Are You A Man or A Monkey ?A Disturbing Movement of Anti-Intellectualism in America”It’s more valuable to see with the eye in one’s heart, rather than see with the eye in one’s head.”The epic crusade of science and technology versus theology, bothreligions of sorts dating back in time more years than any of us can begin tocomprehend. Maybe that is why, as a whole, we have such a difficult timediscerning between the two, or rather, why we fail to see clearly the truemeaning that lies behind the propaganda of either. The arguments on either side are significant and carry as much reasonand weight as the other. Thus, we simply cannot refuse to make a judgmentbefore looking critically into the logistics surrounding the propaganda of eachtheory.
God’s diplomats, the Bible-thumping, prophesizing blow-hards muchlike Brady in Inherit the Wind, are as much the bigoted and biased,sacrilegious and amoral attention-seekers as they proclaim the evolutionists tobe. However, their chosen doctrine cannot be overlooked, as I myself amdeeply devoted to it’s teachings. Brady and others like him fight from thebackbone of Faith. I don’t believe in the literal deciphering of the Bible, butthat it is a book of ideals that we must trust in it’s veracity. It isn’t meant to be explained! Ironically, the thing that people are the most hungry for, meaning, is the one thing that science hasn’t been able to give them. Enter God, the meansthat mankind has clung to for purpose. If there isn’t a God, does that meanthat 95% of the world is suffering from some sort of mass dillusion? Theremay be a thousand arguments against there being a supreme being that we canthink of, but it’s all those reasons that we cannot think of that allow him tocontinue to exist as a necessity in our hearts and minds.
True, in the pastGalileo, Copernicus and others have proven that the Church can be wrong –and I agree. Yet the Church, like humanity, has the right to make a mistakeand reassess their beliefs. It doesn’t mean all they say is false, not at all! I couldn’t imagine living in a world where God didn’t exist — I wouldn’t wantto.Turn around 360 degrees and you are back facing the same direction,now science lies in front of you where religion so recently resided.
Politics,science, philosophy, theology, technology — it’s so easy to become confused. Science is a truth, no matter how adamantly we decree it otherwise. If wewere the center of the universe (as the Bible mandates), if we were all therewas — it’d be an awful waste of space.
Think about it, what is morereasonable; that an all-powerful, mysterious God created the universe andthen decided not to give any proof of his existence, OR, that he simplydoesn’t exist at all and that we created him so that we wouldn’t feel so smalland alone. Proof? What is faith more than a sense of adventure, of risk. Science strives for reason and truth, hard evidence and fact, and right now weare merely in a technological adolescence. Brady’s argument portraysscience as being purely practical, even profitable. In as sense, doing awaywith all pure research. In Inherit the Wind, Drummond replies sarcasticallyto this belief of Brady’s that “It frightens me to imagine the state of learningin this world if everyone had your driving curiosity.” After all, what are wehere for? To watch television, drink Coca-Cola and eat McDonald’s? No! Aship in the harbor may be safe, but that is not what a ship is built for. Wemust pursue our need for knowledge, and if this means going against anypreconceived notions we fostered in accordance to a God, so be it.
To goforward, we must sacrifice.All in all, despite any persuasive contentions either way, I’ve fosteredmy own belief in the matter. That, as a scientist you can believe in God andas a devout you can entertain evolution. Forget the book of the Lord or thebook of Darwin, in my book they are two totally separate things. Noscientific theory, including evolution, can pose any threat to evolution — forthese two tools of human understanding are parallels, and not opposites, eachin their own separate realms.
Science is simply an inquiry into the facts andnature of the world, while religion is a search for ethics and morals. Theyshould be equal, mutually respecting partners, each the master of its owndomain, each vital to human existence in its own way. The wholecontroversy over evolution is misguided, for science without it is likechemistry without the periodic table or history without George Washington. Accepting evolution isn’t rejecting religion. Both can, and should exist inharmony, and the powers that be should let the individual decide where hisinterests may be focused.