It's funny, how all of a sudden our dear national newspaper the Straits Times is now filled with letters to the forums regarding... creationism vs evolution. Lol, talk abou deja vu, what was fought out in my class during GP a few months earlier has now spread to the papers.
I don't hide the fact that I'm atheist (semi-atheist and semi-agnostic if you really want to be picky about it, the reason you'll see why later). My stand has always been that of "As long as 'God' doesn't appear to me and prove that he's 'God', then to me, 'God' doesn't exist". Hence, the agnostic part, but I'm leaning incredibly towards the side of the atheist, always have been.
This stand of mine has obviously offended a sizeable portion of Christians (mostly them, and maybe a couple of Muslims. Well those are the ones represented in my class at least). Whenever they try to convert my POV, I would never fail to refute them with one simple, yet extraordinarily effective question, "Where's the proof?".
It's clear that I look at things based on facts (mostly), although I do have my irrational moments, but when it comes to evolution, I tend to look at it based on empirical evidence. As long as religion fails to show me any unrefutable evidence, it holds little or no water, which I will tend not place my faith (if I have any, lol) in it.
Neo-Darwinism, by far, provides the best explanation for the formation of species. If not, what else do you call fossils of dinosaurs (dinosaurs with FEATHERS have been found, gasp?), hominids and even giant mammals (yes, maybe I watched too much of Walking with Dinosaurs and Walking with Beasts, and maybe I've read too much from the Yahoo! News page science section). Creationists point out the gaps present in the theory of evolution, but do they have a better explanation for it other than "'God' created man and blah blah blah?" If so, where is the proof?
Then there is the thing about Intelligent Design. It merely states that our bodies are far too complex and intricate that some form of intelligent lifeform (aka 'God', which makes ID sound like a pretty sad attempt on the part of creationists to sound scientific) is required to well, make us. ID has always reminded me of a joke between an evolutionist and support of ID (the exact phrasing of the joke now escapes me lol)
Anyway, the point in this isn't exactly to slam everything but evolution (although it seems that I've already done so lol). The point is, you are never going to convince an evolutionist that evolution is false, the same way you are never going to convince a creationist that 'God' doesn't exist. So what's the point in arguing over this?
The point seems to be that creationists seem to have a hard time letting go that there are people who believe in evolution (represented by that dubious doctor who wrote in slamming evolution). If evolutionists (at least this one) aren't imposing their views onto other actively, then why are creationists trying to convert evolutionists? Isn't it a basic right for people to be able to generate their own opinions? Then why are some trying to force others to think otherwise? To begin with, this whole exchange is never ending. Moreover, it disrupts social stability. I quote a portion of a sentence (kind of long to call it a phrase lol) found in the forum of the ST today. "...there is a need to separate religion and the state and in particular, religion from science." How very true. But when will people ever learn that? The same way how will people ever learn to respect others?
I guess it will be interesting to see how the entire debate unravels (the first time I am seeing some form of intelligent discussion on the ST).
Argh, I gotta go now.. will blog next time about the exams (HORRIBLE I tell you).
I'm a 3rd year student in what is probably the largest autonomous university in Singapore majoring in a Science-related subject (well it sorta IS SCIENCE). I'm known to be introverted, sarcastic (at times), funny when I rant (which isn't a good thing lol) and somewhat of a loner. I miss LA and would move there in a heartbeat :(
