Friendly Conversation

July 23rd, 2007
|

For the last few days, Don Beto, a fellow blogger (pos-t-regio.blogspot.com) from Monterrey, and I’ve been comment-chatting about evolution, on my post about Mel singing with his daughter. He is a Catholic agnostic, and that makes me smile, because I’m an evangelical with a scientific mind. Both of us suffer from what he calls “schizophrenia” and “heresy”.

I enjoy these conversations, because they encourage exploration and free thought. Rather than have our comments rot in the rich hidden underworld of blog comments, I’d like to publish parts of our latest exchange. (Forgive me for being biased in my own favor :> )

AARON:

. . . “I can believe in natural selection and the evolution of species, but I don’t believe that in a finite univ erse, (albeit a large one) by pure chance a molecule sprung up that was capable of organizing itself with others and become a cell, capable of reproducing, and after millions of years, be able to compose a symphony!” . . .

DON BETO:

. . . “I must confess that I don´t know the way trough which the amazing life comes to be. I think that there is a truly profound mistery behind the evolution from an organic molecule until arrange the self duplicating DNA, not to say the extraordinary creation of “Time” by Pink Floy, to say only one of the wonderful makings of humanity.

But I have chosen to accept the Mistery and uncertinity (this word seems wrong written to me but I don´t identify where and have “güeva” -lazziness to search) above the religious explanation, which seems simplistic, antiepistemic and conformist to me.

At the same time I find incomplete and pedantic the asumption of some evolutionist who pretend to have all the answers.

Can you see what a schizo I’m?” . . .

AARON:

. . . “I feel like your friend already. I’ve been thinking about this topic lately”. . .

“You used the word mystery. That’s an unpopular and unscientific word to use these days. That’s because science makes two key assumptions:

1. It assumes that anything that cannot be proven is false.

2. It assumes that the solution that seems simplest is always the truth.

When science outgrew our five senses, it sequestered mathematics, and created instruments like giant particle colliders, space telescopes and electron microscopes to feed it’s ravenous appetite for proofs.

Science seeks to quench belief in mysteries and sneers at anyone who dares to believe that something could be real that isn’t provable. There is no such thing as mystery to a scientist, only facts, facts we can prove, and facts we have yet to discover and prove.

I dare to believe, however, that our capacity to gather facts and understand the universe is primitive at best. Why? Because our minds interpret and thus contaminate everything we perceive. I also dare to believe that the simplest solution is not always true.

This leads me to think that the predominant attitude of most atheist scientists is very arrogant, and that it blinds them with prejudice. In their favor, they say that they will recant when their current understanding is proven false

I am a Christian, but I try to keep my mind open. An open mind is an exhausting and impractical thing to keep up, however. We humans like assumptions, whether we are atheists or believers. ”

Feel welcome to join the conversation!

  • Patty

    I’m on your side, Aaron. First, we don’t know how long God’s day was, so I can believe in evolution. But, I don’t see how anyone can look at God’s wonders and deny that a Master Planner was at work.

    Patty

  • Aaron Ortiz

    Thanks Patty,

    Although, sometimes I wonder if I HAVE a side, because of my doubts. That’s why I like to talk about this, to challenge my assumptions on purpose.

Twitter Facebook Tumblr Flickr
Better Tag Cloud