Question Marks
Posted: Tuesday, February 10, 2009
by Sara O'Rourke
The universe is a constant reminder of the vastness of that which we do not know; we've never reached our closest star. In the smaller picture, things are no less complex. Our chemistry, biophysics and psychology are largely unexplored and unexplainable areas of study. Just how perfectly and sucsinctly everything seems to function makes you question how coincidental our presence on this planet really is.
Darwin knew that the human eye would be the biggest target for his hungry critics. Even over millions of years, a compartmentalised organ with such specialised cells in close proximity would be a long reach.
However, even when the world appears to be too large a pill to swallow, science prevails with its slight of hand. Science has attempted to crush all surviving routes for religious evolutionaries to scurry down. The eye, one of its ultimate hurdles, was no exception. They say that the theory that it was created by an intelligent designer doesn't really work in this case - doesn't sit quite comfortably. There are many faults, or rather, imperfections with the structure of the eye. Thus, if it were truly God's creation, it wasn't a very good idea. Moreover, according to one scientist's calculations, a mere 364,000 years would have been required for a camera-like eye to develop from a light-sensitive grouping of cells.
It urges you to really re-evaluate to which you pertain your faith; to religion and philosophy, or to science? Will science conquer all and leave us with no room to question, or is the volume of unknown always going to prove to great to unmask completely? If the latter, what is the point in understanding some, when it can't help you understand it all? Will it not simply turn into an itch that scientists will always need to scratch, and will therefore never disappear?
Question marks are irritating.
Were we made to be curious creatures? Is all this searching a waste of time?
Full stops are much more comforting.
This Article has been viewed 2,709 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (7 total)"it would be absurd to assume it was all down to chance evolution"It would be absurd to assume it was all done to chance alone, but evolution is not just chance - natural selection is is the very opposite of random chance!"Something as complex as the eye is surely too advanced to have arisen and developed purely by the forces of evolution"Hardly...even Darwin himself gave a strong explanation of the evolution of the eye."However, even when the world appears to be too large a pill to swallow, science prevails with its slight of hand."How is science using "slight of hand"? That suggests intentional deceit, which is not part of the scientific method."Will science conquer all and leave us with no room to question, or is the volume of unknown always going to prove to great to unmask completely? If the latter, what is the point in understanding some, when it can't help you understand it all?"I don't understand this at all - you think that if it is impossible to know *everything* we may as well know *nothing*?Without modern science and the technology it has enabled, the world would not be able to support its current population. There would be more suffering in the world.If this Universe is God's creation, and created for us, why would you not want to explore and understand it as much as you can, even if you can never hope to understand it all?Science tells us about the reality of the marvellous universe we find ourselves in. It doesn't require your faith - the universe is as it is whether you believe it or not and whether you understand it or not - so you can still devote your faith to God."Were we made to be curious creatures?"Well, as a species we ARE curious creatures, so if God made us then yes, we were made to be curious. If we are God's creatures then shouldn't we seek to understand and thrill at as much of His creation as possible?"Full stops are much more comforting."Are they though?Death is the ultimate full stop, and the idea of it isn't comforting to most people (unless they suffering and hope for release).The unknown can be uncomfortable, which is why we seek to make it known - by extending the boundary of what is known, we reduce the amount of the uncomfortable unknown!I recognise that there is explanation even for the evolution of the eye, and I've written about it above so I don't understand you highlighting this. Second, yes, I think science can be deceitful. At the end of the day, science has no proof, especially with regards to things such as evolution, to bring them to a conclusion which is beyond doubt. There is evidence to support it as a theory, of course, but you can find evidence to support anything. I think that science can be used to try and draw people away from alternative theories, such as the religious one. You've understood perfectly well what I said in my next point. If understanding bits and pieces will not aid us in understanding the whole, there is little point in devoting our lives to finding