DonnyMost, I realize that you provided that video in good faith and I am glad that you did. I just happen to have a different OPINION on the subject matter than an atheist would. What you have to understand is that I felt the same way you did towards my response that I felt towards that particular lecture. It contained too much bashing of religious people. Just stick to Cosomology and science. I have no arguments with most of the evolutionary theories starting from the formation of gases. For example, how galaxies were formed, how our moon came to be, the evolutionary process on Earth. These all have to be considered seriously by all religious people, because it passes some basic “smell test” of logic. However, in the lecture, he states that some of his theories are so wild, that eve he does not bother explaining it to any religious people because they will give the same reaction that I did. So, there is no surprise in my reaction. IMHO, the amount of "faith" required to believe the speaker theories is no different in comparison to the faith required to believe in a Creator. There is no more scientific method employed in his theory than in Christian does in the Bible. For example, no one doubts that Jesus Christ existed and was crucified. O, that He spoke the words in the Bible. From his Words, we Christians just happen to believe what He said. Just as you believe this "preacher." Moreover, I am only referring to the speaker theory that its “obvious” by the very nature of the laws of physics, that the known universe can materialize from nothing and QF. Then again, his theory of quantum fluctuations is “no more” pulled out of his donut muscle than what atheists claim about religious peoples references to the Creator. Therefore, he may be just a religious man, who calls God by a different name--in this case the Holy Duality of "Quantum Fluctuations" and “Zero Energy.”
Hold up. You just shifted from one claim to another that doesn't follow. The first sentence, sure (assuming you aren't misrepresenting what this scientist said -- I didn't listen to his speech). We don't know what is meant by "Creator", but sure. But to go from that to the second sentence is quite a leap. The Bible makes all sorts of claims of supernatural occurrences that go well beyond simply the "Creator" hypothesis.
Most of those aren't the theory of Evolution with a capital "E". Evolution, with a capital "E", is a biological theory that strictly deals with why we have a diversity of species. It doesn't deal with the creation of the universe, gases, or the Moon. It can truly be said here, that's no moon... I didn't watch the video but the theories that you are mentioning are ones that are very difficult to explain and require some background in physics and higher mathematics to understand. They are not though pulled out of one's donut muscle and there is a scientific basis to them along with some observational evidence to support them. While there is a lot of controversy about them and ongoing scientific debates they are not on par with religion in terms of a matter of faith.
This is confusing to me too! I believe in evolution caused by DNA mutations and the influence of the environment. For example, giraffes gradually getting longer necks. But how does 1 original species create millions of species? It makes more sense from entropy to start with millions of species and gradually decrease from extinction. To decrease in complexity.
Entropy increases in a closed system. Earth is not a closed system. There is a constant input of energy from the sun which drives things towards a decrease in entropy. It's a common mistake, one often made on purpose, without much understanding of even rudimentary thermodynamics.
I guess I need to finally send in money so I can edit. Make that last sentence: It's a common mistake (one often made on purpose) which demonstrates a lack of understanding of even rudimentary thermodynamics.
Off topic, but with all the talk of entropy, apparently some people now think that gravity isn't really a "force", but is an emergent function of entropy in the holographic universe. That's some serious weirdness, and I can hardly wrap my mind around it. If that doesn't demonstrate that simplistic musings about the nature of entropy are (for lack of a better word) simplistic then I don't know what does.
It is possible to get 2 species from 1 over time given: -advantageous or neutral mutations -TIME - favored by natural selection - Isolation (be it reproductive, temporal, geographical or mechanical) etc. Alot of things had to have happened, but it is indeed possible.
I would say more than possible, the vast mutations are probable given the right conditions. Case in point-the old story of the rice and the chessboard. Take a chess board and put a grain of rice on the first square then double it for each subsequent square. After 64 squares, you'll have more grains of rice than what's already on this planet. http://mathforum.org/~sanders/geometry/GP11Fable.html
I personally believe it has happened on more than one occasion, is happening slowly right now, and will happen in the future
Look, I hate to rain on the parade of people who sincerely believe in it but Creationism is a farce. We don't know everything about evolution yet, and some of the stuff about it seem contradictory, however Evolution ties into almost all the other sciences we have: Biology, Paleontogy, Geology, you name it Evolution fits into that framework that we have. On the other hand Creationism was created by people who simply can't accept that most of the stuff in the Bible didn't happen. Doesn't it strike you odd that everyone who pushes for Creationism happens to be a fundamental Christian? What kind of science is it if the only one who believe it to be true belong to only one religion? How come there aren't any Buddhist Creationists or Muslim Creationists out there? I saw a "debate" between a creationist and a legitimate scientist on youtube once and although the scientist was a complete ass, I thought he brought up a very valid point: in the scientific community there is no such debate between creationism and evolution. When you look at it from a scientific viewpoint, the idea that God directly created earth holds as much water as people who believe an aliens created earth. Or even other mythologies like Greek or Norse mythology. How do you know earth wasn't created from Cronos' dead flesh?
