|
|
 Acne (1,500)
Addictions (1,500)
Advice (1,500)
Allergies (1,092)
Alternative Medicine (1,500)
Anti Aging (1,500)
Breakup (1,500)
Cancer (1,499)
Dental Care (1,500)
Disabilities (1,500)
Divorce (1,500)
Elderly Care (1,498)
Goal Setting (1,500)
Hair Loss (1,500)
Health and Safety (1,497)
Hearing (1,500)
Law of Attraction (1,499)
Marriage (1,500)
Medicine (1,497)
Meditation (1,499)
Men's Health (1,500)
Mental Health (1,500)
Motivational (1,500)
Nutrition (1,495)
Personal Injury (1,499)
Plastic Surgeries (1,500)
Pregnancy (1,496)
Psychology (1,500)
Public Speaking (1,500)
Quit Smoking (1,500)
Religion (1,499)
Self Help (1,500)
Skin Care (1,500)
Sleep (1,500)
Stress Management (1,500)
Teenagers (1,492)
Time Management (1,500)
Weddings (1,500)
Wellness (1,500)
Women's Health (1,500)
Women's Issues (1,500)
|
Many are reluctant to reject evolution outright fearing they will undermine their intellectual credibility. However, it becomes problematic to posit any sort ofquasievolution because at some point, difficult lines must be drawn necessitating choices that seem to preclude any sort of "middle ground". For many claim they believe in evolution but NOT Darwin's strictlyatheisticsort. At this point, it becomes a different flavor of evolutionentirely.As such, why not just fabricateanothername for thisdistinctideology? For instance, if one is led to believe in evolution just enough so as to avoid jeopardizing his intellectual credibility but not enough to challenge his deep-seated religious convictions, he might believe any givenspeciescan evolve but outright rejectinter-speciesevolution. And also likely believe "man" was lovingly crafted by God Himself. In this way, God,whatever that might be to somebody, got the ball rolling such that evolution (of lower level organisms at least) becamenecessaryand "man" itself was specially created "as is, ready to go right out of the box!" Strictly speaking though, this is simply "creationism" all over again. For it is "God" Who simply paved the way for lower level evolution and custom engineered "man". In essence, Hecreated. So why not just call this "Creationism 2.0"? Carefully reflecting upon the beliefs of Francis Collins, the current Director of the National Institutes of Health, a seemingly insurmountable obstruction to believing in both evolutionandthe idea of a "God breathed soul" must be accounted for. In his book, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief", there is something crucial he fails to explain: if we evolved from primates, at whatdiscretepoint did "WE" attain our covetedsouls? If I were to investigate my family's genealogy, it seems going back far enough would produce forebears somethingless thanhuman. Oh how I grieve there being no chance to see them in the afterlifeonly because they lacked souls! Did God think about this? Now if one supposesprimateshave souls like "US", why would it stophere? Whatotherspecies might be endowed with souls as well? Mightmosquitoeshave them too? As such, from where do we derive our moral justification for putting OURSELVES above all other species if many of them have soulsjust like us? On the other hand, one can simply appeal to the unfalsifiable stand of, "well, that's just how God wants things!" The problem with this is it explains NOTHING. This type of view prohibits any sort of critical thinking.Perhaps that's just how God wants things?My own suspicion is "God" is simply a proxy for individual egos. In this case, how does "God"wantthings? However YOU say.
|
|
|
