You all know what the theory of evolution is. Adaptation for survival. “Survival of the fittest.”
But if we trace evolution allllll they way back to the beginning, we have this problem: how did we start? Like… how did the very first cell form?
Some say that we came from nothing. Plausible, yes. Others say that we came from outer space. I think this one is more possible. Why? Let’s go back to the 17th century.
Жили были Louis Pasteur. He’s the person who discovered/invented the process that we now call pasteurization, where you can kill germs by boiling liquids.
In a semi-famous experiment, Pasteur poured chicken broth into flasks with curved necks and boiled some of them with stoppers on (the curved necks were to prevent bacteria from flying directly into the broth). After boiling, he opened them; some without moving the broth, some by tipping the flask so the broth went up the neck and letting it drop back down.
He checked the samples a few weeks later and found that the latter flasks’ broth had all gone bad, but the former flasks’ were all perfectly fine. What he undermined in this experiment was the idea of spontaneous generation–you can’t get something out of nothing. This is what some evolutionists claim happened.
Science tells us that this could not have happened. Therefore we must conclude that we came from outer space. Maybe from another planet, where life exists.
It seems like that’s what everybody strives to make better.
I’ve changed my views. Not everything is done for money. Most of it is because of reputation as well. Parents of different families fight over their children’s abilities to play music or strive academically to increase their reputation. People strive for college, so they can be seen as the “rich, successful person” who’s all rich and famous. Then they start to donate it so they can be seen as the philanthropist.
People can have genuine intentions, too. Not everything is done just for reputation; don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to generalize people, either.
Here’s a question that popped into mind just now: Does the want for a better reputation cause competition, or does competition cause the want?
Scratch that. It’s a stupid question. Because….. I don’t know. I’m really tired.
Carefully read the following passage by me. Then write an essay in which you support, refute or qualify my claim that science and religion are similar. Use appropriate evidence to develop your argument.
I was in Chem class the other day when I heard a cry of distress. Someone needed a pen to use. I hastily pulled out my ziploc filled with “AMPLIFY” pens and tossed one to her. The teacher happened to notice my big bag, and asked them what they were for. “Church,” I replied. She laughed, walking away, saying, “Yeah, like that’ll do me any good.”
I turned and asked my friend (if we can really be called friends) what she meant. I had my ideas, but I wasn’t sure–I had to clarify one way or another. My friend half-smiled and said, “Uh… that church and science are different?”
I disagreed with her, saying that they were similar in that they were both based on unconfirmed truths. The theory of plate tectonics, of evolution, of the atom… they could all be disproved with a snap of the fingers. And so could The Bible.