Where Did It Begin?

“The Universe”

“Scientific Understanding”

“A Divine Source”

“Debates About the Universe, Scientific Understanding and a Divine Source”

…each could be the prefix to this post’s title. I cannot answer those questions.

If you visit with any regularity, you likely know that I put significant stock in mainstream science’s current explanations of the universe. Let me officially come out here as a human who fully accepts evolution, just as I accept diabetes medicine and how long it will take my car to stop at 70 mph.

Regular visitors perhaps also know that I don’t think today’s medical and automobile industries are perfect. And so it goes with today’s scientists.

The really cool thing is, scientists – the good ones – don’t ever claim to have it all figured out. True science does not work toward a defined end goal, but rather looks to be proven wrong and take on a new challenge.

I fall into the camp that feels the Nye-Ham debate might have left a bit to be desired as far as its impact is concerned. While watching two very intelligent people argue a hot topic is fun, it probably doesn’t do much to sway viewers, most of whom I imagine were firmly on one, or the other, side of the fence. Still, the follow up discussion might bridge some gaps.

For my part, I was raised in a relatively conservative, Protestant community. Adam and Eve and primates were historical figures and residents of the zoo. During my 20s, however, I came across other viewpoints. No one was trying to lure me away, and I was not rebelling against my roots. Life (read: school, people, documentaries) simply expanded my mental landscape. Further, I have more awe and reverence for the existence of animals, vegetables, minerals and forces than I ever did before. Admittedly, age and parenthood might have something to do with that.

When it comes to science education, I do not think religious belief should direct the curriculum of the public schools. I don’t really take issue with teachers acknowledging that some incorporate their beliefs into science, mainly because it gives students context for the world in which they live. But that’s it. Either keep it strictly to the secular findings, or include the creation stories of Hinduism and Paganism along with Christianity (but please don’t).

One question that made me pause and redirect during those formative years: ‘Where does it stop?’ Why does science have to stop because an ancient text contains a story? Why does a religion negate science, especially when its finest followers seem most concerned with love and peace? How could a 24 hour day exist or be defined when the Sun wasn’t even created until the middle of the week?

A gross simplification of my thoughts and yours, for sure. The truth is that we can’t always define where these things begin and end, or where we fall on the spectrum of human understanding. Maybe that’s because we’re always growing, always changing. And therein lies the beauty.

My apologies for being vague, but I’m trying to remain balanced, despite my affirmed stance. I’d be curious to hear your thoughtful musings in the spirit of connection, because we’re all much more alike than we are different.

Also, Happy 215th Birthday, Honest Abe.