| 
With all due respect for other opinions, Summit's reasoning for the rationalistic approach on the evolution versus creationism debate complies with both mathematical, biological and empirical discoveries mankind has made so far concerning life and the nature is moves in on this planet.
Yet I believe there is a psychological element to be distinguished in this science versus religion matter as well.
Looking at the religious aspect with a psychological approach, it's well understood that many of us accept what we have been told from childhood on or in a period further in life. It's close to classical conditioning and perhaps even closer to (in)voluntary stimulation by the environment in which an individual grows up or lives (e.g movie "The Island" . That's where a social and educational element comes into play as well. Consider your own education and what you have been told or taught. Were you or was it possible for you to think differently back then?
Looking at the scientific aspect with a psychological approach, we men (mankind) are biologically adaptive,
learning surival machines. (Fascinating fact is that the same goes for the bacteria that are currently thriving in your intestines. They, too, have adapted to a ever seemingly changing environment.) This cannot be denied.
All scientific findings point to that we indeed do had primate ancestors and that we are the result of a mindboggling chain of random events that took place in the earth's environment. And we are (with all human right) afraid and yet curious of the dark and unknown.
Darwin's insight was as well and eyebrow raiser as an eye opener to many listeners and readers at that time. In analogy, it was the same eyebrow raiser as when word spread that the earth wasn't flat and that falling off was either more difficult than staying on (Newton enstrengthened this 'theory' and so did the first aerospace scientists during the Cold War's Race For Space sub-era).
Science concerns itself (among other fields) about explaining phenomena with the use of the natural logic and patterns that are found with rules that seem to apply in 'our' () part of the galaxy and using that knowledge to solve other and new problems. Ironically, we human beings are experts at both solving and creating problems.
It is theorized that our ancestors interacted with and more or less awarely adapted to shifting circumstances through the profitable, genetic mutations that enabled natural selection. But nature itself has no morality. We created morality to increase general species survival chances. A very effective social thing. We are a part of nature, thus where does that leave morality? Could it be that God, morality, the pope, Darwin, creationism, evolution, politics are all results of chains of events that lead to human curiousity, ignorance and that unquenchable and exciting cranial thirst for getting rid of those annoying questionmarks? Which brings me to a somewhat cognetive psychological part: our relatively increased brainmass and extra 'perks' above other species in
nature, such a choice and ability of abstraction in/and thought. Without your brain, no debate. Although psychology is young, it does however can give a reason for this entire debate, doming this moral issue.
I may be wrong, but consider a homeostatis of the brain. Hunger is a non-regulatory drive, curiousity is perhaps another. Being at ease in one or the other way is what matters. Looking at a gigantic dark void of a discussable unknown origin makes you wonder what's inside. It makes you wonder a whole lot of things. What in God's name is this? () Where does it lead to? What if I jump in? Who put it here? What is it function, what is it's reason... and so on. That's what you seem to be doing most of the time as a human being. Protecting yourself from harm with the use of information. Having certainty (and information) can sometimes mean being at ease.
I know people that feel (increased) happiness when they hear a bird sing. They don't need more than that. Ask them why they feel like that, and they'll reply with "I don't know. I just like it." Yet others can't see why one could become happy from that sound. It sounds differently to them. To them, their body needs something less subjective. A shot of heroine does the trick. Works directly AND they can explain it. Either way, the greeting of (bodyinduced) drugs, like endorfines, is always a pleasurable one, whether you get it from a bird or a heroine needle. Here ends my attempt of analogy with the creationism/evolution debate.
Believing in something may give you this certainty, this happiness. And if you are happy with what you were told in your childhood and/or education and it satisfies you, it's a (or your) piece of cake to enjoy.
"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives you the test first, and the lesson afterwards."
|
