Knowing

Any discussion of origins must at some point drift from the realm of hard science into philosophy. There is simply too much that exists in the realms of pre-history, of which there are no intentionally recorded observations but rather only a spotty fossil record subject to wide interpretation, and in virtually all of the future unknowable to us with any iron clad certainty. Even in the present the complexity of what is directly observable contains vast tracts of the so far unknown and unexplainable. So one's epistemology comes to bear as well as the facts of science.

Science is tangible. We like science a lot. But it is limited. It cannot cover all there is to know. Any 7^th grader should be able to tell you that the scientific method involves the observable and repeatable proof of a theory. The scientific method cannot be used to fathom all knowledge any more than a ruler can be used to measure the quantity of happiness in a child's laughter. It simply does not always apply. To hold the position that one will only believe what is provable through hard science is to choose an epistemology and I submit it is one characterized by intellectual blinders. This is not to in any way discredit hard science. Science is of extreme importance. It is also important to be careful what we call science. It would appear that the scientific method stands inconveniently in the way of a good bit of what likes to hide under the cloak of scientific respectability.

An elementary tenet of science and of the nature of knowledge in general is that one must examine evidence. But, because of the vastness of extant data and the exponentially greater vastness of recorded thought regarding it, it is impossible to take in everything. So we tend to categorize it and of necessity often accept representations of it in order to pass personal judgment.

And now, a rant:
By and large I detest TV preachers. I would like to see an intelligent representation of intelligent design, creationism, and Christianity in the popular marketplace of ideas in our culture but for the most part we have raving simpletons. We generally get infantile thinking, gross distortion, and/or outright misrepresentation. I am disgusted and angered because they do their own cause harm by making it far too easy to dismiss a whole realm of valid thought behind their inept representation of it. I am at a loss to explain why these types of religious people are the ones who end up on TV. It might appear to be some kind of natural selection running in reverse. I'm also cynical enough to entertain the possibility that they may be pawns in some sinister design.

Now back to examining evidence. If one dismisses I.D. (or perhaps further down that line the possibility of the existence of God and creation) based on the representation of Christian television, one is deciding on the basis of something worse than ignorance. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. When one thinks he has been given insight based on a distracting smokescreen, then one has been deceived. Ignorance is a better state to be in than deception. At least one knows there is something yet to be known rather than to have dismissed the possibility of something valid and moved on. Like a rescue plane having missed seeing the survivors leaving a grid location and checking it off as having been searched never to return.

Believe it or not, there actually are thinking people who hold to intelligent design, and a smaller subset of them who hold to creationism, and a yet smaller subset who hold to the claims of Christianity. One might believe the minds get smaller and the thinking more simplistic on that continuum, but I submit that the required due diligence to get there without intellectual self-deceit actually becomes much greater. I have discovered some deep minds that bear this out. It is just a shame that they are not the TV representation of their views and are largely unknown. I speak of the following Christian apologists: Josh McDowell, author of “Evidence That Demands a Verdict,” volumes 1 and 2, whose title invites you to make up your own mind, Francis Schaeffer, J.P. Moreland, Norman Geisler, Ravi Zacharias, and C.S. Lewis (I refer to his non-fiction which is the bulk of his work, Narnia notwithstanding). Each of these has written numerous books on a level their harshest critics could not dare call simplistic. To categorically dismiss the thinking behind intelligent design without considering ideas on the level presented in these books is to base one's decision on ignorance and by that I mean no insult. I mean the denotative sense of the word: the lack of knowledge. There is much that cannot be known or considered. But to ignore considerations that have been carefully worked through is to gamble one's life and destiny without the benefit of much knowable thought.

I started here speaking of the nature of knowledge. From where I stand I believe it safe to assume that no matter how far hard science goes toward opening our eyes and minds to truth, it will never be enough. We will always have to fall back to a legal position of beyond reasonable doubt. Or a philosophical position such as Acoms Razor: The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. Or to more esoteric philosophic thinking. In the end some kind of faith will always be involved. By no means do I mean blind faith based on nothing. I mean intelligent faith based on consideration of all that can indeed be empirically known. “A” is, “B” is, and “C” is, therefore “D” must be though I cannot specifically see or prove it. Indeed this kind of thinking is considered proof positive in current science, ex: the astronomical methodology behind the recently discovered new planets, black holes, etc. Even with the most rigorous diligence possible, the final distance of the journey of the intellect will have to walk on that ethereal quantity called faith. To me it is a sublime thought that this state of affairs might possibly be on purpose.