Today is Sunday so we may as well have a sermon; the collection plate may be filled by way of donations through PayPal. Hymns are optional.
I realize you of faith know that faith of itself is enough proof of the existence of God. Taking that as a fact, why is there such a thing called "the science of creation"? Should not belief in the Holy Bible be sufficient? There are in this world well educated and trained scientists whom believe in the word of God, yet are trying to prove it by scientific reasoning and drawing different conclusions from evidence that mainstream science has researched and presented. One example that is popular amongst those looking for threads to cling to is that Jesus and dinosaurs coexisted. Another is their fact of "irreducible complexity", meaning that certain parts of life can be broken down only so far in their complexity to the point that it would have been nonessential or even detrimental to the organism to have it and therefore the outcome is not a product of evolution but instead one of guided creation. The eye of modern mammals is one example used. This "theory" was proposed by Lehigh University biochemist and intelligent design proponent Michael Behe in his Free Press book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Here is his explanation on page 39 of the book:
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.
I read this book and it sounds good and logical, but take it from me, this theory has been disproved by other biochemists and biologists that have no cross to bear one way or the other. True science has no reason to prove or disprove the existence of God, therefore "creation science" is an oxymoron and a pseudo-science. I have a few simple questions I would like a creation scientist to answer:
- First is the old standby: Where did God come from?
- Where are Heaven and Hell located?
- Why are there stars in the sky? There seems to be no need for them in a religious sense.
- Why are there so many different life forms on earth? Do we need all those bugs?
- Why are there other planets?
I'm not writing this to make anyone mad or hurt their feelings, but I wish they would think about these things for a moment.
----
Folks, it is great to be alive and be in East Tennessee!
Powered by ScribeFire.
6 comments:
There are too many questions for me that can not be answered by simple faith alone. I think the relationship between science and God is much closer than most people are willing to accept.
Ken, I like your question: where Heaven and Hell are located? I do not believe in Hell. My religious beliefs are not coherent, but it doesn't disturb me to be in the Catholic community. Wise catholic priests do not expect such coherency from their members of church.
Of course priests are different. So, it is important to choose a proper one. He should be intelligent, honest and he should have a sense of humor; especially if he is your confessor. I think I met such priest.;-))
BTW, there is a wonderful scene of confession in American movie "Gran Torino" with Clint Eastwood; really, wonderful movie, interesting plot, excellent dialogues; and I like it's irony.
Please, treat my remarks as a digression.:-)
I suppose that with faith, the questions are moot. To me, religious faith opens the door to any superstition we can think of; from astrology to the occult to race hatred, etc.
I see your point, Jola.
Do you realize you described yourself when describing what a good priest should be? Substitute the word "she" for "he" and it is Jola. ;-)))
Serious confessional scenes are difficult to find in American movies. Most seem to be in some kind of comedy situation or a gangster movie where the priest generally gets killed for no reason. Hollywood is strange!
I don't think I've seen "Gran Torino", but I will see if I can find it.
Digression? Not at all. Your Creator designed you so you may think for yourself; you do such very well. ;-)))
One priest whom I really like complained that men usually confided their infidelity and sometimes it is really boring to listen about it. 'I wish they eventually did something more sophisticated, said my priest'. We were laughing both.;-)
In my opinion religion (faith) should be for us a source of joy and optimism. So I try not to be too much dogmatic; however I like the order of Catholic Mass very much.
I think that "Gran Torino" is the newest movie by Clint Eastwood.
Thanks for your kindness, Ken. :-)
More sophisticated than adultery? I figured adultery was an art form! I guess there is always rape and murder that could make things more interesting at confession. I'm kidding again, Jola. :-)
I really do not know much about Catholicism, except the churches I attended as a youth claimed great distrust of Catholics. Like anything else that is misunderstood; it is a lot of times looked upon as an evil thing.
In too many American pulpits, hellfire and damnation is mostly what is preached, and the love and humanity somehow gets trampled beneath the the feet of fear and mistrust.
Hope you had a great day and that tomorrow will be even better. :-)
Post a Comment