Wednesday, November 30, 2005

God is Dead, Lennon Lives!


Cover story on the Nov. 28 issue of Newsweek:

Darwin gets bigger billing than John Lennon!

And John Lennon said HE was bigger than Jesus.

Guess it's all in how you look at it.

And how history looks at it: Of course deathwise, Darwin did get a 98 year head start on Lennon, but me thinks there is some irony to the old man's top billing, crusty photo and all. Lennon's radicalism was, in the big scheme of things, a fashion, more than the average fad to be sure, bigger than chia pets, bigger than Britney, but a fad none the less. A fad with substance, to be sure, and heart, a keeper. Lennon's legacy is not going away anytime soon.

But then it seems Sir Darwin is here to stay, too. He's even on the British ten pound note - which shows the Brits have more guts than the namby pamby Americans who might well put Ms. Spears on a five spot before they'd give Darwin his due.

It's an interesting juxtaposition on the cover of Newsweek, Lennon up in the corner, Darwin up front center. No one else could have done what Lennon, the artist, did, and his artistry does live on and on "and we all shine on and on and on..." "Imagine there's no heaven." John didn't kill Jesus, and Charles didn't kill God. There is some irony and danger in buying the premise that Darwin somehow killed God. In fact, somebody else would have put the puzzle pieces together - it was inevitable, just as it was inevitable that someone figure out light bulbs and computer chips and the age of distant stars. In the article, director of the Human Genome Project and evangelical Christian Francis Collins is quoted as saying that a faith-based views of how we got here and why we are how we are say "if there's some part of science that you can't understand, that must be where God is. Historically, that hasn't gone well. And if science does figure out [how this all came to be] - and I believe it's very likely that science will... then where is God?"

That's a pretty darn enlightened evangelical, I'd have to say. Most are stuck in the dark ages compared to that.

God is where he/she/it has always been, poised merely as the gap between rational and irrational thought. There is plenty we don't know, but why fear that? We are on the road to finding out, even if not every one of us "understands" or can even imagine the answers.

Science has it's personalities, but it doesn't really depend on specific people. Given reasonable thought and a good method, it's mostly a matter of time, not dependent, as were the Beatles, on one artist, right and ripe for his time. Therefore, science is not mad, and it does have a method. Indeed, after reworking his finding for two decades, Darwin finally raced to publish his famous "The Origin of Species" to ward off the work of younger scientists making similar discoveries.

Any WHO, here's my quick take on why this ruckus now, almost 150 post "The Origin," and already 80 years post Scopes:

Don't take me to your leader.

In the land of the one-eyed king, the majority of his hapless subjects wear BLINDERS.

Hence and thus - how we find our own over-worked, over-wrought and blatantly bedraggled semi-united states today under the 'Chosen One' rule of Cock-Eyed George.

That's one sizeable stumble for a man, one giant boondoggle for mankind.

Cheers anyway, and no way no body here'z abouts Blogland is makin' a monkey outta no body!

And happy daze, y'all.


At 7/14/2006 8:05 AM, Anonymous Mahesh Ranchhod said...

I am a Hindu and our religion teaches us re-incarnation. I believe that re-incarnation is compatible with the theory of evolution except that we believe the "evolution" which leads to ultimate birth as Man, is the work of a divine being. This also exlains why in the human genome, there are pieces which do not belong, suggesting that they are remnants from a previous creature. If one can accept that some guiding force has been guiding the destiny and development of this earth from the time of its unique creation, then one can understand Darwin, Evolution and Intelligent Design.
I do not accept that all the important discoveries, starting with man learning about fire, different spices, chemicals, medicinal herbs etc. etc., were purely accidental. I also believe that it was divine intervention in the form of the different prophets, men of God, religious leaders (many of whom could peform so-called miracles)that helped develop man from animal to human.
Can science explain what is a thought and does the thought process have a scientific path? What explains the uniqueness of thinking amongst different people and the so-called genius of thought that led to great discoveries? Was it by pure accident?
I would love to get comments:

At 6/07/2011 5:40 AM, Anonymous Poker Internet said...

It only reserve


Post a Comment

<< Home