First,I think that to believe that a human eye, a fly's wings, the exact correct difference between sun/earth happened by accident is a lot bigger leap of faith!! I see the evolutionists as the biggest "True Believers"!(Because if they can't prove evolution as correct, they may have to admit to a Creator, which just jolly well lead to admitting that SOMEONE has a right to demand things of me!) Now to your question: 1)Autism: If caused or affected by environmental factors, there is no problem. The world was made, and if we wreck it, it is not the fault of the creator.
2 Any gene caused "mistake". If one believes that there is a G-d, and he has the ability to interfere in the world, we can assume that for some reason WHICH WE MAY VERY WELL BE TOO SMALL TO UNDERSTAND , G-d has his reason to create people whom others will see as less than perfect. Prehaps to prevent us from getting too damn self-assured!(Not to mention, the ability to teach man to think about others, show compassion, turn to him, etc.) Having to deal on a daily basis with someone with a mental illness (not Ricki) has taught me that I am not G-d. I can do everything "right", but the "stage dirrector" has given me a different role than that which I planned. I can not control another, but only live my life as best I can.I have to center on being the best I can be, not on dirrecting others.
Gosh Dave, you've opened a can of worms there! rickismom, i think there are often misrepresentations on both sides of this argument and as an someone of a scientific pursusuasion i am cautious of online debates as i am always terrified of sounding disrespectful which is certainly not my intention! However, i do feel i need to mention one asect which is often misrepresented as describing evolution which is the idea that species develop by "accident". Evolutionary theory in no way suggests things happen by accident, quite the opposite. The genetic changes which over time can cause changes in species and ultimately new species to evolve can and do occur by chance or environmental influence but this is quite different to accident. However, the theory of evolution is simply an explanation of how these changes either survive or do not. Those which are beneficial and lead to improved survival flourish. Thus to use your example of the human eye, eyes did not evolve by "accident". Rather a chance change in genetic makeup will have improved the earliest eyes making them more useful, thus those who had such eyes survived better. This process went on for countless generations with constant tiny improvements that led incrementally to the extraordinary complexity of the modern human eye. So far from being an accident, it is a natural process of selecting features which provemore beneficial to survival, hence of course why Darwin used the phrase "natural selection. (Interestingly Darwin never used the phrase "survival of the fittest" which is an unhelpful and misleading view of evolution.) Thus evolution describes a highly sophisticated system of incremental development, most certainly not an accident.
Those of a scientifc viepoint in fact feel no need to "prove" their point as unlike religious belief science does not rest on a predetermined belief that is set in stone and has to be defended, but on constantly honing theories based on emerging evidence. And there are few scientific theories that have as broad an evidence base as evolution. And of course, many people of faith have no problem seeing evolution as the mechanism through which God allowed life to develop - not a view i share, but one which i feel has a reasonable degree of coherency.
To come off my high horse and go back to Dave's point, evolutionists would argue that of course many disabilities are caused by these chance variations in genetic makeup and in previous generations this genetc diversity may well have led to a lowered chance of survival. It is a joyous thing that our society has itself (while still greatly imperfectly!)evolved to a point where this diversity can be valued. And of course there is a great cloud of shame over those scientists who historically, and occassionally still, try to use evolutionary theory as a way of jsutifying eugenic beliefs which are always in fact based on social and political prejudices and not on science.
Please read today's blog all. I did not write that, I picked it up to blog on, saved it, and blogger published it as if it were scheduled to publish ... sorry ... but your comments were fascinating nonetheless.
Gosh, my typing doesn't improve! In the interests of honesty, a friend has pointed out to me that i am mistaken and that Darwin did in fact use the phrase "survival of the fittest" though it is indeed generally frowned upon by modern biologists as being an unhelpful metaphor. My apologies for the error. kind regards Stephen
Hmn, even for an accidental post, this is pretty interesting ... (you CAN delete it if you want, you know!)
Leaving out various discussions on the errors of assumption that will inevitably be rife on such a topic (*sigh*), I thought I would post a link to a post I blogged on related to this, "Ecological Adaptation and Disability".
Given that humans must compensate for so many natural disabilities, it’s surprising that we will go out of our way to create additional disabilities for ourselves, those handicaps that are created by the social environments. The idea that people should be “independent” and not need things to enable us to function is wholly absurd. We all need other people and things to learn and to function; it’s the specifics that sometimes differ. These are artificial barriers to successful living, not natural barriers.
The human being as a species is simultaneously the most disabled and yet the most successful organism on the planet. We need to remember that, especially when we seek to pretend that disabled people are not “normal” people. Specific disabilities may not be average, but being disabled is inherently normal. You can’t get much more inherently disabled than being a naked ape outside of “Eden”.
