Who created god?

Some of us believe that indeed the universe "was not designed and has no purpose" and that the question "why is there anything?" is interesting, but at present beyond the ability of anyone to answer convincingly.

Some of us also believe that "we humans are the product of [evolutionary] processes that care nothing about us."  

And many of us who believe these things use the current best scientific understanding of the universe and evolution as part of the basis for why we believe like this.

But others who do not believe these same things also point to the lack of answers to why is there anything and to the gaps in our knowledge about many things in physics and evolution and infer the existence of some creator.

Some creationists do not have any difficulty with the fact of evolution.  Some do.  All but the most rabid creationists recognize "micro-evolution," extinction, mutation, and many other aspects that are explained by evolutionary concepts.

The rhetoric about what the other actually believes tends to be about what is going on at the other's polar extreme.  And the press tends to grab the poles rather than anything even 10 degrees from the pole because it makes better copy.

So where should the state be in all of this?  Let science texts and scientists teach science.  Then have their courses about philosophy and religion.  But that isn't acceptable to many in the creationist and literalist Christian faction -- most liberals I know -- like many people (liberals and others) who have posted on this issue on this list -- would be fine with having science taught as science and philosophy and religion taught about.  Not all, but many.

The spin put on Bush's remarks by his science advisor sit well with most of us -- but not those on the Christian right.

Steve

On Aug 3, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Rick Duncan wrote:

Here is a very recent article on Phil Johnson, the man who put Darwin on trial and got a conviction! Here is a good excerpt:
 

Darwin on Trial is not just an attack on evolution, but on the very modern principles of science. Johnson believes Galileo and his descendants worked to solve the questions of our existence based on science, not faith, but that for several centuries since then, men of reason -- astronomers, mathematicians, philosophers -- have conspired to purge God from the handiwork of the universe. By the time Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859, the fatal blow had been cast.

"The very persons who insist upon keeping religion and science separate are eager to use their science as a basis for pronouncements about religion," he wrote. "The literature of Darwinism is full of antitheistic conclusions, such as that the universe was not designed and has no purpose, and that we humans are the product of blind natural processes that care nothing about us."


-- 

Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017

Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567

2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Washington, DC  20008   http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/


"If we are to receive full service from government, the universities must give us trained [people].  That means a constant reorientation of university instruction and research not for the mere purpose of increasing technical proficiency but for the purpose of keeping abreast with social and economic change. . . .  Government is no better than its [people]."


William O. Douglas


_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to