"law" of evolution?
- Started
- Last post
- 90 Responses
- designbot0
The main problem I have with some of the more hardcore believers in evolution (or science in general) is the thought that EVERYTHING can be explained through natural processes. That idea seems kind of insane to me. What about human experiences, do they mean nothing? Can everything be explained through some formula or are there some things (supernatural or other) that simply fall outside the realm of what science is capable of understanding. When I use the word "understanding" I am really talking about reproducing a thing/event so it can be studied and made into a law/theory. I think we can all agree there are lots of things ( love, hate, a mothers instinct, etc.) that cannot be quantified by science but we can know through our own experiences or other people experiences that these things are indeed real. At the end of the day I think this debate of "evolution vs. creation" or whatever name you want to give it is really just a hindrance that is tiny, and maybe even slightly insignificant, in comparison to our human experiences and the life we live. I have often heard people state "give science time and it will be able to explain all things" that is, all things through natural occurrences. I know lots (and respect) people who hold to this view. But this truly boils down to a FAITH issue on their behalf.
- I guess what I am getting at is if you hold to this strict scientific view of "truth" I think you will miss out on life and what is possible.designbot
- possible.designbot
- well, no - scientists can be happily married, love their children, etc - but when they do science, they are scientistsmikotondria3
- You might find this interesting designbot:
http://www.ottawacit…TheBlueOne - that's a pretty short sighted view of science. how can you be 'hardcore' into facts and reason?spifflink
- wrong0
i always thought the "missing link" was the species between apes and prehistoric man . . . were we looking for what links all of those species to previous mammals? if so, hooray!
- teleos0
“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.”
- Dr. Robert Jastrow, Astronomer
- TheBlueOne0
I think designbot, your issue (and the problem fundamentalist religon types) is in fact with determinism, and not that "that EVERYTHING can be explained through natural processes". It's in actuality a serious problem confronted by scientific philosophers for quite a while. It does seem that the thinking going on in Emergence studies and Complexity Theory are starting to point to a universe that isn't in fact based on Newtonian deterministic, reductionist principles - thus it cannot explain all things. There is, in fact, space for creativity and choice within the All. Despite the press that Dawkins, et. all. seem to get, Science doesn't really care about God, proving or disproving him. It's not at heart a scientific question, because you can neither prove or disprove such a thing.
- designbot0
I think these quotes from scientists are quite cool and interesting...they really break open the myth that science and God are somehow at odds.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
- There's are tons and tons more btw...just pulled a few.designbot
- What if you found out it was the Islamic God instead of your vision of God?DrBombay
- then you'd still have to deal with a creator and the possibility that you are accountable to it/he/she :)teleos
- Couldn't I ask you a rewording of the same question? To quote you Dr.B "Enough with the what ifs"designbot
- Speak when spoken to.DrBombay
- sorry DB, my rude comment was for the other guy.DrBombay
- He likes to try to make other people look stupid, you know like Jesus used to do.DrBombay
- it's all good :)designbot
- Jesus was the master at removing people's foundation for argument quickly...usually leaving them to the crickets.designbot
- I always thought he was prob a pretty nice guy.DrBombay
- that clinches it. there must be a god and purpose to all things!spifflink
- my favorite thing ever is appealing to authority. ever. for serious.spifflink
- hey spiff, again you are verging on troll. I don't get why you or anyone feel the need to make such comments? They contribute nothing to the conversation.designbot
- nothing to the conversation.designbot
- yeah Dr.B I think the 2 things almost anyone can agree on...Jesus really did exists (human or God) and that he was must've been a nice dude :)designbot
- neither do you then. keep trying to establish your own criteria for what constitutes 'conversation'.spifflink
- ..must've been a nice dude ;)designbot
- spiff, all you did was throw some sarcastic remark out...how is that a conversation?designbot
- its pointing out the absurdity of some things people put forth. seriously, quit whining.spifflink
- some of these scientists have done amazing work, so i am not disparaging them.spifflink
- whatever, "absurd" by your own biased definition. Why not contribute something real to the conversation instead of making dogmatic assertions?designbot
- dogmatic assertions?designbot
- my own "biased" definition? disparaging 'dogma' and embracing religion in the same breath? haha!spifflink
- well then i can't argue with THAT circular logic.spifflink
- All this because you can't man-up and admit what you said was more snarky comment than valuable conversation. LOLdesignbot
- I would say something but apparently I am tainted by "bias". I would argue with you but you'll pull more mental gymnastics to rationalize your supremacy.spifflink
- assert your brand of logic's supremacy.spifflink
- and i guess being "snarky" is a bannable offense or something. which is why NO ONE on QBN is snarky at all.spifflink
- sorry you feel that way. I'm all about in engaging in conversation with mutual respect.designbot
- Yeah, I know people are snarky all the time on here, not saying that.designbot
- teleos0
Dawkins et. al have their own religion: scientism.
