The weather is awesome – today we got up to 22 C (that’s 72 F, for those that are so inclined).
How can you tell it’s spring in Montreal? People are wearing t-shirts, some are wearing shorts, most are imbibing something on a hastily-assembled sidewalk terrasse, and there are ridiculous line-ups at every carwash in town.
I got my car washed.
It’s silver again! I can see through all the windows! The mirrors actually reflect!
Obviously, it’s an annoyingly Canadian trait to discuss the weather ad nauseam (although, thanks to global warming, we are not alone in our little meteorological obsession). But that’s not really my point. My point is this – because I got my car washed, my Darwin fish is all shiny and glittery.
Now, I made a conscious decision, after a lot of thought, to affix said fish to my car. For me, the Darwin fish is not, as some people assume, a symbol of atheism. In fact, I believe that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and it was my rancour over the whole ‘Intelligent Design’ debate that prompted my fishy statement to begin with. I believe, and I think Darwin himself might agree, that such a phenomenally impressive process as evolution could be used as proof of a ‘designer’/’creator’/whathaveyou. I mean, if I stop to think about the sheer number of pure coincidences required for life on this planet to be what it is, I have to wonder whether or not there is something more to it.
In short, I would not be at all surprised to discover that there is some thing – being, entity, astral plane, or unimaginable thing – so far beyond our current comprehension that the various religions we’ve built are but the first paragraph of Chapter One of a multi-volume work, if you get my metaphor.
The point is, my Darwin fish is more about my beliefs as a teacher than as a defender of (non)religion.
The point is, my Darwin fish does not, for me, represent atheism.
The point is, my Darwin fish is all shiny and freshly washed and, therefore, very noticeable.
The point is, when I was stuck in traffic this afternoon and glanced up into the rearview mirror and saw a priest and a nun in the car directly behind me, I really wanted to get out of the car and say all of this to them.
Hey, in my Catholic elementary school, I remember a nun explaining to us that Adam and Eve was a metaphorical story and not meant to be taken literally. As long as your Darwin fish stays in Canada, you’re fine.
I saw a Darwin fish on the back of a car in the US (Around Port Huron, maybe closer to Flint MI) 2 weekends ago when I was down there shopping. I thought it was great and want one of my own!
–Ethan
Religion and science are mutually exclusive.
You are stupid and naive.
“I believe god created evolution” – Simply demonstrates your inability to let go of an indoctrination, despite all evidence to the contrary
Religion belongs in the dark ages.
Fred: If you’re going to trash what someone says, at least get your quotes right. If you review what I wrote, I did not, in fact, state that “I believe god created evolution.”
It seems to me that someone who approaches life scientifically, as I presume you believe you do, would be open to intelligent debate. Instead, although you accuse me of hanging on to antiquated dogma, you stifle such debate and in so doing, prove just how limited your own perspective is.
You also state that there is “evidence to the contrary,” presumably suggesting that there is scientific evidence that proves the non-existence of some other being, in whatever form. Now, while I believe that there is no direct evidence that irrefutably proves the existence of any such being, I find it hard to believe that (a) the scientific community has actually attempted to disprove God or that (b) it has done so successfully.
I suspect that you won’t be replying to my reply, since chances are you’ve decided not to return to this site, which is your choice. In case you do want to respond, I would ask you to actually read what I wrote, and why I wrote it (I was discussing the Darwin fish, not metaphysics), before you trash talk here. I welcome debate, but calling someone “stupid and naive” does nothing for either of us.
Wow. If I wasted my time commenting “You are stupid and naive” on all the blogs I thought were stupid and naive (even if I limited myself to blogs that, unlike Maggie’s, actually are stupid and naive)…in fact, if I even wasted my time reading a blog if I thought it was stupid and naive, much less commenting on it, I would immediately stop and wonder what void I was trying to fill in my life.
I am investing valuable time in responding to the comment in this vein that appears above, however, because if it appeared on my blog, I’d appreciate others chiming in and telling the commenter that we were sorry that he had nothing better to do with his time than leave aggressive and irrelevant comments on blogs that he didn’t feel had any value in the first place. Perhaps he needs a constuctive hobby, preferably something soothing.
I’d suggest, Maggie, that this person took the time to respond because he felt intimidated by your reasoned and intelligently expressed post. I myself do not believe that the complexity of the universe necessarily entails a creator, but I still enjoy reading what you have to say about it, and am not so insecure in my belief that I need to lash out at people who take a different stance.
Thanks, Siobhan! Your response is very much appreciated.