I'm a day late on celebrating Darwin's 200th birthday with a blog post. But yesterday I listened to disbelievers in the theory of evolution hold forth on the radio, so I was thinking of you, Charles.
What Darwin did, brilliantly, is point us in a vitally important direction: reality. That's what science does so well, and religion so poorly.
Now, I realize that "reality" is a dirty word to many people, not all of whom are fundamentalists, because it sounds so elitist, unspiritual, objectifying, divisive.
One guy I heard on a talk show claimed that he wasn't religious; he just wanted students to be exposed to different beliefs in science class, so they would realize that some people believe in this and some believe in that.
At first I thought he was joking, because this notion is so nonsensical.
Are there no facts, no shared sense of objective reality? What allows the guy to talk over the airwaves, using words that all English-speakers can understand? Isn't this reality, rather than belief?
Is everything to be questioned in some sort of post-modern circus? "In this ring, believers in a flat-earth dance with believers in a spherical planet. Over here, believers in alchemy perform with believers in chemistry."
I doubt anyone, even the most fervent true believer, is asking for the elevation of all beliefs to an equal footing. Only certain facts are to be questioned -- those which threaten a particularly precious belief system.
Almost always, a religious one.
It's strange, really, how supposedly godly people are so frightened of mankind being dethroned from a privileged position in the universe. Aren't they supposed to be more humble and egoless than the rest of us heathens?
Susan Jacoby wrote a interesting piece, "Darwin the Disturber." What he disturbed is a fantasy that humans are special creatures uniquely favored by God, occupying a position in the cosmos outside the realm of nature. She said:
I do not understand why it seems so important to theologians (and some sociologists) to find an explanation for human behavior that extends beyond the purely naturalistic. If the genetic research now being conducted in laboratories around the world tells us anything, it is that the interaction of genes is far more complicated than scientists imagined even a decade ago.
Worrying about whether we ought to "play God" is somewhat premature, given that the more we learn about the human brain, the more we learn about how much more there is to learn. But if, as I believe, everything about human beings that we call "spiritual"--our ability to love, to create art, to imagine our own deaths--is inescapably housed within our material corpus, why is that so disturbing?
It has been almost a year since I watched the person I loved most in the world move inexorably toward death, his great mind shutting down as a result of the inevitable, degenerative, entirely physical process of Alzheimer's Disease. Now he lives only in the memories of those who loved him--and our memories are as dependent on the physical health of our bodies as his were on his body.
It does not enhance human dignity one bit to find a "spiritual" explanation for our higher mental functioning; nor does it decrease human dignity to look upon our highest achievements as part of nature, inexorably tied to the body that is ours for a finite period. This finiteness renders life more, not less, meaningful: we are enjoined to use the brains within our bodies to leave as much as possible to those who will inhabit the material world after us. Darwin faced reality, and that is why he was a human as well as a scientific giant.
Thanks to Pharyngula, I came across a one-minute condensation of 4.5 billion years of life on Earth.
Guess what? Humans are a barely noticeable insignificant blip at the very end. That's real. And it doesn't bother me at all.
Because I no longer consider that a single specimen of Homo sapiens, me, is significant in the cosmic scheme of things either.
That's Darwin's gift to us all: a humble sense of where we stand in the vast expanse of the still-mostly-mysterious universe.
Hi Brian
Throughout this post, you have used the words 'real' and 'reality' yet I am not entirely sure the intended meaning: its important, for if we are to search for and accept reality, we should know what it is!
Miriam Webster defines real as 'of or relating to fixed or permanent' and "capable of being detected' and even ' existing as a physical entity'.
When using the word 'real; and 'reality' (the quality or state of being real) then statements such as you have made about Darwins work are circular, he observed what existed and we conclude that Darwin pointed us in the direction of reality (ie, this is the same sentence using different words)
But when we talk about reality, and I may be in error here in assuming you imply the dictionary definitions of this word, then, almost by definition, we restrict our discussion and search for that which can be observed, that which exists as a physical entity.
As God has not been directly observed, we cannot state God is real.
Rarely are definitions black and white, so the old man struggling in bitter cold wind to pick up flowers for his wife's grave generates feelings in the silent observer which are not physically observed, yet are experienced, these are real feelings that can be understood even by those who did not witness the event. They are real.
What about those people who claim to have had some religions enlightenment, some experience of spiritual nature. In our classification of this experience, we cannot pigeon hole the description of that experience into a category we can associate with, so the tendency to classify as non real, as fantasy, as a figment of imagination of wishful thinking, any explanation that justifies the non-real label, is strong.
Darwin certainly made significant contribution to science and to our understanding of the existence in which we find ourselves, and as you conclude, it would be as wrong as those who lived a hundred years ago and felt there was nothing else to be known to think that Darwin's work uncovers any more than the smallest tip of the ice-burg of knowledge of reality.
I am not a fan of Wikipedia, I do not place much reliance on accuracy, but it has an alternative definition of the word reality, "that which is, whether observable and comprehensible or not"
Brian, if your use of reality is intended with this definition, then I for one feel Darwins contribution to point us in the direction of reality is possibly not that large.
Regards
Phil
Posted by: Phil | February 13, 2009 at 10:26 PM
There is no proof for evolution. The fossils do not show it.
There are only fossils of species but not fossils of species evolving into other species.
There are no half fish half amphibian fossils.
To say that fossils of different species look similar and thus evolution occurred is ridiculous.
God created all species separately along with the universe. Not only a couple thousand years ago though, as some Christians postulate.
Adam and Eve were the first humans. They were projected from God along with the rest of the creation, as adults.
Fish are fish man is man cow is cow. None of these animals were once fish and "evolved" into what they are now. There are no fossils of anything but what we see today and some additional extinct species that are not the missing link between any species evolving to another.
So the Bible is right on this subject big deal. But scientists will never figure out there own puzzle of how living creatures came to existence in the first place.
They are stuck with the theory that non living matter somehow became complex living creatures.
No this whole creation was projected along with the species. Matter cannot "evolve" into species and then species "evolve" into other species. They basically say that single celled organisms evolve into humans eventually. Ridiculous.
Posted by: Sid | February 14, 2009 at 03:33 AM
There is no proof for God. The Bible does not show it.
You would have to be a fossilised fool in make-believe world to think otherwise.
There is ample evidence of terrestrial aquatic crossover. From tadpoles to frogs in one generation. And dolphin ancestors were terrestrial.
To say that God co-created different species and thus creation occurred is ridiculous – mumbo jumbo.
Species evolved concurrently along with the universe. Over billions of years across the universe, not only a couple thousand years ago though, as creationist Christians postulate on Earth.
Adam and Eve are an allegory. They represent a species with evidence going back from about 2 million years ago, without the need for an anthropomorphic God.
Fish are fish, man is man, cow is cow, with ample genetic evidence of connectivity. All of these animals "evolved" into what they are now. There are fossils and genetic codes that clearly prove we are all missing links.
So the Bible is wrong on this subject full stop. And scientists are figuring out the puzzle of how living creatures came to existence continuously.
All matter shows potential to support life beyond our imagination. We are presented with the evidence that matter the basis of complex living creatures.
Yes this whole creation evolves across time and space. Matter "evolves" into species and then species "evolve" into other species, interconnected in their domain. Single celled organisms evolve into humans eventually, until extinction delivers an alternative. Marvellous.
Posted by: Cruzjuan | February 14, 2009 at 07:19 AM
What Darwin did was use fossil evidence to make logical conclusions which is part of the scientific process. It does not prove there was no god. It doesn't prove exactly how the process works. It is how thinking people make their conclusions in life-- look at solid facts, things you can measure and test and then decide what they mean. Religion throws out any solid facts for an interpretation of spiritual truth to fit their dogma. Darwin was not the end of thinking but someone willing to think outside the box. Mankind could still have come here many ways and all evolution would still be true.
I have a friend, not a nutcase, not someone delusional and when he was at one of those group regression seminars, they took the group back to the first life they remembered on this earth. The others there remembered caves or something like it. He remembered stepping off a space ship in a silver suit. I know... Can't prove it. Can't prove it not either. That's the beauty of life.
