This year the question is "What is Your Dangerous Idea?" The explanation of this question on the website reads
The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?
Hopefully sometime soon i will have time to post my responses to these two questions. Untill then feel free to comment on how you would answer them.
Posts
2 comments:
Darwinian Evolution certainly seems to be the 'most dangerous' idea out there ATM.
Or it could just be the usual hype.....
An interesting article Mike. I will have to read it again when i'm not tired and have a clearer head. However until then i wanted to comment on a few things.
"Unless you specify the agent, its purposes and characteristics, it's an explanatory dodge," says Mr. Clark. "Agents have to be described specifically enough to be verified."
That's an awfully prideful statement. A supernatural agent along the lines of God is not subject to your definitions and agents.
Science cannot explain how a 2 year old boy with cancer who is given 2 weeks to live and is in extreme pain can somehow make a miraculous recovery and live for another 2 years dying peacefully and in little pain. Yet that is what happened to my step-nephew.
Neither can science explain how a 6 month old boy diagnosed with a tumor the size of a small grapefruit in his abdomen and who is expected that even with surgery he will likely die and at best he will live and have serious brain injury. Yet 7 or 8 years later he is a healthy boy with no brain damage at all. Yet that is my nephew.
These are two cases in my own family over the past 10 years that defy this statement. The lack of ability to explain these phenomenon in "scientific terms" without specifying an "agent" other than God's miraculous healing doesn't make them unverifyable or a dodge. Requiring everything to fit into a little "scientifically" explainable box doesn't always work.
God is not a micromanager.
Oh really, according to whom. He tells Jeremiah that he formed him in his mother's womb. In the sermon on the mount Christ says not to worry about what you will eat or drink, or what you will wear for the Father in heaven even clothes the grass of the field which is here today and gone tomorrow. In Matthew 10 and Luke 12 Christ says that all of the hairs on our heads are numbered. Yet God is not a micromanager?
True, science and God can live and work together. There is no doubt there. God makes what he does happen and He does it. It can be seen and explained because He makes it happen through His process that science then attempts to learn. However when Science attempts to reject God. It puts the horse in front of the cart and makes the cart the source of the movement instead of the result.
Post a Comment