Why Evolution?

Judoka/rimmy:

The point I am making is that evolution opens the door to question if our belief in god is just another symptom of evolution. With creation, it's an unavoidable part of our existence. From an evolutionary standpoint, it's just a symptom of our ability to rationalize, think, and imagine.

 

Sounds talibany !

You only teach what WE TELL YOU TO TEACH and what is in our HOLY book...

BAH !

DD

 

I happen to think it's a terrible strategy for religious institutions to promote the "God of the Gaps" line against various scientific theories (old earth, evolution, etc.). As the gaps are filled, their god becomes weaker.

 

Others have noted that this strategy is, to a certain extent, unbeatable. What constitutes filling all the gaps? Dawkins quite eloquently shreds this argument in The God Delusion.

 

God isn't weaker, it is just that the made up stories by man fall apart.....just like all religions in history...

DD

 

This topic might not be the best in facilitating discussion. Sides are like the flip of a coin.

Instead of original sin, science has the id. Problem solved!

 

It's not when Liberals do it.

 

I applaud the plate tectonics comparison, but I really dislike mentioning quantum theory and then string theory -- neither have any business being compared to the theory of evolution, in my view.

For the grounds for which it claims domain, quantum theory is the most successful theory of physics ever, in terms of accurately predicting the results of experiments to 20 some odd decimal places. There is nothing even close. The uncertainty principle, while it makes some (many) very uncomfortable, is a built in part of the theory and makes its own precise and experimentally seen predictions. I think most or nearly all physicists would agree with this statement.

And then String Theory is a completely different animal. A growing number of physicists call this metaphysics, as it has no experimentally testable predictions at this point. In the view of many, it is just very clever mathematics for now, completely conjecture. This is extremely different from quantum theory or evolution.

Those unfomfotable with macro-evolution must propose a system by which micro-evolution and the central dogma would not lead to macro-evolution: in my humble view, that's what is always missing. If you accept what we know of DNA, RNA, natural mutation, and genetic inheritance, please propose a scientifically sound way that you can't end up with macro-evolution.

What were beautiful in one of the recent threads were the questions of why and how did it all start? Those are gorgeous questions with so so much room for faith and religion. Indeed, I'd say they are nearly required!

Why life this way? Why a universe with fundamental constants that allow for the existence of water and carbon? And so forth. I have trouble seeing these theories as conflicting with the Bible. The people who were (perhaps divinely, yes) inspired to put the Bible to writing could not have known of DNA, cosmological expansion or evolution. Even if the almighty whispered that in your ear thousands of years ago, you could not possibly have processed it and put it to paper in a coherent form. (Hey, wait a minute: maybe revelations is a transcription of Schrodinger's wave mechanics!) Seriously, it just makes me sad when people want to absolute bash one or the other of science or religion when they could so benefit one another with just a modicum of understanding and respect of appropriate turf.

Okay, back to lurking... mainly working... and avoiding the cyber stalking...

 

I read the following on a blog this morning on chron:

http://www.chron.com/channel/housto...1012Post:dcc616e2-d714-4a09-9f80-771b05a58645

Fred Hoyle from Cambridge tried to calculate the possibility of an entire cell originating not simply on earth but anywhere in the universe. Mathematics says that anything with less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power is basically at zero possibility. They found that the probability of this happening was over 1 in 10 to the 40,000th possibility! He said, "If a tornado went through a junkyard, creating a functional 747 [airplane],...that would be childplay by comparison!" Stephen Hawking stated on page 127 of A Brief History of Time, “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” He then proceeds to theorize that although the universe isn’t infinite there’s no beginning point because the universe exists in “imaginary time” instead of real time in order to dispute the possibility that God could have created the universe. However, if there is singularity in the origin of the universe, the possibility of creation by God is greater. Robert Jastrow, an agnostic who was the founder and former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies said, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Sir James Jeans, a famous mathematician once said that “The universe appears to have been designed by a Pure Mathematician.”

 

And I would say, "so what?" God gave us a brain and the incredible gift of being able to understand our world. To not pursue that knowledge would, in my view, be an insult to God. Christianity never will be provable, but will always be a matter of faith. Jesus talking to Doubting Thomas acknowledges this and explicitly states that the rational part of our mind cannot be satisfied: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Besides, if God created us, he could have done it through evolution and used evolution in the manner you describe to bring about belief in God.

 

It is not a matter of right or left, or black and white, it is infinite shades of gray.

And those shades of gray matter.



DD

 

I haven't read the other thread, so keep that in mind, but this would be my response.

Other than a smallish fringe group of people, I don't think many people have problems with what has been proved with a high degree of certainty about evolution. As you have noted, the problems come when some groups make claims about evolution that far exceed the what the evidence shows. There is nothing wrong with pursuing evolution as a theory, but when people try to present as fact aspects of it that clearly don't have that kind of evidence to support them, then the more scientifically minded among us object.

I think there are aspects of the Plate Tectonics theory that are not well understood, and that likewise shouldn't be presented as fact (but I don't think they generally are) but much of it is observable. Rift valleys and subduction zones are observable, and the movement is detectable and has been measured. Was there some other aspect of the theory you were referring to?

Lots of questions here, but again I don't think anyone is denying that this is a working theory that is, overall, far from being proved. Parts of it are pretty reliable, but other parts are quite uncertain.

Correct, and I also don't think anyone is presenting it as a unassailable fact.

As others have said, I think evolution is seen by many as a threat to what they understand religion to be, and many of them don't like what they understand religion to be, and this leads them to overstate the proof for the theory in order to attack religion. I think this also leads them to deny any other alternatives. The existence of any other alternatives opens the door to the some of the religious theories as well, so in order to effectively attack religion they have to deny any other theories and hold up evolution and the one, true, unassailable, theory. Ironically, by doing this they have departed the world of science and have essentially created a religion of their own.

 

Sure it could be that way, but it's a heck of a lot less concrete than "god made us on the sixth day". It also demands that one view certain writings as metaphorical, even mythical. Many find this unacceptable.

Sorry if I offended.

 

Summed it up perfectly. Thanks. Look in the other thread and theory = fact. That's where I think this whole thing is flawed and where, as I said earlier, "faith" has entered in.

 

No offense taken.

As to your point, I'll mention that Christ used a lot of parables to make his points.

 

On the contrary, organized religion has been a great preserver, compiler and generator of knowledge throughout history.

 

School / education choice does not hamper education. This is a fight about what information the state will us to indoctrinate and the legitimization of beliefs. People want to win, be right and force that view onto others to make others similar to them. It's not about science.

 

This is interesting, it is true, and false at the same time.

True in that there are cases of religious leaders protecting knowledge.

False is in that there are many cases of religious leaders destroying knowledge because it does not fit their dogma too.

So, I would say on this point, the grade is decidedly incomplete.

DD