There is a quote that I found a few days ago that pretty well describes, from a Christian perspective, my interest in evolution, and all things atheistic.
“Unthinking faith is a curious offering to be made to the creator of the human mind.” ~John Hutchinson
This post in particular is not about me ‘wondering’ if evolution is true or not, although there is an element of that to my thinking. Rather, I’m taking the approach that there are an aweful lot of people that believe in evolution, and I believe in creationism. How, exactly does evolution work? Other than the fact that I am a Christian and believe in the Bible, what *don’t* I believe about evolution? Am I missing something? Are they?”
So I went out to www.howstuffworks.com and typed in “evolution” just to see if they would have anything. What I found is a sort of “evolution primer” - an “Evolution for Dummies” - of the theory. What I got is actually pretty good! Interestingly, even though it is not a religious site, they are willing to take a look at the holes, and .that leads me to believe they will present evolution from an objective, if not pro-evolution perspective.
My hope is that this will turn into a series where I try to look at the theory of evolution as objectively as I can - given that I’m very skepticaL - and relay my questions and reactions to what I find. Also, since I do invite several Christian friends to read what I write each week, this may be a good opportunity for them to ask questions, too. Again, the goal is not to prove or refute, but to understand what evolution is, and why it makes sense to so many people - and doesn’t make sense to so many others.
A couple of years ago, Eliza posted a series on her experience as an atheist, sitting in on a Lutheran membership class (look at articles titled ‘Class #__”), and relayed her perceptions of what it was like as an outsider. That’s kind of what I want to accomplish here - I want to look at what evolution has to offer, as objectively as possible, and see if it makes any sense. Parts will, I’m sure. And parts won’t, I’m equally sure.
If you click on the link I provided, it will take you to the actual article I will be working from. Please feel free to go look at it, too. I’m hoping that as questions arise - and they will - you will be able to help me through them.
Here endeth the intro :) Read the rest of this news item »
A few weeks ago I was googling Antarctic artifiacts (you don’t have to be around me very long to know that I am fascinated by Antarctica) and stumbled onto a map called The Piri Reis Map on www.world-mysteries.com Basically, it is the earliest known map accurately showing the Antarctic region, dated 1513.
This is an excerpt from the world-mysteries article:
In 1929, a group of historians found an amazing map drawn on a gazelle skin.
Research showed that it was a genuine document drawn in 1513 by Piri Reis, a famous admiral of the Turkish fleet in the sixteenth century.
His passion was cartography. His high rank within the Turkish navy allowed him to have a privileged access to the Imperial Library of Constantinople.
The Turkish admiral admits in a series of notes on the map that he compiled and copied the data from a large number of source maps, some of which dated back to the fourth century BC or earlier.The Controversy
The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land (Antarctica) could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC. [...] The Piri Reis map shows that the northern part of that continent has been mapped before the ice did cover it.
Further and more accurate studies have proven that the last period of ice-free condition in the Antarctic ended about 6000 years ago. [...] It is well-known that the first civilization, according to the traditional history, developed in the mid-east around year 3000 BC [...] So, accordingly, none of the known civilizations could have done such a job. Who was here 4000 years BC, being able to do things that NOW are possible with the modern technologies?
Other than the fact that the dates we’re talking about roughly corrolate to the time of biblical Adam, I’m not trying to draw any spiritual conclusions. I just think it’s really cool that this map exists, and that it raises a lot of interesting questions. If you’d like to read the article in it’s entirety, click here.
Posted in A Cacophony of Posts, Mike O | 19 Comments »Last week, Jason wrote a really good piece about the Secular Humanist view of This Life. I’ve spent some time since then considering what he wrote and what the corrolating Christian view might be. One thing I see is that the secular humanist view seems to look at history on a grand scale, and then consider how this life fits into history. Christians, on the other hand, seem to look at the future (eternity) on a grand scale, and consider how this life fits into eternity (the future). Not that either is particularly right or wrong, just that they seem to be mirror images of each other.
And maybe that difference plays into where I’m going with my “epic view” of this life. I agree with Jason that this life is very important. But I see this life - my life - fitting within a grander tapestry - an epic story that isn’t about me. A story where I am not the main character but rather a bit player in one sub-plot of a more important epic about God that spans eternity. Read the rest of this news item »