Apr 17, 2007, 01:26 AM
|
1
#1 of 114
|
I'm moving this thread to Political Palace, as it's bound to become another debate between spiritualism and empyricism.
For the record I believe that evolution is part of a well laid-out plan.
But, by and large, arguing the origins of life is a moot point, at best. No living being was around then to present an accurate account, and the truth, no matter what it is, changes little about ourselves today. The only purpose for the argument's existence is so that one group can tell another they're wrong. Honestly, I don't care who's right, since it's not our past but our future that is of imminent concern.
This is why I like my own concept that God exists and that he/she/it allowed for evolution to exist as part of a natural process. Though we attest that we, mankind, were created in God's image, it's the height of both naivetee and vanity to presume that this refers purely to physical form. God created birds, insects and fish too; are they less worthy beings because they don't write books in testament to their own merit?
We have self-awareness. We are free to make choices. We have the ability to create our world around us. We learn; we pass these knowledges down through our offspring and the ages. We have the capacity for love, fear and all emotions in between, and through these experiences we grow and realize ourselves more fully. This is "being created in God's image". If Jesus ever walked among us, this is the message he surely intended to deliver, that we have such potential.
That's the process each species goes through as it realizes itself. That's what evolution is, and it can be as scientific or as divine as you individually choose. Why argue the semantics when it makes no difference in the ultimate outcome anyhow?
When you think about it, today's sciences were yesterday's faiths. Being right isn't as important as being understood.
Jam it back in, in the dark.
|