Balance In The World

I'm not saying that this decision is not a solution. It helps to keep believers the moral and mental balance in our complex world. But the question arises: why should people who have strong faith in creation, pay attention to scientific issues in which whatsoever knowledge? They fear that if successful resolution of the problem the origin of life shrink the area of their faith, as, for example, previously had to abandon the notion of firmament? But the world is so wonderful and mysterious, and science is still so far from disclosing all the secrets that room for faith will suffice for many generations. You may find stone clinical laboratories to be a useful source of information. If this is indeed faith, not worship of the attributes wherewith and are religious scriptures. Of course, if biology successfully solve the problem of nucleation life, with the interpretation of sacred texts, there are problems. By then the Bible must be treated merely as a monument of culture, a source of spirituality, not as a scientific guide. Which, of course, for the civilized man is quite naturally.

It is understandable why a physicist, not able to resolve the problems arising, for example, when creating a unified field theory, simply recognized in his scientific failure. And what he has done? The Bible says nothing about the strengths and weaknesses interactions of quarks and gravitons. In biology, the situation is different. Faced with the inability to resolve the problem of biological evolution, you can always retreat to the spare position – good decision has already been proposed and painted a few millennia ago. And the retreat is not the nature of deposit products and can be made without prejudice to pride. And for giving weight to his belief in creation, of course, you must bring it to the max number odnovertsev. The truth of the scientific results hardly depend on the number of people, they share and understand. Official site: United Health Group. Another matter of religion – there is the weight of truth depends on the number who believe in it.

What good is belief, shared by several people. And it's probably another reason why so many creationists are paying attention to the active promotion of their position. Belief in the creation of life in general does not require any proof. Itself the notion of "prove faith" sounds blasphemous. Faith does not need props – it is self-sufficient. If it is, of course, a belief in something absolute, supreme, the belief in a single top of world harmony, rather than a belief in a specific number of days whom the world was created, and the size of the ark, which saved all living in the flood. As it is impossible to rationalize, to prove faith, and it is impossible to either prove or justify relying on faith. Or, conversely, can say that faith derives its strength from absolutely everything, and prove on the basis of faith can be everything. Enough to believe it. Believe that the Creator wanted it (and it really can only believe, because no mortal will argue that he can explain an act of the Creator, are logically lead them out of any reason). So if we're talking about real scientists, and true believers, among them there can be no conflicts. They exist in different, non-overlapping spheres. Some people on all possible questions give one absolute answer. Others try to find not absolute, but verifiable answers to some private matters.

The Perspective

E not to be only in the focus of livened up beings, also let us think about the rock in its interaction with other inanimate beings. Rain leaves the humid rock. what it wants to say this? How if of necessarily the interaction of water molecules with molecules of the rock? In a ventania of dust, some grains would be adhered tenuamente to the rock, while others would be shocked and fallen in the soil. That type of interactions is being established there? A draft probably is turned aside in the meeting with the rock, but who guarantees that some particle of this air did not interact and if it adhered to the rock? Or, in contrast, it corroded the rock lightly? if we launched another rock against this? A small rock, let us say. It beats and comes back stops backwards. What in fact she occurred? thus successively with each objects that we choose.

Then, we speak of some forms of interactions, some perspectives on this rock: of the man, of the presumption beyond-do-man differentiated for genetic engineering or technological resources, of the terrestrial extra presumption, the camel, the snake, the water, the dust, air and another rock. Which of these withholds the look most correct? The absolute perspective? I hear somebody to whisper: ' ' none of these, God only knows verdade' '. All good, if this God exists, as it sees the rock? It is solid for It; she lasts, rough? Or so rarefied how much air? when a dust particle interacts with the rock, this is less real, less true, of what when this God interacts with the rock? When a snake if crawls on it, or when a man sits down on the same one, would be this a mere illusion ahead of the true interaction with the rock that this God can establish? If to think that the man can know everything on an earthworm, and still to watch it continuously through cameras and sensors, that is, the man can be onipotente, onisciente and onipresente ahead of an earthworm, exactly thus the interaction of the earthworm with the rock she is less true of what of the man with the same one? Who to want to believe? to understand? , it will perceive that everything depends on the perspective, or, if to prefer other terms, of the interpretation, the interaction.