- no
they
fucking
don't. You still don't get it.
mikotondria3 - Religion is a collection of statements.
Science is a collection of processes designed to assess statements about truth.mikotondria3 - statements about the world and.mikotondria3
- Wrong. Dawkins and Co.'s commitment to materialistic reductionism is faith-based. And he knows it.teleos
- Piffle, sir.mikotondria3
- that's what you'd called a 'naked assertion' teleos. finally its correctly used! huzzah!spifflink
- no
- duckofrubber0
Good show, chap!
- duckofrubber0
Good show, chap!
- ukit0
Science is just a fancy word for what we all do every day. If you were trying to debug a Flash movie or a web app what would you do, pray that God would fix it? Of course not, you would run some tests, identify the problem and fix it. That's science.
- Is the problem x? Lets try...
No, it can't be x, because y is true. Is the problem xx ? etc..
You do it without thinking.mikotondria3
- Is the problem x? Lets try...
- teleos0
http://timesonline.typepad.com/s…
http://www.newscientist.com/arti…
Humans may have "descended" from cuddly, furry little Emurs, maybe not. But it wasn't random variation + natural selection (the Darwinian Mechanism) that was responsible for said descent. It was front-loaded pre-programmed saltation.
- ...And he bursts forth like Superman out of the phone boothukit
- teleos0
Gravity is a law. Entropy is a law.
Darwinian Evolution is a highly speculative steamboat-era creation myth.
- designbot0
Well from a Christian perspective TBO
determinism = predestination, ultimately these words have the same meaning. But I suppose you are right, I do believe in free will and think every human being is capable of choosing their own fate. So you could argue my problem is really the thought that our human existence has no purpose or meaning. But it is also with human experiences, and what is considered truth. If I have an experience that does not fit within the walls of science as "truth", does that make it false? Or could it be that what I experienced is indeed as real as gravity, and simply cannot be quantified by science? I agree there is no way on either side to prove or disprove the existence of God. Just like science cannot prove or disprove love or hate. I have always had the view that humans are simply limited in their understanding, so whether it be the unknown things of the universe or the things of God, we are ultimately trying to understand and explain things as we see/experience within the confines of our limited minds. We all have faith one way or the other, in something....in that OUR view is the correct one when we cannot be 100% certain. This is where our experiences can take us in one direction or the other. Science is a great thing, and has evolved so much even over the last 50 years it's pretty staggering. I just squirm at the thought of putting 100% of my faith in science and only natural known occurrences, when again, there are things it (science) cannot explain but for all intents and purposes could be stated as fact.thanks for the link btw, I'll check it out.
- ukit0
Notice that despite all this hating on science, at least it works as advertised. Thank science next time you hop behind the wheel of your car, fire up your computer, or take a plane somewhere.
Religion on the other hand, doesn't seem to feel any need to back up its claims about faith healing, resurrection, seas parting etc. I'd be a lot more impressed with religion if I could actually say cast a spell a la Final Fantasy and shoot a lightening bolt at someone or heal myself.
- I think all you like to do is argue, personally.designbot
- *shoots lightening bolt*ukit
- haha, I don't mean to be harsh, you just strike me as someone who is more interested in debating than having a conversation.designbot
- conversation.designbot
- Look if I argue with you I must take a contrary position...ribit
- Yes but an argument is more than saying 'no it isn't'ribit
- Yes it isribit
- No it isn'tribit
- er... dang thats not right is it..ribit
- You are wrong about me designbot. WRONG!ukit
- chrisRG0
the problem with religious people is that when "you/science/anything" prove that wasn't god that "created the world, created us, designed us, etc us..." they will argue a step behind and so on and on, religion it is the biggest meme of our history and we needed it to be here today, but please, take that only as that it is, there is no such thing as god out there, if u ever studied a bit about it with an open mind you'd realize that.
- please read more books than only that one
- please travel more, know more countries, cultures, religions...
- please try to think at least one day in life: "what if..."than the last famous quote about the good/bad news:
- bad: no, there is no god!
- good: you don't need it anyway!
- sputnik20
grandpa?
