asdf

i'm actually most surprised by his answer to number 8. i'd think that a person who is true to the bible would only allow for a geocentric model of the universe, where the earth is fixed and not moving. logically speaking, there is nothing wrong with this view, but the only reason that galileo said that the earth moves is because the solar system basically looks prettier that way, or most efficiently allows for scientific growth. it would be much easier to calculate planetary movements if u put the sun in the middle, and it also allowed science to explore other ways of explaining the universe, like the concept of gravitational force for example. i think that maybe it would help ray if he learned that one key difference between him and the people he disagrees with is that they use different definitions for certain common words. for example if someone who has a good understanding of science were to tell him that he/she "believes" in evolution, chances are that he/she uses that word to mean "thinks is the most efficient" or "is most comfortable with" or "thinks is most likely or probable", but not "thinks is the absolutely only view that should be". so they don't "believe" in evolution in the same sense that ray "believes" in god. this is probably why he seems to get so frustrated when people tell him that they're atheists. and by looking at it this way, u can also see why many people get frustrated at people like ray who keep "believing" in creation. they simply use different axioms. the same thing can be said for the word, "truth". science isn't the search for "truth" in the sense that ray uses it. it is merely a tool that people use in order to most efficiently explain and explore the universe. so u're not supposed to "believe" in science. u're not supposed to "believe" in anything that u learn in school. that's the point of liberal arts education. most people in our society learn "beliefs" and "truths" on sundays. this is why i don't feel forced to use the iambic pentameter to write this comment. it's why very few people would go around saying that cubism is the only way that anything should be painted. this applies to history as well, but it seems from looking at ray's comments that he already understands that the history books can only provide perspectives and not absolute truths. they're all philosophies (which is why the highest academic degree that u can get for these things is a Doctor of Philosophy, or PhD). the people that ray disagrees with usually don't think that everthing is black and white. they don't go to school in order to gain "knowledge". they go in order to gain "tools for understanding", or philosophies. if they want "knowledge" in ray's terms, they go to churches, temples, mosques, etc. of course it gets confusing because many people use the word "knowledge" in the sense that ray uses "understanding"... so basically, ray's argument for evolution not being science seems to be because it's not the "truth", but it's really not supposed to be. it would probably help him most to just look at it the same way he looks at a heliocentric solar system, as simply a model that many people think is an efficient way to look at the world and allows science to grow, even though it goes against biblical "truth". and it already has allowed for other scientific concepts to take shape, like heredity and genetics for example. so to conclude, everything that ray "believes" in is absolutely correct. everything that anybody at all believes in is absolutely correct for that matter. but none of the liberal arts, including science, is used to teach us what's absolutely correct. if ray wants to use this to his advantage, i guess he could now go about with the assumption that his definitions of these words are the only definitions that should be allowed. but i'd suggest that he try to find it in himself to try to accept the fact that most people would look at what he preaches and would call it a "religion", which i'm guessing he hasn't figured out yet, based on what he says in number 10. he can argue that it's the only one that should be and whatnot, but i don't care to join the fight, for or against. when u learn to try to "understand" things rather than just "know" them, u wouldn't have to tell people that they're wrong in order to prove your point. and "understanding" can be more fun if u give it a try, cause u're basically never done, but u get better and better at it... "knowledge" is basically only useful for competition, like jeopardy and evangelism. (which of course there's nothing wrong with. i love jeopardy.)