The Bible Is a Parable: A Middle Ground Between Science and Religion
depth. Some of these one-celled things eventually became aware of this added good.
Inevitably also it would seem, some developed the ability to discern the direction from
which it came, and they reaped an abundant advantage.
Science has extrapolated that this crude light sensitivity was the foundation stone of
all physical sight. But this beginning awareness of the direction from which light came is
a far cry from the visual acuity that we now have. |
This is Darwin‘s incrementalism spread over the vast geological record of 250 million
plus years, time enough even for radical change.
Now I wonder about this construct called mind being like an inner eye. Has the mind
evolved to give input to the brain in even greater depth than the eye was engineered to
do? The eye views the physical world and we have used the philosophical understanding
of sight to obtain a view into the world of meaning. The mind seems to have evolved to
interpret this world, and have we also used it to develop the ability to peer ever more
deeply across ours, and into the margins of the world of this Essence that we discern so
But I seemed to have digressed again, but what a digression!
As is obvious I do not agree with many of the ways that David Berlinski attempts to
disprove a positive through the use of a negative. But within many of t he things that he
has cited in his essay, I see the glimmer of hope for a positive proof of Intelligent Design,
in the context of how I understand this term. I would hope that he might be encouraged to
sift through that verbiage for those hidden -gems | to flesh out that positive support.
I hope that it is additionally obvious that I am also heartily in disagreement with the
egocentric postulations of those atheistic scientists, some of whom he has cited here. I
have a question for them. If everything has happened by the purest of chance, is it also by
that same vehicle that you have made your discoveries, and drawn your own conclusions?
And why should we allow those who appear to be as blind as we, or even profoundly
more so, to lead us where we would hesitate to venture ourselves?
Berlinski concludes with a quote from Richard Feynman, -Today we cannot see
whether Schrodinger‘s equation contains frogs, musical composers, or morality. |
Then one of his own, -The remark [in Feynman‘s lecture on turbulence] has been
widely quoted. It is honest. The words that follow, however, are rarely quoted. =We
cannot say whether something beyond it like God is needed, or not. And so we can all
hold strong opinions either way.‘ |
Berlinski seems to sum up with, -We are where human beings have always been,
unable to place our confidence completely in anything, unable to place our doubt
completely in everything, unsure of the conveyance—and yet conveyed. |
To which I would add an understanding gained from a Feynman essay on fracta l
geometry concerning fluid turbulence. Within the seeming chaos of random movement,
there is an almost undetectable underlying order discoverable only through far closer
observation than has been available to us, until now.
The best of science‘s newest instruments of measure are just now beginning to open
the door to that which seems at the very foundation of everything that is knowable.
Experimental science has been the twentieth century‘s engine of discovery. But science
hasn‘t done it alone. It has built itself upon the anciently broad shoulders of all the
previous systems of belief (the acceptance of a proposition with proof insufficient for