In
this post, DarkStar outlines his manifesto for expanding human knowledge in general, and about the origin of life in particular:
DarkStar writes:
My Position on the Origin of Life
Neither the theory of evolution, nor the theory of intelligent design are capable of adequately explaining the origin of life. Science alone serves it's purpose. Religion alone serves it's purpose. Neither is sufficient on it's own merits to reveal all unknowns.
Absolutistic attitudes and beliefs, regardless of the realm in which they are held, are defeatest in nature and are contrary to the promotion of the greater good necessary for the betterment of our society in general, and of our species as a whole.
A blending of social, philosophical, theological, and empirical evidence should be the chosen path of any individual whose mission is the revealing of heretofore undiscovered knowledge, wisdom, and truth. Differing opinions should be embraced, not viewed as a necessity for continual division of thoughts, ideas, concepts, and positions.
To choose a lessor path is to accept the the inevitable limitation of what can be discovered. Close-mindedness serves only individual needs and beliefs, giving no regard to the opinions and beliefs of others. Eagerness to acknowledge and investigate new concepts, and new ideas should be the cornerstone of any intelligent species.
Science serves a purpose, religion serves a purpose, secular awareness serves a purpose, social responsibility serves a purpose, but all must acknowledge their limitations and learn to work within their own framework. None, in and of itself, will ever be sufficient enough to reveal all of the unknowns. Society is better served by the integration of these individual concepts.
These concepts, working in conjunction, one to the others, gives mankind the greatest possibility of uncovering the unknowns. None should be viewed at the only course to travel. None can ever be totally independant of the others and expect to reveal the ultimate truth, for alone they all lead to unanswerable questions, but together they lead to a fuller understanding of our species, and of the origin and purpose of life.
Elitism is best left to aristocrats and royalty. It should receive no foothold in the scientific, religious, or social realms when truth is the ultimate goal. Cooperation is a tool of opportunity that receives far too little utilization. Absolutism is a tool that should be forever discarded, as it serves only the individual needs, giving no regard to the greater good of our society in general, or of our species as a whole.
I acknowledge design, so evident throughout the universe. Whether that design is the result of random chance or divine intervention is not a question for me to answer, nor is it a question that, in my humble opinion, either science or religion is capable of answering on it's own. Perhaps neither ever will but greater are the chances of mankind revealing the unknowns when science and religion are viewed as partners and not adversaries, acknowledging their own limitations, recognizing each others strengths, and agree to walk hand in hand through the myriad of unknowns that are before us. Only then can we honestly say that our ultimate goal is a greater understanding of the knowledge, wisdom, and truth that lay before us, as we surrender no concern to where the path may lead.
DarkStar
I have no idea why we should accept the conclusions DarkStar proposes, aside from the fact that DarkStar tells us to. First off, he doesn't seem to be talking about the same sort of 'unknowns' throughout the post. Is he talking about the origin of life on Earth, or design in the Universe, or the unknown in its entirety? He asserts that some mixture of science and religion is necessary to find out the answers to all these questions, but he never describes how these concepts are supposed to be fused without doing damage to both. "Society is better served by the integration of these individual concepts," he says, but never describes how they are to be integrated.
Elsewhere, DarkStar has attacked evolutionary theory as a religion based solely on metaphysical assumptions and not on evidence. Perhaps he could offer some evidence to support his position that science and religion need to walk hand in hand to solve the mysteries of the Universe. From my perspective, it seems science has solved many of the mysteries of the natural world. However, religion hasn't really been able to solve supernatural mysteries or present a methodology for investigating spiritual unknowns to anyone's satisfaction.
regards,
Esteban Hambre
™ Version 4.2