2 Comments

What came first?

A hungry citizen walked into a lunch counter

owned by an evolutionist and a creationist.

The Evolutionist announced ,

“In the beginning, was the egg!”

To which the Biblicist responded,

“Lies! It was a fully formed chicken!”

and then the hungry citizen quipped

“Who gives a damn when all I want is a sandwich!”

And then the creationist said,

“It ABSOLUTELY matters since God’s word

does not ascribe the beginning to a maturation process”

and that was when the evolutionist jumped in

and called the Biblicist an idiot.

“You don’t need an arcane book to show you

that if you incubate a chicken egg properly ,

eventually you’ll get a chicken!

And then the creationist responded,

“well then let me see you pull an egg out of your behind,

since you don’t have a chicken to lay one for you!”

“Both of you please shut the #$%* up!” the citizen proclaimed.

“I’m just hungry.”

Whosoever feeds the hungry, shall be received by a welcoming audience.

I n I

Advertisements

2 comments on “What came first?

  1. Snakes, those Biblically devious reptiles, have both forms of procreation, some snakes lay eggs, but others give birth to living offspring. There are also some animals that look like snakes, but really are actually lizards. These are just “hiding” their limbs useless within their body. Perhaps a god designed them like that. Perhaps a god created an evolutionary process for them to evolve like that. Whatever the case, it sure looks (to me and the overwhelming majority of scientists) like they are products of evolution. I can symphatize with the creationist who feels, it kind of makes god unnecessary. I share the logic, while not the sentiment. If it was a god who created all this, then that god (wichever one worshipped by men, or perhaps none of those) made a lot of effort to hide the supernatural handywork from modern scientific method of research or any intelligent correlation with reality any creation story.

    The thing about gods seems to be, that since they never appear anywhere, we need to excuse their existance by some form of philosophical necessity. They have to exist because otherwise how did the universe come to be? However, that is an unaswerable question at the moment. The big bang theory and others are just educated guesses, while the creation stories are not very educated guesses. We really do not know how the universe came to be. A god or several of them at work is not a self evident truth. Just a guess, presented down to us by generations of people who had no idea.

    To generations of people the creation stories have been the absolute truth about these issues, and now the scientific method, wich is – after all – the best possible way of finding out about any objective reality, has deformed those creation stories into the level of fancy. It is no wonder that a conservatist creationist movement has risen to defend those core beliefs. But why did the gods not tell humans about these matters beforehand? Why is it that the creation stories look like they were invented by men and there appear no actual evidence in them, to prove they were inspired by this or that god?

    Yet, it is just as you say. People are willing to accept the authority of the one who fullfils their basic needs. Religion offers to fullfill the basic need for security. That there is a supernatural and benevolent entity that cares for you personally and provides for you even after death. Science is offering better tools, medication and understanding of the environment and human psyche. Is it more of a question wether we could more easily do without one offer the other? Or is it about what we want more? Can they stand together when science is slowly undermining the authority of religion?

  2. Hey man,
    Regarding the snake births, there isn’t one species that gives birth by both egg and live correct? That would truly fit the point. Do you believe that science and religion are fundamentally antithetical? I don’t. I think atheists push way too hard at trying to convince everyone of that which they cannot prove, namely, the non existence of God. Religionists do the same in the other direction. There are however very many who find that both the laws of nature and the laws of God follow a set pattern, a pattern one can trust, and make decisions based off of. The road by which both science and religion are bridged is the anthropic principle. If you believe, the scientific data shows that the universe exists in such a way so that the conscious entity springs forth to behold it. Sounds biblical to me? This is where I am coming from. I believe with all my heart in God and Jesus and I trust in the scientific method too. Peace.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: