17- September
Hi Nahida,
Perhaps part of the problem may be with the use of the word “fact” as it implies 100% certainty.
I believe that anything is possible, which means I cannot say anything is a fact. Thus once again it becomes a matter of keeping an “open mind” to all possibilities and looking at the evidence.
I do use the word “fact” when talking about the earth being round and I use the word “fantasy” when talking about the “moon being made of green cheese” but I am aware that these are not absolutes.
Thus the issue becomes at what point do we stop referring to something as “theory” and start for the purpose of language using the word “fact”. I still remember when I first learned of atomic structure, the teacher referring to it as “atomic theory”. That is a term I have
not heard in years. I do not know for how many years after Copernicus, people talked about the “theory that the earth was round” but I would imagine it was a long time.
You are right, when we teach evolution; we have to include the gaps and holes. But we also have to ensure students understand the weigh of the evidence and the views of the majority of the scientific community are so overwhelming that most would use the word “fact”. The other issue is that evolutionary principles form the basis of so many other disciples that to talk of it as a “theory” becomes impractical. This is one of the reasons why the phrase “atomic theory” faded from use as so much of modern science is based on atomic structure.
The question of intelligent design becomes difficult because you and I disagree on what constitutes “evidence”. I go along with the majority of the scientific community and the judge in the Pennsylvania case who all maintain that there is no scientific “evidence” for intelligent
design and that it is not science.
However, as you know, I do not go along with the idea that it should it should be kept out of the science classroom. When I talk to the Somali children in the science club, I will teach the basics of evolution and always tell them that many people outside of the scientific community, which most likely includes their parents, do not accept this idea but
believe that life and its diversity are the result of a creator/designer. Those who go into science can learn on their own about the weight of the scientific evidence behind evolution.
Finally you keep asking me to speak of evolution as being a theory and accept the possibility of a creator/ designer.
Fine. But does that mean you will speak of intelligent design as a theory and accept the possibility of evolution as being responsible for the life and its diversity?
Sam,
———————————————————————————————
17- September
Dear Sam
For some one like me- with this trouble-maker, fascinated, inquisitive mind of mine- who is constantly searching for meanings and answers, and who will not be satisfied with half answers; and although Evolution does address important issues such as changes and adaptation in different species, and although there are strong evidences that support it in microevolution, yet it fails miserably -as far as my limited understanding goes- in explaining vital phenomena that I seek to understand as a conscious curious being:
1) the origin of the universe (coming into being of nothingness)
2) The origin of life (the mathematical probabilities of random chances offered by Evolution is near impossible- how much luck can science rely upon?)
3) Explaining the variety, the intelligence, the beauty, the purposefulness, the morality, and simultaneous coexistence of different animal and plant forms and the fact that they rely upon each other for survival, as we discussed in the garden yesterday, it’s as if some one is planning ahead seeing into the future, some one with intelligence and beautiful artistic taste.
Assuming that accidentally -as you propose- apple trees (for example) evolved purposelessly and simultaneously yet independently from us, how do we develop our taste buds to enjoy the flavour of the apple when we are in fact completely different unrelated species? (Notice that it is much more than just the apple trees)
4) Explaining the purpose of existence. I talked about this before.
Evolution -for me and as it stands now- is capable of describing certain occurrences; but the significant point here is that even if Evolution had all the answers about the missing links and even if it proves in the lab that species do evolve from one another; it still falls very short from answering these above fundamental questions that my mind thirst for answers for.
This lack of coherence and comprehensiveness in Evolution and its failure to explain all the above; diminishes the weight it claims it has; presenting itself as a theory that explains life.
Now then, the big news for you:
Even though I’ve been arguing with you in favour of Intelligent Design that does not necessarily mean that I utterly refuse Evolution and its entire discoveries.
I don’t see the predicament as Evolution VS Intelligent Design.
Accepting Evolution is not the issue for me.
The issue -that might trouble you- is: Evolution does not lead me to atheism.