I'm not a Creationist, aside from the fact I believe there is a Creator and a creation. More accurately said, I'm not a literalist with respect to the Genesis story...because I don't believe it was ever written to be literally interpreted. Having said that...are you aware of Buddhist thought on the universe? Or Muslim creation accounts which parallel the Genesis story? Buddhism holds that all you see around you is illusion and is created only through people holding the idea of it in their own heads. In some sects of Buddhism, they believe that creation is born and reborn over and over again as spiritual beings take on flesh and repopulate the world...but at some point they'll all go back to being spirits again for a while...only to start it all over again at some point. And the Dalai Lama talks about a "clear light" that all things of both spiritual and "concrete" (however concrete something can actually be if you believe it's ultimately illusion) emanate from. Muslim fundamentalists are very much like Christian fundamentalists in their views on creation and evolution. Good luck teaching evolution in Saudi Arabia. One of Saudi's chief clerics told King's University maybe a year ago that they should stop teaching evolution because to do so was to violate Sharia. If you're in the States, you're used to backlash coming from the Church...but I think you'd find it much more vehement from religion in Islamic countries.
To expound upon what Max just wrote. I can speak for Hinduism specifically. While the scriptures describe a process of creation, its extremely vague and certainly no where close to the type of details in Genesis. Simply speaking, there isnt the text that Christianity and Islam have in regards to creation. As for Buddhism, its not quite as simple as the world is an illusion. That's part of it, but more importantly the world is constantly evolving as well. It probably fits best with the idea of evolution as a constantly changing force. Buddhism also blurs the distinction between species since life is a collective set of consciousness or spirits if you want to come up with some visual that's ever changing. Its not like the Christian notion of a body with a soul. Its souls that can have many bodies over time and the ultimate goal is a recognition of this cycle and an acknowledgement of the limitations of life. The funny thing about Islam specifically is how its changed over the last couple thousand years. The Middle East once defined intellectualism. When Europe was struggling through the dark ages, the Middle East was the center of most major intellectual discoveries. Islam wasnt any sort of barrier to knowledge or science. In fact it was a strength that religion didnt dominate life anywhere close to the extent of Europe before the renaissance but somewhere along the way an unfortunate anti-intellectualism snuck in and science took a back seat to religion in a lot of countries.
Several Different Species of Killer Whales Likely Admittedly simplistic! I think the overall course of Entropy is a one way trip as observed in the increasing rate of expansion of the universe and actually, that if you could measure net entropy you could use that define Time. To me, since gravity is accretive and Black Holes decrease Entropy, gravity is like Anti-entropy. But it is a weak opponent. When they try to describe it with equations of Greek symbols though, I get lost pretty quick.
I admire Buddhist practice...I see tons and tons of connections with it and my faith in Jesus. Tons. A whole lot. I find tons of common ground in seeking God (or whatever anyone wants to call It) through meditation and prayer. I am understanding more and more how people can call themselves Buddhist Christians, when that didn't make as much as sense to me in the past. I see Zen in the Gospel of John, in particular, BIG TIME. Having said that...I don't see rebirth and evolution as being similar aside from saying that they both presuppose constant change. I think those terms are not as synonomous as they might sound when speaking of evolution as a process of change in a species. I don't think that's what Buddhists had in mind before Charles Darwin. I do agree with you that they do a far better job of describing the sanctity of life (no matter its form) than Christian tradition has done. Good for them...sad for Christians, because I think God clearly expresses a super-desire for sanctity of life...and I think it's why you've seen such attention on St. Francis. You're absolutely right about Islam, and I'd say that was true of Christianity as well. I still think the mainstream of both faiths is that way....they're just too defined publicly by their loudest, shrillest voices which happen to be quite fundamentalist.
Entropy goes hand in hand with complexity. Entropy doesn't decrease complexity but increases it. Consider that one sign of entropy is that the simplest element, hydrogen, gives rise to all of the other elements through the action of nuclear fusion.
Great post, as usual. I think I'd like to comment on this statement above though. I think your lament of fundamentalist voices defining religions is misdirected. It's very easy to blame the loudmouthed Jerry Falwell's of the world, but they're just providing what people want. At some point, mass-marketed religions ceased to be about the "message" and about understanding and instead became intrinsically linked to a social identity. The continual movement away from theological or spiritual instrospection towards defined absolutes as decreed by such-and-such church entity represents a perverted cyclical nature to the church as a body politic: Many people fear ambiguity - they want the certainty and comfort of a "sure thing" and, frankly, it's NOT there in the bible or the bhagavad gita or whatever. BUT... Inevitably, some preacher will pander to this ideology, and when he/she teaches what they wanted to hear, the cycle continues via indoctrination and dogma - it gets stronger. It's a werid microcosm of the human condition, which in itself is nothing to be ashamed of (I mean, inasmuch as it is natural unfortunately), except that the idea behind Jesus or Buddha etc is to divorce yourself from the trappings of mere humanity and seek something greater. I find that a bitter, bitter pill to swallow. Sorry for the derail.
