I heard a very learned man on the radio today. A professor of physics, astronomy and natural philosophy (I didn't realize you could have unnatural philosophy). He was explaining, as fact, his opinion on the origins of complex, intelligent life on Earth. Go to http://www.abc.net.au/brisbane/conversations and look for the interview with Marcelo Gleiser. Listen and marvel at the absurdity of an intelligent man describing the miracle of life as an aberration.
Here are some further examples of this man's outrageous folly. Life is a wonderful accident without purpose. This imperfect universe and the life in it are chance outcomes of random conspiracy. Humans are animated stardust. I have to stop. I want to use very strong language to condemn this nonsense.
I am not impressed by people who are "puffed up" with knowledge. I am a simple man so I like simple arguments. What is the origin of life? There are only two possible answers. God, or an accident.
I am not a product of chance. I am not an accident, and neither are you. God doesn't have accidents, and only fools deny the existence of a Creator.
You're so right. It always infuriates me too, how supposedly very intelligent people can make these arguments. Richard Dawkens is a good example. John Cornwell wrote a wonderful book called 'Darwin's Angel' in which he writes as Darwin's (and Dawkins's) guardian angel.It's such a joy to read - erudite and, because the criticisms are offered in a positive, gentle but incisively intelligent manner, they really hit the mark.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I've read (or at least read from) 'The GOd delusion', 'The end of faith' and "God is not great', and they are very flawed. To give just one example, they criticise people form not taking a scientific/ logical approach to every matter in their lives. But I would say that most of the issues and problems we face in life don't lend them,selbves to a scientific approach. A spiritual approach is necessary.
Talking about human power versus God's power, it's interesting to think about nuclear weapons. It's pretty darned impressive the destruction that can be wrought by a nuclear bomb. Maybe 'impressive' is the wrong word, as that implies something positive, and there's really nothing positive about nuclear weapons, but the point is that with nuclear reactions we are talking about virtually inconcievable power. How much more incocievable is it then, that the source of that power is the force that holds sub-atomic particles together. A nuclear reaction is basically the unleashing of that force. Not being a scientist, I'm open to argument about this, but that's my humble layperson's view. So anyway, it just makes me stand in awe of God. What kind of amazing strength and dexterity are we talking about here, when particles that are so small can be held together by such a force? Both the size and the force, on their own, are literaly inconcievable! It shows the phenomenon that William Blake talked about in his poem 'The tiger' in a new and interesting light:
ReplyDeleteThe Tiger
By William Blake
1757-1827
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIGER, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?
And what shoulder and what art
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand and what dread feet?
What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? What dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?
When the stars threw down their spears,
And water'd heaven with their tears,
Did He smile His work to see?
Did He who made the lamb make thee?
Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?