The concept that life forms can evolve and change with time; does not prove to me that God does not exist.
To me, evolution does not explain the existence of life or the existence of the universe; therefore it does not necessarily lead -as many people like to conclude- to atheism.
In other words –to me- Evolution is not an alternative to Intelligent Design; simply because it does not even begin to address some of many important questions that my mind requires answers for.
Originating life out of raw elements, and originating something out of nothingness are the big dilemma for me; if you can do either, I’ll be convinced.
nahida
———————————————————————————————-
18- September
Hi Nahida
I agree with you that accepting the validity of evolutionary principles does not prove the non-existence of God. This would be a view taken by secular fundamentalists. I see no need “to prove” God does not exist, besides I would question if it were even possible.
Explaining the existence of the life, the universe and how it all came about are indeed questions worth pondering. However I disagree with you in that we must have definitive answers.
I am willing go along with answers put forth by the many great minds before me and those who are currently working on these questions as long as they remain in the natural world. I accept that their answers are not always perfect with only partial evidence for some and theories for others
Pondering these questions can be a great source of stimulation and very stultifying, but the failure to find absolute answers does not bother me. It certainly does not stop me from enjoying the beauty and the wonder of the world around me. Hopefully someday we will have these answers but whether this will happens in my lifetime, is not an issue.
My concern as I said on Saturday, is to try to live my life doing the most good and causing the least harm in the hope that those around me will do the same.
Sam,
–
———————————————————————————————-
18- September
Oh dear Sam
Finally I see us coming closer to some common grounds; that is just fantastic!
I am open to Evolutionary principles.
You are open to the possibility of the existence of a Designer/ Creator, and you acknowledge that Evolution does not necessarily lead to atheism.
We both agree that we can only try our best to live our lives the best we could; by doing the most good and causing the least harm in our relationships with others.
We both enjoy our existence and love life passionately.
I can’t begin to tell you how much I enjoyed our debate!!!
The sharing of ideas, exploring each other’s minds. Thank you for the opportunity, for your patience and for your time.
nahida
18/09/06,
I agree with you that accepting the validity of evolutionary principles
does not prove the non-existence of God. This would be a view taken by
secular fundamentalists. I see no need "to prove" God does not exist,
besides I would question if it were even possible.
Explaining the existence of the life, the universe and how it all came
about are indeed questions worth pondering. However I disagree with
you in that we must have definitive answers.
I am willing go along with answers put forth by the many great minds
before me and those who are currently working on these questions as
long as they remain in the natural world. I accept that their answers
are not always perfect with only partial evidence for some and theories
for others
Pondering these questions can be a great source of stimulation and very
stultifying, but the failure to find absolute answers does not bother
me. It certainly does not stop me from enjoying the beauty and the
wonder of the world around me. Hopefully someday we will have these
answers but whether this will happens in my lifetime, is not an issue.
My concern as I said on Saturday, is to try to live my life doing the
most good and causing the least harm in the hope that those around me
will do the same.
Sam,
—————————————————————————————–
18- September
Dear Nahida,
My apologies for asking you to consider intelligent design as a theory in an earlier email for I think I now understand and appreciate why this is so unfair a request. It is in fact rather petty on my part and I appreciate your patience. It is also a perfect example of where I
have failed in my remit to live my life causing as little discomfort as possible to others.
Finally if I were in need of answers for all those questions, the ability to share ideas and explore each other’s minds would be a powerful argument for intelligent design.
Sam
© Copyright 2006 Nahida Izzat & Sam Semoff -PoetryforPalestine – All Rights Reserved
Filed under: Dialogues |
Poetry for Palestine 
Dear Nahida,
Plzzz, is there any way to contact (ur e-mail or fb account)
LikeLike
My email
nahidaexiledpalestinian@gmail.com
LikeLike
My partner and I stumbled over here from a different
page and thought I might as well check things out. I like
what I see so now i am following you. Look forward to looking into your web page yet again.
LikeLike