Which came first, the chicken or the egg? A lot of the answering depends on the queen. Confused? Well, the thinking is that some claim the "Queen of the Sciences" is mathematics, and some say theology. If we make Mathematics the "queen," then are we saying that all other sciences serve Math? That we learn Physics, Chemistry, or Biology in order to better understand the world of numbers? Or would it be better to say that we use Math to straighten up the details for the other disciplines?If, though, we say that Theology is the queen, are we recognising that the others serve to enhance our understanding of God? The Bible tells us that God is the Creator, that He created the Universe as a means of revealing His real nature, and that He wants to bring every human being into a deep and loving relationship with Himself. Interestingly, all that we learn from the "hard sciences" about this world in which we live- yes, the whole Universe for that matter- just happens to dovetail with what we read in the Bible, though written between 1,900 and over 3,000 years ago.So, back to the chicken house: Which came first? Philosophy can only ask the question. What we are willing to believe bout that question is really a matter of religion, isn't it? If we follow the Religion of Science, then we accept the latest hypothesis (scientific jargon for, "Gee, what if...?"), and obediently call it "true." A long chain of mutations, with no fossil record of any link in that chain, occurred, and the offspring of a great, cold-blooded lizard became small, feathery, and warm-blooded. Purely a "religious" idea, and counter to anything that hard science has to offer in terms of its observed laws and supported theories, it only differs from the old medieval idea of rags producing rats by injecting the magic words, "over millions of years..."
On the other hand, rather than give our slavish obedience to the Religion of Science, what if we look into the Science of Religion? Simply accept, as possible, the notion that God might really be God, and examine the evidence that other such scientists have discovered in the past. Was it Einstein who said that we can only see as far as we have by standing on the shoulders of giants? If we study Moses, Isaiah, Luke, Paul, (Ireneaus, Basil, or Gregory of Nyssa...), allowing that their experience and findings might actually be valid, there's a real
possibility of not only settling the Egg Question, but a lot more as well!
Classic photo and good article, I will let Jeff know.
ReplyDeleteGood article. You mix humor with truth and satire quite well.
ReplyDeleteGreat image! Hmmm, maybe, if you send that to National Geographic and claim that it is a photo of an Archaeoraptor or an Archaeopteryx, and that it is absolute proof of Evolution, maybe they'll pay you for it! LOL!
I just now looked up this article on http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/:
"SCIENCE & SPACE
Chicken and egg debate unscrambled
Egg came first, 'eggsperts' agree
Friday, May 26, 2006; Posted: 7:33 a.m. EDT (11:33 GMT)
LONDON, England -- It's a question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?"
The article stated:
"Mr Papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens."
Absolutely genius! Now we have irrefutable proof of the answer to that age-old question. Wow. Chickens come from eggs, so that proves that eggs were here before chickens. Well, I'm convinced; aren't you?
Here's a brilliant statement that this expert in the philosophy of science made in that article:
"If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."
Wow. Have you ever heard anything so brilliant? How many years of schooling do you have to have, in order to come up with such outstanding logic? Next time I see a kangaroo lay an ostrich egg, I'm gonna check it out!
"He said: "Eggs were around long before the first chicken arrived. Of course, they may not have been chicken eggs as we see them today, but they were eggs."
Yeah, maybe they were amoeba eggs. Or, maybe atom eggs.
Oh, and fetuses were around long before humans were around. Yep, they used to have little fetus colonies.
And spoons were around long before humans were on Earth.
Yes, I'm being completely sarcastic. But (and I suspect you will agree) when you leave God out of the equation, all you're left with is ridiculous nonsense.
Thanks, guys! It's just so clear that either we let whatever popular opinion is being currently being called "science" determine how we judge right & wrong (Hitler's "bold application" of Darwinism, and the British "harvesting" of the "missing link" Australian aborigines come to mind), or we let the proven truths of the "Queen of the Sciences" serve as reference. Hmm!
ReplyDeleteBottom line? God is good!