Reply to comment

 While considering the implications of using the word 'selection' to describe the process of evolution, a rather peculiar thought struck me. As I listened to everyone trying to reason out the problems inherent in using such an active verb to describe what 'should' have been a passive, random process (and dare I say it, thought just the same myself!) I began to wonder, in some small and secret part of me, why we were all so adamant that evolution is, in fact, passive, with no drive and no set purpose. This led me back to an old question that has haunted me for years: why does it seem so difficult to reconcile science and religion? Is it impossible for creationism and evolution to coexist? If so, which side is it that causes the problem? I've never understood why so many people seem to have trouble balancing the two; I, myself, have always been fond of the idea that some higher power put everything into motion, and now just sits back and watches as life evolves. Now, I am by no means saying that this is the case, or even that other people would do well to believe it, but sometimes I think that people can spend too much time agonizing over completely unprovable, but un-disprovable ideas. Sometimes, even when immersed in some torrid debate, there's a part of me screaming that it probably doesn't matter, that there's no proof anyway. Why can't we just choose something to believe in, and then believe in it? After all, as Poe said, "In one case out of a hundred a point is excessively discussed because it is obscure; in the ninety-nine remaining it is obscure because it is excessively discussed."