answers. I did not specifically intend to mean medicine or other sorts of technology, but more the exploration of the universe. If you really think about it, we have invented and created a lot of medicines ourselves. We may understand our chemistry, but a medicine is not going to give us any clues as to how we came to be etc. So, knowledge may help us in the present but is not going to answer any bigger questions. We may lose the desire to question knowing that it is ultimately not worthwhile, that it is a task that will never be completed. It's bigger than us. I'm interested in why we would be made to be curious... when it isn't going to change our circumstances significantly, especially from a religious point of view. Won't curiosity just steer many off the course of Christianity? I think that full stops are generally more comforting in the longrun. They leave no room to doubt or be indecisive. They may mark the end, but at least you will not suffer from not knowing what awaits you. If you are never sure, maybe you will never live, for you'll never feel the pressure on you that life is not unlimited. And, as you said, by trying to understand more and more and making more 'known' to us, we are changing the many question marks into full stops. Thanks for your comment!"I recognise that there is explanation even for the evolution of the eye, and I've written about it above so I don't understand you highlighting this"Because you said "Something as complex as the eye is surely too advanced to have arisen and developed purely by the forces of evolution".The fact that there is evolutionary explanation for the eye at all demonstrates that the eye is not too advanced to have arisen and developed purely by the forces of evolution. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but the existence of an evolutionary explanation shows that at the very least it could have."There is evidence to support it as a theory, of course, but you can find evidence to support anything. I think that science can be used to try and draw people away from alternative theories, such as the religious one."A scientific theory is a very solid construction, nothing like the "casual speculation" implied by day-to-day use of the word theory.Scientific theories have to be demonstrated as able to make accurate predictions, and must fit the available evidence (if new evidence comes in that doesn't fit the theory then the theory needs to be discarded or thrown out).You can't find *scientific* evidence to support anything you want; many theories are incompatible with the evidence and therefore get discarded - that's how science works.It is better to understand a few parts of the whole than to understand nothing, even if we can't understand the whole either way.A medicine won't give us clues on how we came to be, but molecular biology has given us those clues (and has given us clues that have improved our medical understanding too!).By gaining the knowledge to answer one question we often open up new questions we can ask ourselves.By asking questions, finding answers and with them new questions to ask, we increase our understanding of the awe-inspiring universe we are in, bit by bit.Perhaps one day we'll have enough well understood bits to start putting together a better picture of the whole, perhaps not.Perhaps it is impossible to see the big picture, but we can't know until we try, and what a picture it must be so why not strive to see it,? Even if we never do, we see beautiful fragments along the way!If we stop, full stop, how can we move forwards?Would you consider religion to be just as deceitful as you feel science can be in the way it tries to draw people away from alternative theories, such as scientific ones?Well played. I think that at the end of the day, religion's version of the creation of the world, for example, is very much accepted by the majority as one big metaphor... although there are some people who do believe it literally, the fact that God created earth in seven days is a bit out there. Still, the Christian version does overlap somewhat with science, in as much as for example the sequence of the world's creation. First came the earth, then the plants, then the animals, and then man. Sometimes I feel as if at least science is always attempting to find the truth through hard evidence, whereas religion has had the same theory for thousands of years, and that therefore it is a more credible and reliable option. There again, sometimes I also feel that religion's theory offers the easy option by answering all questions. It is set out sequentially and isn't subject to change or adaptation. It's occasionally easier to try and accept something like this just because it's a theory that doesn't make you want to know any more, if that makes sense. I'm not sure if I have a real opinion on this topic, but I think about it every day. 'God' does exist, perhaps, but rather than being a particular person or entity, it is in fact a word that should describe all that which we do not know and that came before. What are your thoughts?
