A note
This is in response to a recent post made by Ziztur. Followers of my blog: You shall see many of these. I would rather post them through my blog then just add comments to hers.
"Dr. Harrub went on to say that in schools and colleges, young people are only being taught one theory of origins, which is that the universe came about via the Big Bang and that Evolution by Natural selection is the cause of the diversity in life we see in the world. He says that this theory (which is actually theories, BTW) does not answer these questions:
1.Who am I (and what am I worth)?
2.Where did I come from?
3.Why am I here?
4.Where am I going when I die?
The various naturalistic scientific theories about how the universe operates does not answer the first or third question per se, but that is not the point of naturalism. It does, however, answer the second and fourth. the first and third questions are easily answered by individuals, so I don't really understand the implication here that since naturalistic theories of origins are incapable of answering 1 and 3 that they are somehow inadequate... "
I believe, my dear, we have a case of confusion as to what the questions are truthfully asking. In a rather factual conversation, he is asking semantic questions. While "Who am I" is easily answered by a general person, "what am I worth" is a semantic question that seems rather out of place in a conversation speaking about Evolution. Of course, these questions cannot be answered by people simply because they are of two different genres altogether. It seems as if, in a conversation about trains, the person is asked "yes, but what about the question of peanuts? Why is that not answered by the facts of trains?"
Evolution is a conversation as to how the world came to be, not about why the world came to be, in this Alien's opinion. If speaking in a completely evolutionary text, the four questions could easily be answered in a non-semantic way. Who am I? The Alien. What am I worth? Depends on if you consider worth to be monetary, or perhaps of a certain aspect or caliber of a person such as "selflessness". Where did I come from? Well, most can answer with a certainty about their parental lineage, however this Alien will refrain from answering that one currently. Why am I here? Well, does one mean place, or period of life? Where am I going when I die? Well, where everyone else in body-form goes, into the ground or into a burner!
These questions are easily answered in a conversation about evolution. They of course, are much harder in a conversation of semantics. However the above questions posed by Dr. Harrub, were mixing two different conversations in one, meant to confuse and inspire faulty thinking related to evolution. A shame.
"Dr. Harrub went on to say that in schools and colleges, young people are only being taught one theory of origins, which is that the universe came about via the Big Bang and that Evolution by Natural selection is the cause of the diversity in life we see in the world. He says that this theory (which is actually theories, BTW) does not answer these questions:
1.Who am I (and what am I worth)?
2.Where did I come from?
3.Why am I here?
4.Where am I going when I die?
The various naturalistic scientific theories about how the universe operates does not answer the first or third question per se, but that is not the point of naturalism. It does, however, answer the second and fourth. the first and third questions are easily answered by individuals, so I don't really understand the implication here that since naturalistic theories of origins are incapable of answering 1 and 3 that they are somehow inadequate... "
I believe, my dear, we have a case of confusion as to what the questions are truthfully asking. In a rather factual conversation, he is asking semantic questions. While "Who am I" is easily answered by a general person, "what am I worth" is a semantic question that seems rather out of place in a conversation speaking about Evolution. Of course, these questions cannot be answered by people simply because they are of two different genres altogether. It seems as if, in a conversation about trains, the person is asked "yes, but what about the question of peanuts? Why is that not answered by the facts of trains?"
Evolution is a conversation as to how the world came to be, not about why the world came to be, in this Alien's opinion. If speaking in a completely evolutionary text, the four questions could easily be answered in a non-semantic way. Who am I? The Alien. What am I worth? Depends on if you consider worth to be monetary, or perhaps of a certain aspect or caliber of a person such as "selflessness". Where did I come from? Well, most can answer with a certainty about their parental lineage, however this Alien will refrain from answering that one currently. Why am I here? Well, does one mean place, or period of life? Where am I going when I die? Well, where everyone else in body-form goes, into the ground or into a burner!
These questions are easily answered in a conversation about evolution. They of course, are much harder in a conversation of semantics. However the above questions posed by Dr. Harrub, were mixing two different conversations in one, meant to confuse and inspire faulty thinking related to evolution. A shame.


