To be or not to be...


Many people have written me asking about certain instances of god. I did not put them in my essay because the point of my essay is not to show that god as anything more than a starter is inconsistent with the universe around us, it is to show that god as a starter is at best a questionable hypothesis, the effects of godless existence are not catastrophic, and that religion can serve good but generally is counter productive to the advancement of man.

If you are one of the many who believe in god as something more than a starter then, in my opinion, you either have not bothered to research the evidence for that belief or have chose to ignore it for some reason. I am not a microbiologist and, though I truly enjoy theoretical studies, I am not yet a quantum physicist. Therefore, I cannot fully counter every single example anyone may bring to possible disprove how science attempts to explain the universe.

However, scientific method is sound and there are plenty of people who are indeed qualified and have spent much of their time proving what the scientific community now believes. I accept it as true because I accept the methodology as true and I don't believe that the entire community conspires to deceive the public. Also, I can feel the direct effects of their progress. I can tell that when I drop a ball it does indeed fall at 9.8m/s^2 just as Newton said it would. I feel better when I take a medicine pill that came into existance because scientists pursued evolutionary theories of existance, thus leading to microbiology and eventually leading to the creation of said pill.

My favorite quote on the matter comes from an MIT grad student in biology, who said of so-called creation science, "Creation science starts from the postulate of a supernatural designer and rationalizes evidence to support that, rather than starting from oversation of the natural world. As Such, creation science is not science; it is religion."

The bogus theories of pseudo-scientists attempting to attest god myths as scientifically accurate strike me in much the same light as the Flat Earth Society's attempts to get rid of the ridiculous notion that the earth is a sphere. The scientific community has wasted far too much time having to defend themselves against these claims. If you need more information, please feel free to check out the Talk.Origins archive which has detailed scientific information on the theory of evolution, age of the earth, accuracy of carbon-14 dating, and all the usual other garbage thrown out there in order to defend a godist existance.

If you want to argue that taking all of the theories scientists have come up with and applying them in everyday life is a "leap of faith", then feel free to write me and we can have a discussion about the pragmatism of being. But if you are convinced that a god theory has been shown to be scientificaly verifiable, or is at least on a par with the best scientific theories, then I recommend you do your homework better, as that is simply not the case.


Go to Alan's essay page.

© Copyright 2017 Alan Wood.
Credits
Disclaimers
[mailto icon] Mail Alan
[White Ball] Last revision: Tue 02-26-02.
** Alan's Homepage **
[Finger] < chekov@alum.wpi.edu >