![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
An unexpected treat.
While cruising Google News, I stumbled across this article. Being that it came courtesy of NewsCorp, I was ready to be enraged, and sure enough, the first few lines of the article got me notably riled up. My intended line-by-line dressing down, however, isn't what I'm ending up writing. Okay, a quick snip - if God is omniscient and omnipotent, why does evolution have to disprove his existence? Couldn't you believe that he directed evolution to lead to the final result of humanity? I don't care if people believe in God, as personal beliefs are just that, but denying reality in favor of spiritual beliefs is a real societal problem. You must believe in evolution. It's true. If you want to believe in God, believe he directed it; disbelieving in evolution is just not an option. Also, natural selection is not "blind". The description you're looking for would probably be "not sentient". Blind is far from an appropriate term to describe the process.
One of these times I'll type up the simple paper dots and patterned fabric exercise that simulates natural selection. It's a great way to introduce the concept to those who've never seen/understood it before.
The anger at the intro to the article wasn't the surprising part, nor was the fact that I enjoyed Dawkins's piece. No, what stunned me was just how big I was smiling when I reached the end of the article. What Dawkins says in that article is not just correct, not just logical, but also utterly and completely beautiful. I honestly barked out a laugh of appreciation at "God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place." I've been joking lately about how I want a bumper sticker that says, "God is not dead!" and beneath that, in smaller letters, "He just never existed." Reading his part of the article was a bit like reading my own thoughts, and the idea that someone who is so prominent and in control of such pleasant prose is saying what I wish I had the platform to declare is very satisfying.
Read it. Think about it. Rejoice in the lovely, comprehensible, not at all theological or supernatural process that brought us to where we are and marvel at the scene outside your window, molecules, cells, electric impulses all working together to make the living world we inhabit.
Beautiful.
One of these times I'll type up the simple paper dots and patterned fabric exercise that simulates natural selection. It's a great way to introduce the concept to those who've never seen/understood it before.
The anger at the intro to the article wasn't the surprising part, nor was the fact that I enjoyed Dawkins's piece. No, what stunned me was just how big I was smiling when I reached the end of the article. What Dawkins says in that article is not just correct, not just logical, but also utterly and completely beautiful. I honestly barked out a laugh of appreciation at "God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place." I've been joking lately about how I want a bumper sticker that says, "God is not dead!" and beneath that, in smaller letters, "He just never existed." Reading his part of the article was a bit like reading my own thoughts, and the idea that someone who is so prominent and in control of such pleasant prose is saying what I wish I had the platform to declare is very satisfying.
Read it. Think about it. Rejoice in the lovely, comprehensible, not at all theological or supernatural process that brought us to where we are and marvel at the scene outside your window, molecules, cells, electric impulses all working together to make the living world we inhabit.
Beautiful.