(Written by Allen...and it's long entry. Imagine that, Allen writing something really long :)
Now, just to preface this, know that I don’t reject evolution at the micro-level sense. I’m all for adaptation. However, I do reject evolution at the philosophical, macro-level which says were are here by random chance, we’re the way we are because we got lucky with having a bigger brain, and it would be 'good' for me to get rid of rival tribes so as to preserve my genetic code over others.
Two of my classes this week have their entire set of readings all using an evolutionary theoretical orientation (one chapter I just read, in explaining why we are visually oriented, said “humans evolved from tree-living ancestors who needed exceptional vision to survive high above the ground. Those with bad eyesight must have misjudged where fruit and blossoms hung, then missed their mark as they leapt from one branch to another and fell and broke their necks”...yes, that’s actually what it said).
One commonality I am discovering in this family studies field is how speculative many of the theories and findings are. It might be this…or it might be this way. This sort of speculation didn’t occur in engineering. The iron-carbon phase diagram for steel wasn’t debated...while you could treat it differently to get different properties, the composition and behavior of steel followed constant natural laws.
Yet not so with humans. And evolutionary reasons have a hard time explaining the phenomenon witnessed in how individuals live and families operate. And for individuals that follow a strictly an evolutionary, naturalist perspective (which basically consists of all of academia, including my professors), they strongly attempt to construe evolutionary, naturalistic answers for the phenomenon they witness, sometimes persuasively and sometimes to the point of sounding completely absurd.
In the course of reading one of the articles and its speculative, evolutionary wording (lots of ‘mays’ and ‘probablys’ and ‘we if assume’), I wondered why this was so. And what struck me was that in this field, we're dealing with something completely different!
Any academic discipline centered on studying humans (i.e. Social/Soft science) is fundamentally different than any other discipline (i.e. Natural/Hard science) because humans are fundamentally different than everything else in the created world. Family studies is different than engineering, economics, and entomology because humans are fundamentally different than buildings, business, and bugs.
With humans, there is something much deeper in us that does not follow a set of regular, controlling natural laws. The human heart is a wonderous, profound thing. We are both physical and spiritual. We are both material and immaterial. We have a mind and soul. So, if we are going to study and understand humans and their family relationships, it does not start by looking intensely into a microscope, looking directly at an individual, looking broadly at a cultural group, or looking backwards at our ancestors. To begin any worthwhile efforts, we simply must first look up, look up to the Creator.
"For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well" - Psalm 139:13-24
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting thoughts. Thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I am staying in the hard science area. I like my logic and knowing there is almost always an answer. That is probably why I like math so much. :)
I just love to read your reflections. So when will academia realize that humans are profoundly different from animals, bugs, and dirt? I was surprised to read a HS science book last year that was totally predicated upon evolution. I did not realize just how permeated the "theory of evolution" had become in textbooks. Or maybe I'm just more sensitive to it.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind just what you have been called to do and how you can be most impactful in this world. Everyone needs to know......
Is it that "simple"? One could argue that you have brought another factor into the equation as you 'study and understand humans and their family relationships'. You have had exposure to both sides. I cannot think of anyone more suited to help quantify and understand these differences.
ReplyDelete