‘A new age is ushered in with the obliteration of the old one, which occurs either via an abrupt and shocking transition that wipes the slate clean, setting the stage for a totally new beginning, or through a gradually evolving world that slowly morphs into new form. On that respect, religion has it right, and so does evolution: revelation is both a sublime act of reckoning as well as a function of unfolding insight, leading to groundbreaking change either way.’ ~ SPIN DOCTOR
Scientist v Creationist. Their conversation/confrontation (see below) is a striking example of how humanity steers itself into frustrating impasses and standoffs. Debate between the parties involved leads nowhere, convincing each side how utterly beyond salvation the opposing side is.
Historically the only way out of such an arrangement is a battle between the two opinions, from which an outright winner may emerge. With the other side sidelined and the way ahead cleared, the discussion may now proceed along the lines of progress, not a zero-sum game structure. Other points of view may join the debate, prone to interaction, not mutual exclusion. There may be friction involved, plenty of it, but with the vicious circle gone the process leads to insight.
The risk, of course, is that a mutually-exclusive face-off can go either way. Either side may prevail. If the victor belongs to a tried and tested ideology doing its best not to perish (organized religion), life falls prey to a bankrupt system and lands in a dead end.
If, on the other hand, a more apt perspective wins the day (science, research, facts), then the field is blown wide open. Apt viewpoints may not be immune to bias, narrow-mindedness and dogmatism, but they at least provide the space needed for progress, for a little while anyway, until they, too, become dated and dogmatic.
Some will say that viewing life in this way is pointless. If the world is so cynically arranged, there is no point believing in anything, or in taking a righteous stance. Everything is relative, which makes this a jungle.
It’s an irrelevant argument. Jungle or no jungle, the facts remain. All belief systems are prone to bias, but tried and tested ones are more prone to bias than others, and more likely to lead down a dead end i.e. to a catastrophe.
Catastrophe is a fancy word for ‘destruction’ but its origins lie in ‘setback’ i.e. a ‘turn toward the nether’; a ‘downturn.’ A return to the levels from which one had ascended.
All belief systems are prone to catastrophe but some belief systems are more catastrophic than others.
In this particular case we have Creationism vs Science; logic, reason and scientific fact, which Richard Dawkins represents, squaring off against Creationism, a moral, Christian-based ideology that wishes to bend facts to fit its pre-established worldview.
Watch this space for Part 2