My Story (Part 1)
This morning, as I open my eyes and greet the day, I am reminded of a distant time. A time where I could care less about the things of beauty, the things of this universe, the things of this life. I was so sure that I knew everything I needed to know at age 17 that it really didn't matter what arguments were made, I was not listening. Most of you might tune me out the same way I did everything else in those years of my life. I was selfish, but who can blame me? I was just the standard, post-modern, American rebel, skeptical of all things conservative and convinced that my autonomy would simply pave the way to all understanding. I was wrong! That's not being rational, that's just stupid. Again, however, who can blame me? I was just the standard, post-modern, American rebel, skeptical of all things conservative. A product of agendas, I was awash in a political stream of Neo-Darwinism, Planned Parenthood, and materialism.
Despite my best attempts, I was no individual. Who was I to define ethics? Who was I to say there is no God. My beliefs and presuppositions simply carried me to the next bong rip or one night stand. These are what shaped my worldview. My definitions of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny were crafted precisely so that I could watch as much porn as I wanted, smoke as much weed as I could afford, and sleep with as many girls as were interested. I was a master of impulse, an ardent epicurean. I could justify my pleasures without ever having to consider any consequences.
Yet, there I was one day, seated in Ms. Richlin's Earth Science class. I had failed biology twice, because I had no respect for my previous biology teacher. There was no greater pleasure than driving her out of her mind until she angrily threw me out of class. That's why I ended up with Ms. Richlin. She was young, more relatable, and always had Rush playing. I respected her. So one day, amidst her curriculum on evolution I noted a cross dangling from her neck. I think I was just trying to hear my own voice, but I raised my hand and asked, "How can you believe in God and evolution at the same time?" All the kids hushed and waited for her reply, "Nothing says you can't believe in both."
Wow... Now that I look back, I raised a huge theological question; calling into account the very nature of God. Was He a personal God, lovingly acquainted and concerned with His creation or was He an impersonal force, simply responsible for seeding life and allowing evolution to carry things forward? Without realizing it, I beckoned the entire class to consider open-theism and creationism, even if it was for only 10 seconds...
I agree with Ms. Richlin's response to an extent. I agree that science and religion are not at war with each other. They never have been! The sciences were founded under the notion that God had created an orderly universe and rational beings capable of understanding these principles that point toward, not away from Him. Again, science and religion are not diametrically opposed! What is opposed to religion, however, is the anti-theism that takes observable facts and places them into the model of theoretical pseudo-science, namely descent with modification, Darwinian theory.
I disagree with Ms. Richlin because, unlike those uncouth years, I have learned to think for myself. I do not believe that a dictionary could explode and create "Hamlet". No sooner could I accept Darwinian evolution, on the basis of rationality, than I would a tornado ripping through a junkyard and POOF! out comes a perfectly operational 747. It's illogical, and considering these are not even biotic organisms and we still need to account for the emergence of living things themselves, the whole theory is shot full of holes!
No wonder I failed biology twice! Our curriculum was mind numbing! Now don't take me the wrong way, I love the sciences, I love the complexity of cells, the galaxies of information needed for the human genome, and the miracle that is life, but they didn't teach that! Haeckel's embryos, the Stanley Miller Experiment, Lamarkism, I remember them ALL as reinforcing the Darwinian claim in my textbooks! ALL HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED! Yet, forced upon us as fact.
As an impressionable youth, it's all I knew. I believed evolution, because I was supposed to. I wasn't allowed to critically think, but why did I need to? Darwinism freed me from attributing anything to God, and therefore, eliminated any culpability I may have accrued. This is how I defined my origin. Regardless, of how wretchedly incomplete my philosophy was, I was the meaningless process of time and chance.
Yet, there I was one day, seated in Ms. Richlin's Earth Science class. I had failed biology twice, because I had no respect for my previous biology teacher. There was no greater pleasure than driving her out of her mind until she angrily threw me out of class. That's why I ended up with Ms. Richlin. She was young, more relatable, and always had Rush playing. I respected her. So one day, amidst her curriculum on evolution I noted a cross dangling from her neck. I think I was just trying to hear my own voice, but I raised my hand and asked, "How can you believe in God and evolution at the same time?" All the kids hushed and waited for her reply, "Nothing says you can't believe in both."
Wow... Now that I look back, I raised a huge theological question; calling into account the very nature of God. Was He a personal God, lovingly acquainted and concerned with His creation or was He an impersonal force, simply responsible for seeding life and allowing evolution to carry things forward? Without realizing it, I beckoned the entire class to consider open-theism and creationism, even if it was for only 10 seconds...
I agree with Ms. Richlin's response to an extent. I agree that science and religion are not at war with each other. They never have been! The sciences were founded under the notion that God had created an orderly universe and rational beings capable of understanding these principles that point toward, not away from Him. Again, science and religion are not diametrically opposed! What is opposed to religion, however, is the anti-theism that takes observable facts and places them into the model of theoretical pseudo-science, namely descent with modification, Darwinian theory.
I disagree with Ms. Richlin because, unlike those uncouth years, I have learned to think for myself. I do not believe that a dictionary could explode and create "Hamlet". No sooner could I accept Darwinian evolution, on the basis of rationality, than I would a tornado ripping through a junkyard and POOF! out comes a perfectly operational 747. It's illogical, and considering these are not even biotic organisms and we still need to account for the emergence of living things themselves, the whole theory is shot full of holes!
No wonder I failed biology twice! Our curriculum was mind numbing! Now don't take me the wrong way, I love the sciences, I love the complexity of cells, the galaxies of information needed for the human genome, and the miracle that is life, but they didn't teach that! Haeckel's embryos, the Stanley Miller Experiment, Lamarkism, I remember them ALL as reinforcing the Darwinian claim in my textbooks! ALL HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED! Yet, forced upon us as fact.
As an impressionable youth, it's all I knew. I believed evolution, because I was supposed to. I wasn't allowed to critically think, but why did I need to? Darwinism freed me from attributing anything to God, and therefore, eliminated any culpability I may have accrued. This is how I defined my origin. Regardless, of how wretchedly incomplete my philosophy was, I was the meaningless process of time and chance.
 |
| Ryan Jackson, 2002, Biology Class |
Comments
Post a Comment