The Question that apparently defeats the majority of people:
“If we discovered God is real… are we suddenly in a world of religion or science?”
How hard is that?
Yeah, this is real difficult. Doesn’t this just shipwreck the human intellect?
Well, it does if you are still foolishly clinging to certain outdated either/or propositions like Dan Abrams and Eugenie Scott.
If God is real then guess what—He created science too: gravitation, photosynthesis, leptons, mathematics, star dust, prime numbers and peas. He would have even created the science we haven’t discovered yet.
This is what is so bizarre: people actually think that if God exists (or was unilaterally proven to exist) then science would mystically and inexplicably vanish. That somehow gravity would stop or at least not be gravity as we know it, light would decelerate instantly, cell phones would suddenly fail, osmosis would freeze, milk and chocolate powder would no longer combine to make chocolate milk, and all emails would deactivate worldwide.
Even the mighty Xbox could not be countenanced to work if God was real.
As an adult if you actually think this way you are literally—not figuratively, not allegorically, but literally—an idiot.
And worse, there is little hope of you ever escaping the prison of your idiocy. If this describes you, you’re trapped.
If God is real then He’s real. He is religion, He is science, and He’s everything in between and beyond… and the only creatures who can’t figure that out are a bunch of brief, self-obsessed primates on a mote of dust afloat in the universe who aren’t big or wise enough to realize maybe something other than light can be a particle and a wave simultaneously.
Further, He was God for all those millions of eons before you existed and during your short, confused, agnostic tenure on the Earth. And science was still science throughout those ages too. You know, science was still science long before Mankind discovered it. In fact, science was science long before the Human Race showed up. It is the same thing with God. The only people baffled by this are the emotionally injured who cannot reconcile their abuses (read or imagined) with a proposed “God of love.”
I was watching Dan Abrams openly ridicule Stephen Meyer on The Abrams Report and side with Eugenie Scott over the issue of Intelligent Design, a proposition that maintains blind evolution and natural selection are insufficient to explain aspects of the universe. That’s it: a challenge to an existing and dominant scientific paradigm… remember when science used to do that—challenge itself?
Abrams’ hostility to the anti-establishment position challenging neo-Darwinian theory reminds one immediately of the smug intellectual climates surrounding Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and even Charles Darwin himself. Dan Abrams is yet another example of why we don’t let celebrities interpret data.
When any system gains control it wants to keep control, order the dialog and shape society into its image, good or bad, pious or perverse. Societies have been marred throughout history by religious fanatics, theocrats, monarchs, president, scientists, anarchists, racists, eugenicists, and the all-powerful state.
Remember: there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Here’s my own experience with people like Dan Abrams.
I remember in college I was doing some research wherein the teacher asserted “there was an uncontested consensus” on a certain geological process (which later would be proposed as the retromorphic model). I was writing a paper on this “uncontested consensus” when I discovered not just a few, but countless examples where this geological process didn’t manifest—same rock, same age, some topography, same environmental conditions.
So I went to my professor and I challenged the “uncontested consensus” and I was told and I quote: “Whatever doesn’t conform to the model just ignore, they are anomalies.”
What the *&#$?
Yes, you heard right. I was told the scientific consensus only works if non-conformist phenomena were excluded.
Now, here’s the chilling part. Did he twist his black moustache and snicker conspiratorially?—no. Did he quietly take me into a back room that had to be unlocked with a special key, and tell me this after a secret handshake?—no.
He didn’t even blink. To him, the way the model works is you reject anything that doesn’t conform to it and then happily declare unanimity to the theory.
In a comedic analog, that would be like saying “See, 100% of all birds are red.” Being the good little student you are, you count the birds and discover three things: 1) there 100 specimens; 2) 70 of them are red; but 3) 30 of them are blue.
You have falsified the claim that 100% of the birds are red.
The teacher smiles condescendingly at you, pats you on the head and says “No, you don’t understand: we don’t the blue ones.”
Anyone who actually thinks evolution and natural selection are not riddled with deeply perplexing mysteries, obstacles and even in some cases paradoxes, has never studied it on any scholastic level.
It reminds me of Niels Bohr’s famous 1927 quote “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory does not understand it.”
There are always people who will run to any new paradigm regardless of how illegitimate or unsubstantiated it is because they see in it a chance to be free from something a previous worldview required of them.
That and that alone is what drives the frightened man. An antelope runs from a lion not for fun but for fear of being devoured by it.