Err, scanning actually, not reading (in my terms)
I thank that person who conveniently left a book on the table, which i would later use the other day. (I became a mainlibrat recently because i enjoy the aura of enthusiasm among the undergrad inside the main library compared to the tense and competitive aura at the law library. Furthermore, i look forward to my ten minute breaks reading on general information. I mean, what book breaks can i have in the law lib right?)
Anyway, the person i owe utmost gratitude to, left "The Origin of Species." Yes, Charles Darwin.
Okay, i learned that Mr. Darwin's dad wanted him to be a doctor. He went to Edinburgh for that but, reading between the lines, he didn't want medicine (baka nga delinquent pa e) and he instead focused on other things (na nerd pa rin). He wanted to become a clergyman instead, and for that, he went to Cambridge. There, guess what he did? He collected insects and studied them and noted the differentiated characteristics of each of their species. He married and spent the rest of his life in seclusion because of, yes, more nerdom.
In the latter part of his life he wrote the book. (Gusto ko lang itong isingit, kasi iniisip ko, pag scientist ka ba, kailangan ganon ka? Or nasa age of methaphysical search pa rin ba siya? Gusto ko ring maging scientist and contribute to this dying world.)
I've read the Bible and the book of Genesis, which narrates creation done in a week's time. This book and his later book, "The Descent of Man", outlines a painstaking evolution of current lifeforms.
Two chapters of the book deal with difficulties and objections to the theory of evolution, well, natural selection rather. This book is also (and obviously) full of assumptions and contradictions that Darwin himself didn't attempt to explain. He, himself, wrote in his book that he is ignorant about a lot of things and that he can't answer every difficulty just yet (or maybe never). He said, that how the eye focuses and adjusts depending on the amount of light present can never be attributed to natural selection, for example.
Since grade school, we discuss this theory and the impression i have is that evolution is so scientific, logical and rational. I read and get the idea that the Creation story is so backwards and irrational and the like. That the Bible was written ages ago and people then didn't have that much scientific knowledge. And my teachers take pains in having us bridge the gap, in our minds, Creation to the theory of evolution. So i have to think that God is not bound by days and the days may be millions of years and all that, just so they will not be contradictory. Or that the Genesis account should not be taken literally and that it makes use of figures of speech.
Or is it just me? But why? Why do we have to reconcile them in the first place?
Evolution is a theory and remains to be that to this day. A theory is just a model. Its a testable model which we can use to predict things but is in no way certain.
Take the Big Bang theory, as well, also a theory. That says, we all developed and came from a humongous explosion spreading matter throughout space. But scientific.
Isn't the Bible a product of social SCIENCE too? It was passed by oral tradition. Historical accounts are not expected to be totally accurate. I mean, even Philippine history is complicated by several historians who have different points of view.
Back to what i want to say, why that discrimination? Science vs. Theology.
You see, the Big Bang theory bridged to Darwin's natural selection is also irrational. How do you bridge the gap between non life to life? How do you explain why men still have mammary glands if there is indeed natural selection? Our appendices?
How do you explain how amazingly complicated our bodies have become? How can you not be in awe of how self regulating our bodies are? Goose bumps, our sebaceous glands, fever and our immune system, breathing, the valves that make our hearts and pulses beat. Man! I mean, man! These never fail to blow my mind away.
Isn't it all magical? In the same way that the Bible too is magical. So why regard the other less, when in fact, they're on the same footing? (I mean, in terms of being rational. Of course i'll say that the Bible is the most powerful book of all time.)
I don't understand why people will rather believe that noone powerful was responsible for these developments and that Big Bang to evolution happened on its own without any Godly intervention. Fine. And then say that this is SCIENCE. In the course of time, these happened, sans explanation.
Kasi ganito. Let things be, it's alright. It's science. Add God in the picture, it's irrational already. Di ba?
And i don't understand why believing that God had a hand in these things is what, unbelievable? Magic, irrational. While letting things happen on their own is more rational.
Aren't both situations (for lack of a better term in my mind) magical?
I have to clarify that i am not saying that just because we cannot explain things, the only thing left is that there is a God. No, that's not what i mean. What i'm saying is, pareho silang may magic e so why regard the other less.
But still i say, what pride to not accept that a God exists.
August 30, 2008
Err, scanning actually, not reading (in my terms)