You know, there's always been one thing that really bothers me. Why can't people accept evolution and natural selection? From the very beginning, the thinking world has been split between Darwinism and The Unexplainable-popping-out-of-the-Earth Theory.
I've began taking sides in my arguments not long ago, because, out of the 30-odd posts I have here and the 50-odd posts in my non online blog(a.k.a. diary), I've come to terms with the fact that fact is factual, as a matter of fact. Science has proven itself time and time again to be the superior tool of learning.
But then all of a sudden, I was faced with a man who I consider to be my spiritual adviser(since I have no knowledge and absolutely detest that field) handing me facts in the form of layman terms. So what I was seeing is, the same principles of physics and chemistry but spoken without using a single scientific term!
It hit me in that instant that science isn't an absolute truth. It is a WAY of explaining the universe using TERMS that humans can relate too. It's good in a way. This way people get a uniform understanding of the universe, without confusing a metre for a foot, and such other problems.
A metre is the S.I. unit for length. But what it really is is the distance traveled by light in
an absolute vacuum in
precisely 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.
Without humans, there isn't much need for a metre is there? I don't think zebras and leprechauns are going to be measuring that much. But because we're all a little curious and sometimes actually need something measured, we just pull things out of the air and coin terms like 'metre' or 'second'.
Non scientific explanations of the universe on the other hand are vague and often contain hidden messages. Take for instance the creation of the Earth(or was it the universe?) in seven days. When I ask believers of this statement, they say it wasn't meant to the same lenght of time as a day is today. So technically not the '24' day, but the length of time a day used to be before we came along and labelled it '24' hours long. I get it.
But this just makes non-scientific methods of learning vague, and thus all the misinterpretations. To me, that just reaffirms my belief that science is a better tool of learning. You get the facts delivered to you the best, and most standardized way possible. Its a little more difficult than reading a book that explains things in laymans terms, but there won't be much room for misinterpretation.
A lot of people tell me (in an indirect way) that trying to explain the beginnings of the universe and disprove religious beliefs is very bad thing to do. And I might end up in hell if I do. Here is my reply, most parts quoted off Lyell:
Never has there been a dogma so calculated to foster indolence and blunt the sharp edge of curiosity!
Forget it, I'm still booked for Hell ain't I?
After all, God is Great. He'll give you life and joy and all that. All he asks in return is that you follow all his little rules. Otherwise, He'll send you to a place where you'll burn forever. And when the skin is burnt off your bones, a new layer will replace it to be burnt again and again.
But remember, He loves you!
(Special thanks to Gurdave for that bit of knowledge)
