Just What Are You Saying?

I read Susan Jacoby's article "Darwin The Disturber" today at the Washington Post site, having gotten there through a link from the blog "Indigenous Stranger".

There really was nothing new that I had not heard before. Just a collection and rehashing of all the old arguments. However, I was left with the impression that Jacoby really didn't have anything to say and has not yet found a place in herself to deal with Darwin.

I do have to give her credit for bringing to light an interesting observation. "Science is not really a way of "knowing" but a method of inquiry seeking knowledge that is never final and always modifiable by new discoveries."

Science is good. It has led to many great discoveries that have benefited all of us immensely. But it has serious limitations. It relies only on what can be physically observed and duplicated in a controlled environment. But not all of life can be explained in that way duplicated in a lab environment. In fact, only a small portion can. Only certain things can be discovered and verified by science.

I often wonder why some try to use science to disprove God or the authenticity of what is presented as historical fact in the Bible. Why is what is presented there not regarded as the observations of those present? Why are they mostly dismissed out of hand as fable and unprovable? To use this standard dismisses all of history. There is nothing of history that is observable, provable or able to be duplicated in a laboratory. There is nothing science can do to prove to us that the American Revolution took place. We have to rely solely on the observations and writings left behind of those who were present. Their observations are hardly scientifically sound or repeatable, yet we accept them, for the most part just quibbling about details.

Yet, if King David, or Moses, or even Adam and Eve themselves leave behind any kind of record, it is dismissed out of hand as fable. I can't prove its not, but is that really the point?

I suspect the obvious. The Bible and faith is dismissed because it contains an element a lot of people don't want to face. Me is not all there is. Me is not the center of life. There is accountability. There is inherent right and wrong that exists in a much larger scope and realm than we are willing to acknowledge. Because to acknowledge it means I must deal with it and let it deal with me.

I doubt we will ever see science explain love and why it exists and why it can be expressed in so many ways. If you think science will eventually unlock this mystery, then think about this. Do you really want to go home to your loved ones, your children, and explain to them that your love and care for them has no more significance than the random alignment of chemicals in your brain? Do you really believe that's all it is?

Life is more than what we can see and touch and feel through our physical senses. To not recognize this is to entirely miss the point of your existence and to relegate yourself and everything there is to meaninglessness.

So how do I deal with Darwin and that whole thing? I think he has interesting observations, some of them valid, but I think that whole thing is beside the point. A distraction. Like the wrong discussion to have in the first place.