The story says that a “pagan” came before a Rabbi, and in an attempt to mock him; offered to convert to Judaism if the Rabbi could explain the Torah while he (the pagan) stood on one foot. The man thereupon lifted one foot and stared challengingly at the Rabbi, who then said: “The Torah teaches us to treat each man as you would have that man treat you. Everything else is commentary. Now go and study!”

The point I’m trying to make here is not that the Rabbi turned out to be a smart guy; but rather that it is far too easy to get lost in the details and end up not seeing the forest because all those darn trees are blocking your view.

In the debate between Science and Religion we forget the core of the debate because we get caught up in the details.

Essentially the core is this: Everything around us “began” at some point. Even if this is not the first or last Universe, THIS one began at some point. That point either occurred out of interacting physical and purely mechanistic processes or it began as the will of a Supreme Being of some type.

In all my years as a person of faith and as a student of science, I still cannot answer that question and I have no expectation that I ever will. I can think of nothing in science that cannot be explained by the existence of a God and nothing in faith that can not be explained science. I couldn’t even tell you if that conundrum was happenstance or intentional. A conundrum where “God’s will” explains all and any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Somewhere along the way I came to understand that I didn’t need to have an answer. It was enough to simply decide that the parts of me that believed in Quantum Mechanics and the parts of me that believed in God were not actually in conflict. I simply assumed they must be and never bothered to wonder if they actually were.

There is only one thing that I have never managed to become at peace with.

WHAT THE HELL WAS OMA TALKING ABOUT?

For instance, we know immediately that the world revolves around the sun — we don’t have to think about that anymore. But a thousand years ago, everyone immediately knew that the sun revolved around the Earth. It took hundreds of years for the people of the world to be convinced otherwise. The evidence was clear, but it took awhile to change their minds. Why? Because they already knew the sun revolved around the Earth — how could it be any different?

Achieving new knowledge is a learning process, and usually a slow one. But consider this: today, you know evolution to be true. You don’t have to do a ton of research. You’ve already learned and decided that evolution is true. It takes you less than a second to look at a flame to know that is fire. You don’t have to think about it anymore, just the way you don’t have to think twice about whether your dog is a dog, your car is a car, or your toe is a toe. In other words, you’ve made up your mind about what those things are [i]long ago[/i].

It’s not so much that you’re closed-minded for knowing that evolution is true immediately (it’s just an example, after all), but the fact that you accept evolution as true unequivocally (just as you accept that flame is fire unequivocally) means that it’s that much harder to convince you that something else is true if it flies in the face of, shall we say, conventional wisdom.

We didn’t immediately know evolution was true. It took a lot of hard work from many people for over a hundred years and still today it is worked upon, constantly gathering evidence - none of which has contradicted the theory in the slightest. Furthermore, we’re not born with this knowledge. It takes a few years in science classes for us to grasp the basics of these things. So we don’t immediately know it to be true. We came to the truth slowly, but surely.

I don’t consider it closed minded to disregard ancient texts which do not have a shred of supporting evidence. I don’t consider it closed minded to accept a well established and observable fact backed by everything from fossils to DNA and any other evidence we’ve found. If you can provide enough evidence to show that your god exists, fine. I’m open to that, I’m willing to listen. But in the meantime, don’t call me closed minded for basing my beliefs upon hard evidence and reason, especially when the very thing that causes you to deny it is faith: keeping your mind closed to evidence in order to support an unproven myth.

After reading your post at first I had the same reaction as the first guy that replied - if you immediately belief in evolution then you’re also closing your mind to other possibilities. I thought I had you pinned as one of “those guys” who call everyone else closed-minded when they in fact are the bigot, but after having read your responses I happily admit my error. In fact, as a recent graduate with a B.S. in Biology I have to agree with you; evolutionism and creationism aren’t mutually exclusive. I guess the point I wanted to throw out there is that you hit on something that is (IMHO) a big problem these days - people think that science and religion are polar opposites and that you have to choose a side. I say rather that the two actually complement each other. A shocking statement in today’s world I know, but just something to chew on.
BTW - I love the quote interpretation…my buddies and I have spent many a night talkin about that one, lol. Good luck w/t he theatre man.

Nice post though (found through being one of the top links on Google for that phrase) =D

I’ve always loved that quote. I’ve looked at is more as that our perceptions take a long time to catch up with underlying truth. But your interpretation works too.