Hi there,
So I don't know what to make of this, in any immediate sense: did you discover anything else, when you discovered "Evolution"? Or just "Evolution"? I mean there is no sense, in saying "I discovered Evolution, just because", right? There must have been something about it, that appealed to you, that set it apart from other things vying for your attention. How did other things change, when you discovered "Evolution", if they did? Can you say with confidence, "God didn't change"? Would it make sense to say "facts in general developed a greater context"? All these things are valid elements of inquiry, are they not?
I think part of my struggle has been with the idea that you can be elitely "evolved" as a rule, so to speak and that other discoveries that could have been made at the time are somehow 'irrelevant' - that "Evolution kills off" other discoveries, in an attempt to zone in on what strengthens Evolution, to the exclusion of all else. It makes far more sense to say, "Evolution is just the beginning of discovery" that the interactions between it and other discoveries around it has greater and greater significance, as the fullness of Evolution reaches the head. We needn't fear other discoveries, that much is certain.
Do we progress, to a maturer sense of "Evolution", a more integrated sense? Can we bring forward the progress of other discoveries, knowing we have made one of "Evolution"? That the unlikelihood of discovering "Evolution" is all the more reason to trust how it was discovered, that to see the window and to open it are compatible discoveries - which we should respect. There is power in this, that discoveries themselves have a sort of p factor for more discoveries in general - which encourages understanding and development and so on. It is not for nothing that God gave us a brain!
In time it should be able to assess which discoveries made with Evolution, have proved a help (not a hindrance) and how their lifespan varies from creature to creature. This is power. To have and hold a discovery in its original context, emboldens and embosses the discovery - because it can be understood as a response to a pressure, not necessarily a compunction to some kind of negativity that cannot be understood or trusted (if you will). If the concept is married to discoveries that help, how much the greater the interpretation and knowing that will come with the whole of them? Bearing in mind that there are only so many discoveries you can make, in a given context!
Perhaps, and this is the danger, there will be discoveries that limit "Evolution" and we must decide whether more progress can be made with or without them, but that is a topic for another discussion! May you find this well read.
So I don't know what to make of this, in any immediate sense: did you discover anything else, when you discovered "Evolution"? Or just "Evolution"? I mean there is no sense, in saying "I discovered Evolution, just because", right? There must have been something about it, that appealed to you, that set it apart from other things vying for your attention. How did other things change, when you discovered "Evolution", if they did? Can you say with confidence, "God didn't change"? Would it make sense to say "facts in general developed a greater context"? All these things are valid elements of inquiry, are they not?
I think part of my struggle has been with the idea that you can be elitely "evolved" as a rule, so to speak and that other discoveries that could have been made at the time are somehow 'irrelevant' - that "Evolution kills off" other discoveries, in an attempt to zone in on what strengthens Evolution, to the exclusion of all else. It makes far more sense to say, "Evolution is just the beginning of discovery" that the interactions between it and other discoveries around it has greater and greater significance, as the fullness of Evolution reaches the head. We needn't fear other discoveries, that much is certain.
Do we progress, to a maturer sense of "Evolution", a more integrated sense? Can we bring forward the progress of other discoveries, knowing we have made one of "Evolution"? That the unlikelihood of discovering "Evolution" is all the more reason to trust how it was discovered, that to see the window and to open it are compatible discoveries - which we should respect. There is power in this, that discoveries themselves have a sort of p factor for more discoveries in general - which encourages understanding and development and so on. It is not for nothing that God gave us a brain!
In time it should be able to assess which discoveries made with Evolution, have proved a help (not a hindrance) and how their lifespan varies from creature to creature. This is power. To have and hold a discovery in its original context, emboldens and embosses the discovery - because it can be understood as a response to a pressure, not necessarily a compunction to some kind of negativity that cannot be understood or trusted (if you will). If the concept is married to discoveries that help, how much the greater the interpretation and knowing that will come with the whole of them? Bearing in mind that there are only so many discoveries you can make, in a given context!
Perhaps, and this is the danger, there will be discoveries that limit "Evolution" and we must decide whether more progress can be made with or without them, but that is a topic for another discussion! May you find this well read.
