I have often wondered why many scientists are so resistant to the idea of a creator as part of the evolutionary process. Scientists, after all, are supposed to keep an open mind and investigate all possibilities with as little bias as possible. On considering it, I think there are two main reasons why many in the science field have not given the possibility of a creator fair consideration.
1. They don't want to curtail their freedom. If there is a creator, then we have to deal with the thought of what that creator wants with us. We just may not be able to do what we want. There may be some moral constraints on our actions. It is a whole lot easier and makes us a lot more independent if we don't have to worry about obligations, duties, or actions that someone else requires of us.
2. The Aristotle Syndrome. This isn't an actual term, just something I made up. Aristotle believed that we were the center of the universe. He believed that the sun, planets, and the rest of the universe revolved around us. Galileo and others came up with evidence that this wasn't the case but the majority of the world including the science minded community of the time ignored the evidence and continued to believe in Aristotle's conclusions for many years afterwards. Finally the surmounting evidence swayed public opinion to the Galileo view. I think this egocentric view still influences many minds. It is more self fulfilling to believe that we got here by ourselves, that we are at the top of the food chain because we deserve to be, that we pulled ourselves out of the primal ooze and became the marvel of complexity because we were the fitness. We don't want to release any of the credit to a creator for that would be lessening our achievements.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The Aristotle Syndrome
Labels:
Aristotle,
creation,
debate,
egocentric,
evolution,
intelligent design
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment