In America a Chorus of Angels Drowns Out Charles Darwin


"Polls suggest far more people believe in angels in the United States than believe in evolution." Lawrence M. Krauss , from his book 'A Universe From Nothing'

The typical American
Refuses to agree
That homo sapiens is kin
To ape and chimpanzee.

Whatever is sung in a hymn,
And not what fossils say,
Is stronger evidence to him
Than his own DNA.

So evolution can't be so
Despite the proof of science:
Such ignorance is what you sow
When faith's your sole reliance.


Leave a comment
  • The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.
    -- Albert Einstein

    People intuit this 'mysterious' will never end, though Darwins theories may, and what better way to have a relationship with it, than Angels.

    I noticed your qualifier, 'sole reliance'...(*whispers* 'Just in case'.)

  • Thanks, 4zen, for the shrewd and pertinent comments. Einstein, I think, was referring to the natural order, the mysteries beyond our solar system and at the sub-atomic level. He is spot-on.

    As far as angels as such, my namesake is called the Angelic Doctor and ruminated on the number of angels on the head of a pin. Imagine what he would have thought about black holes and Higgs bosons.

  • Is that sarcasm Aquinas? You've hurt my feelings if so...go read some more thoughts by Einstein and even Hawking, It appears they muse about an intelligence that is a little more involved than 'the object around the corner'

    Just trying to point out, that depending on the circumstance, that faith in Angels may have as much quality, or more, as faith in Darwin, and it is faith.

    And forgive me, if I decided to go down a different path than the mockery of those souls that find comfort in Angels.

  • No, I was not being sarcastic at all. Nor do I mock anyone who finds comfort in angels. The point of my verse is that science can discover the laws of nature and its truths are not incompatible with religious faith.

    Both Einstein and Hawking could be described as skeptics on the existence of God.
    Hawking: "We don;t need God for this universe to have been created."
    Einstein: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression of human weakness; the Bible is a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

    I don't share their opinions.

  • The harmony of natural laws, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

    Thanks for the response, I'm not sure if it's not the anthropomorphic concept that gets their panties in roar, oh well, as you said, if it quacks like a duck...

  • "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion. But I try to stay this side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by Scientific laws."

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Hawking's last statement is astonishing in a way since he is stating what is self-evident. By definition God is a pure spirit and cannot be investigated with the tools and methodology of empirical science.

Leave a comment