7 comments:
First,I think that to believe that a human eye, a fly's wings, the exact correct difference between sun/earth happened by accident is a lot bigger leap of faith!! I see the evolutionists as the biggest "True Believers"!(Because if they can't prove evolution as correct, they may have to admit to a Creator, which just jolly well lead to admitting that SOMEONE has a right to demand things of me!)
Now to your question:
1)Autism: If caused or affected by environmental factors, there is no problem. The world was made, and if we wreck it, it is not the fault of the creator.
2 Any gene caused "mistake". If one believes that there is a G-d, and he has the ability to interfere in the world, we can assume that for some reason WHICH WE MAY VERY WELL BE TOO SMALL TO UNDERSTAND , G-d has his reason to create people whom others will see as less than perfect. Prehaps to prevent us from getting too damn self-assured!(Not to mention, the ability to teach man to think about others, show compassion, turn to him, etc.)
Having to deal on a daily basis with someone with a mental illness (not Ricki) has taught me that I am not G-d. I can do everything "right", but the "stage dirrector" has given me a different role than that which I planned. I can not control another, but only live my life as best I can.I have to center on being the best I can be, not on dirrecting others.
With the old "specially chosen" mumbo jumbo, no doubt...
Gosh Dave, you've opened a can of worms there!
rickismom, i think there are often misrepresentations on both sides of this argument and as an someone of a scientific pursusuasion i am cautious of online debates as i am always terrified of sounding disrespectful which is certainly not my intention! However, i do feel i need to mention one asect which is often misrepresented as describing evolution which is the idea that species develop by "accident". Evolutionary theory in no way suggests things happen by accident, quite the opposite. The genetic changes which over time can cause changes in species and ultimately new species to evolve can and do occur by chance or environmental influence but this is quite different to accident. However, the theory of evolution is simply an explanation of how these changes either survive or do not. Those which are beneficial and lead to improved survival flourish. Thus to use your example of the human eye, eyes did not evolve by "accident". Rather a chance change in genetic makeup will have improved the earliest eyes making them more useful, thus those who had such eyes survived better. This process went on for countless generations with constant tiny improvements that led incrementally to the extraordinary complexity of the modern human eye. So far from being an accident, it is a natural process of selecting features which provemore beneficial to survival, hence of course why Darwin used the phrase "natural selection. (Interestingly Darwin never used the phrase "survival of the fittest" which is an unhelpful and misleading view of evolution.) Thus evolution describes a highly sophisticated system of incremental development, most certainly not an accident.
Those of a scientifc viepoint in fact feel no need to "prove" their point as unlike religious belief science does not rest on a predetermined belief that is set in stone and has to be defended, but on constantly honing theories based on emerging evidence. And there are few scientific theories that have as broad an evidence base as evolution. And of course, many people of faith have no problem seeing evolution as the mechanism through which God allowed life to develop - not a view i share, but one which i feel has a reasonable degree of coherency.
To come off my high horse and go back to Dave's point, evolutionists would argue that of course many disabilities are caused by these chance variations in genetic makeup and in previous generations this genetc diversity may well have led to a lowered chance of survival. It is a joyous thing that our society has itself (while still greatly imperfectly!)evolved to a point where this diversity can be valued. And of course there is a great cloud of shame over those scientists who historically, and occassionally still, try to use evolutionary theory as a way of jsutifying eugenic beliefs which are always in fact based on social and political prejudices and not on science.
kind regards
Stephen
Please read today's blog all. I did not write that, I picked it up to blog on, saved it, and blogger published it as if it were scheduled to publish ... sorry ... but your comments were fascinating nonetheless.
Having just reread my entry above may i apologise for the horrendouse typos!
Stephen
Gosh, my typing doesn't improve! In the interests of honesty, a friend has pointed out to me that i am mistaken and that Darwin did in fact use the phrase "survival of the fittest" though it is indeed generally frowned upon by modern biologists as being an unhelpful metaphor. My apologies for the error.
kind regards
Stephen
Hmn, even for an accidental post, this is pretty interesting ... (you CAN delete it if you want, you know!)
Leaving out various discussions on the errors of assumption that will inevitably be rife on such a topic (*sigh*), I thought I would post a link to a post I blogged on related to this, "Ecological Adaptation and Disability".
Given that humans must compensate for so many natural disabilities, it’s surprising that we will go out of our way to create additional disabilities for ourselves, those handicaps that are created by the social environments. The idea that people should be “independent” and not need things to enable us to function is wholly absurd. We all need other people and things to learn and to function; it’s the specifics that sometimes differ. These are artificial barriers to successful living, not natural barriers.
The human being as a species is simultaneously the most disabled and yet the most successful organism on the planet. We need to remember that, especially when we seek to pretend that disabled people are not “normal” people. Specific disabilities may not be average, but being disabled is inherently normal. You can’t get much more inherently disabled than being a naked ape outside of “Eden”.
andrea
Post a Comment