clulup
Member
Registered: Jan 2003
Location:
Posts: 191 |
quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
The scientific method is not infallible. You seem to be claiming that it is. That designation is reserved for the Pope. Just ask him.
What I really like about the scientific method is that it is open to change, if new findings contradict what one has thought to be correct before.
quote:
I have no problems with the theory of evolution. I find it much more plausible than the theory of creationism.
Calling creationism a theory seems a bit unfair to me since it takes quite a lot of confirming evidence for an idea or hypothesis to be promoted to "theory", evidence that is completely lacking in the case of creationism
quote:
Personally, I find the story of creation interesting if interpreted as the Dawning of Human Consciousness.
I find another part of the Bible extremely interesting: The expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. In paradise, Adam and Eve had a nice life, they did not have to work hard and could walk around however naked they wanted, etc. Then, after Adam had eaten from the forbidden tree of knowledge, God said to him:
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
This fits perfectly to what we know about the development of mankind: Man started as a hunter-gatherer. When we look at the remaining societies of hunter-gatherers we still have on this planet, we see that their live is actually quite good: e.g. they get their work done in quite a short time, and have plenty of time to sit and talk, they live from meat to a large extent, so they have little problems with malnutrition, etc. - pretty much Garden of Eden. BTW also the need for vaccination was much lower then because the very low population density prevented epidemics to a large extent. The drawback is that the carrying capacity is low, birth control has to be strikt, the population cannot grow.
Compare this to agriculture, which was developed a few thousand years B.C. out of the hunter-gatherer societies: you can produce much more food per square mile of your territory in most ecosystems, but hey, plowing is a tough job without a tractor and weeding is hell without Roundup from Monsanto. Paradise lost, and pretty much how God described it to be for Adam, after he had eaten from the tree of knowledge....
Why didn't we all stay hunter-gatherers, wouldn't it be cool and much less complicated? Unfortunately, getting back there would involve getting rid of most of the people on this planet, which would not be a nice process either. And since by now we do have tractors and Roundup and medicine (at least some of us in some parts of the world), life is not so bad after all (at least for those who can afford tractors and Roundup and medicine).
|
09-13-2003 08:48 PM
Email This Page to Someone! |
Receive updates to this thread
]