« Countryman: "Arrogant Evangelicals Must Repent" | Main | Is Jesus Coming Again? The Predictors' Track Record Doesn't Inspire Confidence »

October 15, 2005

Comments

BobW

Polkinghorne wraps it all up so nicely. In its broadest sense, the controversy between ID and random natural selection boils down to: some people see God in everything, some say there is no God to see in anything. That we have some genetic predisposition towards morality and/or religion is on the face of it blindingly obvious. We also have a genetic predisposition to see, (but not infrared or UV), smell, (but nowhere near as well as the mangiest mutt with congested sinuses), hear, (pretty much ditto), taste and receive sense data by touch. That we have these, even accepting that they resulted from and were refined by Darwinian evolutionary proceses, hardly rules out the possibility (and my belief) that a creator intended us to have them. It proves neither theism nor atheism, ID nor Darwin. That a radio contains the necessary apparatus to receive sound waves and render them audible hardly proves that it was not made. (And that it also receives static and cosmic background radiation does not prove that it was not built primarily to receive muaic, news, sports, right-wing jabber, fundamentalist drivel, etc.)
As for Dawkins, his remarks may tell us much about his tastes in art, music and architecture; but they are not even good Darwin. As obviously as we have a genetic capacity for morality, we have them for aesthetics and worship. Sometimes these are directed towards Caesar; sometimes Christ; sometimes Mammon. And in the three cases above - art, music and architecture, the styles used to worship the one come to be used for the other. The church and the courthouse may look almost identical.

Liz

This is ridiculous to even mention! A religious gene yeah right! The major point with the children knowing the difference between right and wrong and not to hit others or speak when the teacher is speaking is due to parental and school training! It's called teaching kid's good manners and rules before they go to school. Maybe that child had good parents but this example does not hold true for all children. Not every child knows not to hit others and the don't even know that it was a bad thing to do. They reacted. So you have two children in a play ground. One has learned not to push and shove, instead knowing how to share and play nicely. The second child never learned these rules and has always gotten his/her own way so on the playground when playing in the same area the first child would be more inclined (through upbringing and not by some gene) to share and be nice. While the second would push the first child off of the play set or out of the way for them to play. Granted each child is different so their personalities vary (some are mild mannered while others are very curious etc.). But even so social rules must be LEARNED, children do not know right from wrong when they are little.
Children hit and do not realize that they have hurt the person that they have hit until they have been explained and shown the damage that they have done. I think to have concrete evidence there would need to be experiments made where the children are born and once capable of crawling and functioning with out their mothers to some degree and see how they come out. But this is not something I think anyone would want to see children being put through.

Liz

Religion can be the back bone or stronghold for many things. Community, better health, sense of unity, stronger children... I see that religion can help but so does positive thinking. You do not NEED a religion to have a strong community and connection with people or to even have people that will support you.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Favorite Posts

Adv.

Episcopal Church

  • Come and Grow