Doubting Darwin

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Beaker' date='Feb 21 2005, 10:01 PM']Nati...I simply believe that we are no more special than any other contemporary organism...from an evolutionary point of view. I believe that all life is unique and special, but not that one is any more special than the next. It was a reference to the biblical account of man being given dominion over all living things.[b] Nature and life could proceed just fine on its own without humans.[/b]
My beliefs about the origin of life go back further than life on earth. [b]I question the formation [/b]of the universe. The big bang seems fairly arbitrary to me. What "caused" the big bang? My own personal view is that there is a spiritual connection all the way back there. [b]Not that God created life on earth, but that he created the universe and allowed events to unfold from there according to natural laws. [/b]A possible explaination that is intriguing me now is string theory. It is amazing to me how higher level sciences such as quantum physics begin to blur the line between science and spirituality.

String theory hypothesizes that the tiniest forms of matter are not solid at all, rather they are bands of energy. The frequency at which the energy vibrates determines what type of matter is ultimately produced. To me, if God is the source of everything, then he could ultimately be the source of those strands of energy. He could BE those strands of energy...I dont know.

As far as an afterlife, I find it hard to believe that the energy that comprises our conciousness and our soul doesnt continue on. I believe that upon the release of our soul from our body that the energy that was our conciousness rejoins that which is the source...which you could call God.

I only profess these beliefs in direct answer to your question. I dont expect anyone else to believe the way I do, and this got far off the topic of evolution vs creationism. But I felt compelled to answer the question. Just remember, believing in evolution as a mechanism that gave rise to different life forms DOES NOT mean that a God could not still be behind the source of life. I said before, I believe there is a higher power, but I also believe he set the natural laws in motion and works through evolution.
[right][post="49762"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
I pronounce you of sane mind and body.
These highlighted phrases of yours EXACTLY describe my feelings on this matter...

[Homer_Rice]

Wow, what a thread! Took me some days reading, off and on, to get through it all.

My two bits, with the snarky comment first: This debate is a rehash of the Scopes/Monkey trial last century. Just a newer formulation with reductivist science on one side against fundamentalist worship on the other.

The non-snarky comments; Metaphysics 101 from the perspective of an hylozoic monist:

1) Why is there something instead of nothing? We can't answer that question.
2) Yet, we can affirm, there is something.
3) There is no logical reason why that something could not be an amorphous blob of one-ness. It is possible to conceive of such a universe.
4) Yet, the universe is not an amorphous blob of one-ness. The universe specifies itself.
6) How? The specifications of the universe tend towards higher degrees of organization.
7) Chronologically, there was inert matter before there was life, and life before there was intelligent life. The interesting question is this: How does a higher form of organization, with a different qualitative basis, emerge from a lower form? Where is, and what is, the invariant that acts as a causal principle across these domains which have qualitatively different axiomatic bases?

IMO, good science and profound theology are facets of the same diamond. They need not be incompatible, and I would argue that the best theology is scientific and the best science is profoundly theological. Neither Darwin (conceived of as entangled with Herbert Spencer's positivist dogma) nor fundamentalist religion fit the bill.

Hope this muddies the waters even more! Now, all we need is for Marvin to sign Bob Huggins and Ken Griffey. That way the Bengals could roll some strikes and make the score 40-love.

[Jamie_B]

Very good posts Beaker I've heard of string theory before and its a interesting concept. (Probally not as familiar with it as you though)

I guess my question still stands though, why is it we give one theory more credit than another when neither can be proven. Many are so ready to jump aboard the string/chaos/evolution theory ect.. but so unwilling to accept a "Intelligent" Design theory. The fact remains that we can neither prove nor disprove either. Is that not a disjustice to science when we allow our bigotry to intefere?

[Beaker]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Feb 22 2005, 02:37 PM']Very good posts Beaker I've heard of string theory before and its a interesting concept. (Probally not as familiar with it as you though)

I guess my question still stands though, why is it we give one theory more credit than another when neither can be proven. Many are so ready to jump aboard the string/chaos/evolution theory ect.. but so unwilling to accept a "Intelligent" Design theory. The fact remains that we can neither prove nor disprove either. Is that not a disjustice to science when we allow our bigotry to intefere?
[right][post="49859"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Jamie,

From a scientific point of view, evolution (change over time) is fact. Natural selection, as one of the main mechanisms of evolution has so much corroborating evidence attributed to it that it is also considered factual. New discoveries in all areas of science are happening all the time, and with each new discovery comes more evidence pointing towards natural selection.

An example of one of the newest discoveries (last approx 7 yrs) is one on the front of molecular biology. With the completion of the human genome project, the entire sequence of human DNA has been mapped. A new type of gene has been found, and tested. Homeostatic genes are like master control genes. Early in embryology they code for protiens that tell what parts of the developing embryo are to become what structures. Then they in turn cause other genes to be turned on in a cascade effect that further fine tune things down the line. The interesting thing is, they have found that these master control genes occur on the same site on a human chromosome as they do on a mouse chromosome, or a frog chromosome, or a fly chromosome...all chromosomes. (Plant for plant, animal for animal, not plant for animal obviously). You can take a homeostatic gene that codes for an eye in a fly, and insert it into mouse DNA. The mouse embryo will then develope a perfectly normal mouse eye. In other words it coded for "eye" then turned on other genes down the line in the mouse DNA that fine tuned the eye structure into the functional eye of the proper type. The master control gene for "eye" will code for "eye" in any DNA!

What this points to is genetic continuity in all living things. Common ancestry goes all the way back. It is not the only proof of it, just another piece of evidence on top of already existing evidence. Like I said before, evolution takes things that work, and tweaks them for new situations rather than developing new things every time. If anyone is interested I can also address how there can be so much diversity and just about any other question creationism asks of evolution.

I love this thread because information about both sides will allow others to decide for themselves.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://home.student.uu.se/daro8527/Album/0serie01.jpg[/img]