at UMd, no less).
Not sure how I came across this blog - only 8 years after you wrote this piece - but I bored people often find strange ways to pass the time. I've always enjoyed your writing...was able to read some of the stuff you did for Hagan and Shulman...and your blog posts have given me something to do while I recover from meniscus surgery, here in the summer of '13.
I doubt you'll ever read this comment, but in the off-chance that you do, I wonder how you feel about the evidence for evolution now? I wish I knew of your discomfort with the "giant" holes in Darwin's theory back in '05, I also wish I did a better job in H.Bio to make things clear.
Anyway, I hope that time has shown you that amino acids, RNA and DNA can, and have, be synthesized in the lab, and that you've come to accept that evolutionary theory - as opposed to intelligent design - is overwhelmingly supported by mathematics...you should read Jerry Coyne or Ernst Mayr, they have lots of statistical models that are right up your alley, albeit, confusing to us mortals.
Having read some of you thirdorderscientist stuff (I understood virtually none of it), I wanted to say I am quite impressed and very proud to have had such a clever mind in my classroom so many years ago.
Cheers.
MHess
Mark,
Yikes! The problem with posting my thoughts online is they're still around long after I've changed my mind. Rereading this post was painful. I said a lot of things that I would call 'silly' now.
I don't think intelligent design adds anything to our understanding of the universe or evolution. It's a hypothesis without a purpose. If we can explain things without resorting to the supernatural (whatever that is), why not do so?
Something I had trouble grasping in high school are the *incredibly long* timescales involved in the formation of life on Earth. I still have trouble wrapping my head around timescales on the order of a thousand years, let alone a billion years. I also didn't have the conception for how simple rules can generate complicated behavior.
Please don't feel responsible for my missteps in this post! Your Honors Biology class was my first exposure to real science, and it was a great one. We (Dave McClung, Kenny Pratt, and I) still talk about how much we enjoyed your class, and how much we learned from you.
Thanks for pointing me to Jerry Coyne and Ernst Mayr. I'll be sure to check them out.
Thanks for reaching out to me. And thanks for all of your kind words. I hope that your recovery from surgery is going smoothly.
All the best,
Dave
Post a Comment