In advanced biology we have been talking about animal behavior, which to the biologist, is influenced by evolutionary processes - namely natural/sexual selection. This weekend I was listening to Radio Lab on NPR and this story came on. I found it very interesting, not only for some of the science tid-bits scattered about, but more so because of the (tragic) story of George Price. I don't think I am too far off base to say that to some (large??) degree what he attempted to do was live a Christ-like life. He failed as we all do.
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/dec/14/
Food for thought.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
I've been reading a bit about the life of Chuck Colson. Here is a post from a blog where the author reflects on Colson's statement that God is the explanation for everything. Check it out:
http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2008/02/the-explanation-for-everything/
His discussion at the end on natural vs. supernatural explanations is interesting to me. Here is the highpoint:
We apply the explanation that fits the question. If the question is how things interact on a natural level, then we ought to look for answers on the natural level. We certainly ought to follow that trail as far as it can take us. But there are limits to what science can investigate. It cannot speak to whether there is a God, or an afterlife, or human souls. It cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing, nor can it explain what is ultimately good, or what the purpose of existence is. For that, we must look to other types of explanation.
I absolutely do not object to searching for a natural theory of origins. (Wherever did I give anybody that impression?!)
I seriously doubt that science will succeed in that search (especially the origins of the cosmos and the first life), but I have no objection whatever to learning whatever we might be able to learn about them scientifically. My only objection is to some scientists’ insistence that the only possible explanation for everything must be naturalistic. This is scientifically and philosophically unsupportable, in the first place; in the second place, it defies knowledge we have of God and His work in the world.
http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2008/02/the-explanation-for-everything/
His discussion at the end on natural vs. supernatural explanations is interesting to me. Here is the highpoint:
We apply the explanation that fits the question. If the question is how things interact on a natural level, then we ought to look for answers on the natural level. We certainly ought to follow that trail as far as it can take us. But there are limits to what science can investigate. It cannot speak to whether there is a God, or an afterlife, or human souls. It cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing, nor can it explain what is ultimately good, or what the purpose of existence is. For that, we must look to other types of explanation.
I absolutely do not object to searching for a natural theory of origins. (Wherever did I give anybody that impression?!)
I seriously doubt that science will succeed in that search (especially the origins of the cosmos and the first life), but I have no objection whatever to learning whatever we might be able to learn about them scientifically. My only objection is to some scientists’ insistence that the only possible explanation for everything must be naturalistic. This is scientifically and philosophically unsupportable, in the first place; in the second place, it defies knowledge we have of God and His work in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)