Academic Inquisition in the 21st and a half Century (Part 1/2)
*******************************************************************************************
DISCLAIMER: POST CONTAINS RELIGIOUS/ CONTROVERSIAL CONTENT; LEAVE PRECONCEPTIONS HERE. AUTHOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR BRUISED EGOS AND HURT FEELINGS
*******************************************************************************************
It's been too long since my last post, and now that I have some thing important to talk about, I felt the need to post, note that in this post I am defending the Christian viewpoint of the origin of everything, since I am a Christian.
Academic Freedom. We all are (or at least should be) familiar with it's meaning. The freedom that we have the right to choose what and why we believe.
We mistakenly believe that we have this in the classroom. However; in my experience, and that of many others, it is very clear that this is not so, one particular issue is the clearest example today.
The issue in question? Evolution vs Intelligent Design (Creationism).
Let's start with a little context:
Concerning Creationism: In the '90's and the early part of the 21st century, we have, as a society, systematically removed God from school. Consequently, Creationism was removed as well, and now both are considered academic folly. This theory posits that an Intelligent Designer, existing outside of space and time, created the universe, and all objects inside said universe, and manipulated the circumstances so that life could develop.
Concerning Evolution: Theory based on Charles Darwin's studies. This theory posits that all life on Earth is descended from a common mother organism, and that said organism came to live on Earth via unknown means. This theory relies on Natural Selection, which states that any inadequate traits are weeded out naturally by selective reproduction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now then, back to the heart of the matter. If academic freedom were truly allowed, then we would be allowed to study both, and freely be able to arrive at a conclusion of our own choosing.
This is not the case; instead, anyone who even so much as mentions God or Creationism, is ridiculed and labeled an academic failure that thinks the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Conversely; if a person (student or otherwise) believes in Evolution, he or she is accepted as a normal human being. Even if the person's only real reason for believing in Evolution is "just because"
Let's look at the arguments for both sides in a very simplified manner to see which makes more sense:
God, existing outside the universe, creates and manipulates said universe, making said universe habitable, and subsequently created life.
Time and space have a definite beginning, most likely billions of years ago.
All life was created; with room to adapt to changing circumstances.
Evolution via Big Bang: (Because Evolution does not explain the origin of the universe)
The universe is the result.....something (since there is no general consensus, just that God is not the something in question), and that this universe by self-arrangement, is habitable.
All life on Earth originated from a common ancestor, and that said ancestor either arrived via a celestial body, or developed naturally.
All life on Earth has progressed via the weeding out of bad/ defective genes and traits.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about you, and in fact, I encourage you to make up your own mind, after conducting the relevant research on your own; but to me, Evolution has quite a few holes in the theory, let's take a look:
Origin of the universe: There are varying theories here, from parallel membranes colliding to a gravitational singularity. All have one thing in common, God did not play a role here, it all just happened on it's own. Needless to say, it is impossible by any definition of the word, for parallel universes or membranes to interact. If there was a gravitational singularity, then the universe could not have existed, since the singularity would have collapsed everything on itself.
Habitability of the Universe: Evolution argues that the Earth is an aggregate of, for lack of better term, celestial leftovers and happened to do so in just the right place for organic life to develop. All of this happens without an Intelligence behind it. If this was the case, then why is there no other planet in the habitable zone capable of supporting life?
Natural Selection: Unnecessary or bad traits are filtered out by not allowing the organism with these traits to reproduce. If this is the case; why do we have amazingly complex creatures such as the fire beetle? The entire species would have died within a few generations due to being eaten and self-immolation trying to get the mixture just right to not burn itself. Clearly science has yet to explain this to us,
What lies at the heart of this argument is human pride and arrogance, especially in the academic community. Have you ever noticed that the most humble and open-minded people tend to not have advanced studies while academia tends to, as a whole, tend to be close-minded and condescending? Some (like a certain host of the Cosmos reboot) think that religion is a holdover for the uneducated, and that the fact of the matter is that science will transform all who study it into atheists eventually.
And there is where I base my argument on why Evolution is so prevalent. Scientists are like peacocks, strutting themselves to gain recognition, consequently, when one gains recognition, others try to emulate that scientist, down to that one, particular, scientist's beliefs.