"The Study Of", and "The Belief In"

It's quite amusing to see people going around and around over Evolution and Creation.

Mostly because the argument is completely stupid.

Let's see why.

Things which end in 'ology':

Toxicology is the study of poisons. Geology is the study of the earth's physical structure. Biology is the study of living things. Failure to believe in one of these could severely impact your life.

Now, on the other hand, things which end in 'ism':

Stalinism, to do as Stalin suggested, or to emulate Stalin. Marxism, to do as Marx sugegsted, or to emulate Marx. Buddhism, to do as Buddha suggested, or to emulate Buddha. Etc. Failure to believe in one of these will likely have no impact on your life.

An 'ology' follows a careful scientific method. We find something new or inexplicable, and we try to think of why, and we look for both validating and invalidating evidence. What OLOGies deal in are things which can be proven or disproven.

An 'ism' is like a clothing outfit. You can put it on, take it off, wear the same one your whole life, or ignore it completely. There is no required method to creating an ISM- it can be very rational or completely irrational, or somewhere in between. What ISMs deal in are something you either decide to believe, or don't.

Now. ISM believers are peeved because OLOGies are making their ISMs look antequated and dumb. Oops! My 2000-year-old text has some factual inaccuracies? No shit?

Some people want to follow all of the requisites of their chosen ISM, and also want to buy into an OLOGY, but then find themselves having a conflict.

My ISM teaches me 'A', but within the framework of this OLOGY I find 'B', and both 'B' and 'A' cannot be true. No matter how much evidence to disprove 'A' and support 'B' I see, I simply can't handle the idea that this OLOGY is refuting my ISM.

At this point there are several options:

1. Attack the offending OLOGY
2. Question the ISM (which is often found unacceptable, and reverts back to #1)
3. Try to ignore the issue

There are, I would venture, no ancient ISM texts which do not contain information which is easliy proven completely nonsensical, outdated, untrue and/or impossible.

So, anyone saying they believe in that ISM is now stuck compromising- following some of what their ISM dictates, and ignoring some other parts, lest they go around stoning their wives for trivialities and marrying their brother's widows, etc.

In a nutshell, you can choose to believe and follow whatever part of your ISM you want, and the end result is: you feel like you are following your ISM.

In the OLOGY department, though, this does not work- you cannot decide to follow only some of the rules of proper research, documentation and study- do so and you will find your results flawed, and your peers annoyed.

Not only that, the truths OLOGies outline exist whether you believe in them or not.

The laws of nature, the laws of motion, the laws of gravitation, the laws of physics and thermodynamics- the universe behaves according to these laws and does not skip a beat in accordance with anyone's beliefs.

A televison, fax machine, computer, combustion engine- these things exist because of our knowledge of and cooperation with the laws of science and nature. If we start to decide some of the laws don't work... well, will the televisions suddenly stop working?

The OLOGists who further our knowledge and technology, the people who formulate these rules, they are careful, meticulous, and devoted in their thinking and investigation. The scientific method, logic, and the realizations of great people have brought us to our understanding of the world. Nobody's ISM should be allowed to deride, degrade, displace or dispose the accomplishments of these people- they gave their science to the world, and you would take it away from the world in the name of you and the few who believe in your ISM? I kick your groin, bozo.

It's up to you to let choice (ISM) override reality (OLOGY), or let reality override choice. Which sounds more reasonable? After all, hasn't this been happening for a long time- certain parts of ISM-related texts being completely invalidated by new discoveries by OLOGies? A great uproar from ISM-followers, and later acceptance, or at least silence?

How about this- since 'god' is all powerful, perhaps 'god' created everything and just let it all play out from the big bang, just as 'god' wanted it to? Evolution fits nicely into that picture, unfortunately you still have to accept evolution and a whole grab-bag of exciting and hard or impossible to understand ideas, concepts and theories.

Or better yet... just cite one case where an ISM has gone up against modern science and convinced anyone of their side of the story-- except people who believe in that ISM.

Even if an OLOGY someday perfectly disproved the existence of 'god', this should not cause your belief to waver. It is your doubt, and not the OLOGY, which is the problem.