I think you have brought up some very interesting ideas and questions, Sara. I have and want only my Bible to rely on. God created man in His image, so yes, we are intelligent and therefore curious and question, and seek answers. I believe that without God there would be no science. And had we not gotten ourselves kicked out of the Garden of Eden, who knows how different our lives and bodies may have been.Thanks for bringing this out for debate.Sandra
Sara,Very interesting article. Does make one stop and think. I loved the example of the eye.Thank you for sharing this,Nancy
Sara, well-written and presented cases for speculation and debate for many. Not having answers to mysteries or the unknown doesn't upset my balance. Question marks can be entertaining food for thought when one is desiring to keep an open mind. I'm convinced a mere mortal will never be able to answer questions about the origin of man. If the eye is so complex, add the remaining anatomy and physiology — it's inconceivable, incomprehensible and impossible for our finite minds to fully comprehend. And in my humble opinion, points directly to a Creator, the one I worship: God. Full stop.
SaraConsider this,There are several thousand different Gods, but most people only believe in one of those, discarding the rest to disbelief.A famous atheist once said, " I merely believe in one less God than you"I believe what I choose to as does everyone else in the absence of proof. My God is one who perhaps assisted in terraforming this planet. It's a little out there but then if you take a peep at some of the many thousands of 'God' options, it's less out there.I remain open minded and I do believe, I just recognise my belief is my choice and the answers will remain unknown in our lifetime.
hi sara,the mere fact that you wrote what you did, shows you have the answers in your head, you just aren't sure which side to believe.i just let science and religion co-exist. i have the right to believe as i choose, and i do so. no one has all the answers, so how can any preach the truth? is it the truth, or their beliefs? i think if we keep our own belief system in tact and strong, and live our lives wisely, trying to gain what we can in our choices of happiness, and what afterlife will be , will be. doesn't need to concern us now. day by day we grow older and closer to our departure, to live so with confidence and desire, intelligence, wisdom, which is learned through experience, curiosity, and faith, is to live a full life.if you watch a movie you've seen 10 times because you love it so much, do you not enjoy it even though you know the ending? watching is like us living.we know we're going to die, but we can enjoy our experiences along the way.thanks for a great artice, and well written,my best to you,sue
Sara,
"Just how perfectly and sucsinctly [sic] everything seems to function makes you question how coincidental our presence on this planet really is."
I'm not sure what this statement means or how it relates to that which comes before; however, our "coincidental . . . presence" has often been brought to light by many. Consider the following, if it all made sense, what would we learn? We learn best within our imperfection, struggling against the challenges to learn, to learn lessons of depth and import that rarely come from ease. It is dire circumstance that instructs best, not our monthly trips to Disneyland."although there are some people who do believe it literally, the fact that God created earth in seven days is a bit out there."We as beings of infinite ignorance and limitless powerlessness, often think of what can be done through out limitations. Consider that God, for those who believe, created the universe and everything in it, functions on a level we could never understand in our current, limited state. So we could never understand the earth being created in seven days. But He of supreme power and knowledge could. Also, time and its measuring is very subjective. It is humans in their limitations who measure it as such: seconds, minutes, hours, and so on. Who knows how God perceives time? According to Einstein, time is relative and a much more abstract, intangible concept than we humans can readily understand. Maybe God lives on a planet in which a day, relatively speaking, lasts years, a planet considerably larger than ours. Even in our solar system days, or their length, are relative depending on the planet's size, rotation, and so on.
I often find it humorous, that humankind reasons so poorly with such limitation and poo poos ideas that they can't understand in their limitation. But what is most interesting, is that those who understand this and come out from their limited bias often excel and exceed most other humans.
The Hindu, Buddhist, and especially Zen Buddhist state that all earthly desire and want is but distraction from eternal truth, that which outweighs its earthly kin exponentially, thousands of times over. If we could figure it all out, what would happen to faith, that muscle that needs to be flexed to learn love, compassion, understanding, patience, eternal lessons, knowledge of gold--a pricelessness that can only be perceived in its true form by a more informed or evolved being. Perhaps even a being that is not human, as some believe, a human who needs additional insight, intelligence, and understanding. Perhaps that which can only be understood in an more evolved, non-mortal state.
Thanks for the thought provoking article.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.