But we can see the bones and that part we can measure and date and then speculate which is what Darwin dared to do. There have been some good shows about his process on National Geographic recently. Well worth seeing for anyone interested.
Posted by: Rain | February 14, 2009 at 07:52 AM
Are you trying to tell me that fishes are the descendants of humans?
You're trying to tell me that this "evolution" theory is correct? What a fantasy that a fish could evolve into a human. Even if it takes many years it's impossible. There are no half fish half amphibians. People sound foolish when they say that after long periods of time one species can evolve into other species and eventually become Man himself. That is SUCH a joke.
God created the heavens and the earth with his great power.
We don't need scientists. They are a hassle to deal with.
They interfere with God's Sons. But God created them too so they should be more humble.
Adam is referred to in many scriptures of different religions.
Matter doesn't evolve into conscious beings.
Oh yeah a bunch of matter mixed together and formed complex single celled organisms that "evolved" into complex organisms like humans over time. Oh and fish were in between. How silly! Where do you get your faith in this nonsense from?
Trust me the fossil record does not have anything in between species.
Show me some real stuff like intermidiatory fossils like a half fish half something else.
You won't find it because scientists make up a lot of ridiculous theories.
Posted by: Sid | February 14, 2009 at 07:59 AM
I should have said he looked at species to see their development and how it subtly changed. For instance the mockingbird that would have a different bill different islands in a kind of travel pattern. He actually used more living species than the bones-- as I understand it-- which showed the process of evolution as ongoing. The bones are there for us to see and evaluate-- but the conclusions we draw may be different ones.
Posted by: Rain | February 14, 2009 at 07:59 AM
Darwin often said that he felt bad that he couldn't find transitional fossils that show evolution from one species to the next. He said that this proof would probably come in the near future. It never came.
Posted by: Sid | February 14, 2009 at 08:19 AM
Sid, you are astoundingly ignorant about the evidence for evolution. A couple of years ago I learned more about transitional fossils in a few minutes of Googling than you've obviously been able to do. See "Transitional fossils do exist, you creationist crazies."
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2005/11/transitional_fo.html
Sorry for including you, Sid, in a "crazy" collection. But this is an important subject, and it is a fitting label. I have a grandchild now. As she grows up, I want her to learn in school about what is true -- so far as humans have been able to discern it (truth is ever-expanding) -- not what religious fundamentalists like you falsely believe.
So please, for my grandchild and for all of us, take your personal religious beliefs and keep them confined within your person. Don't let them infect the larger society with falsity.
Phil, I was thinking of your attitude toward reality when I wrote:"Now, I realize that 'reality' is a dirty word to many people, not all of whom are fundamentalists, because it sounds so elitist, unspiritual, objectifying, divisive."
On this blog I frequently cite a quote from Philip K. Dick: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
I love these words. Not because I fully understand them. Because they seem to point to a truth that lies beyond our individualistic, egocentric, subjective, anthropomorphic perspectives.
You correctly point out that words like "reality" have to be defined in order to mean something. Sure, agreed. I've tried to share my own meaning through the Dick quote. My understanding of science is that, broadly speaking, it shares that definition (Dick was a science fiction author, among other things).
Human beliefs are one thing. Reality is another. Beliefs are real to the person who has them, along with dreams, thoughts, imaginations, perceptions, and all that exists within our psyche.
And yet...the earth has existed for some 4.5 billion years. As the one minute encapsulation shows, humans have been around for just a blink of that time. Darwin, and science in general, offers us a look into what happened outside of current human cognition, which is so limited.
We don't create reality. We are part of reality. People like Sid believe that their beliefs are reality, that they can dictate what is real because the Bible tells us so. Others, less fundamentalist but still humancentric, say "we create reality."
My Taoist (and scientific) sensibilities can't accept that. All the evidence seems to show that we part and parcel of the cosmos, not separate from it. This is Darwin's central message, and it seems to be true.
Posted by: Brian | February 14, 2009 at 09:52 AM
Discrimination and categorization of the perceived world is analysis. Reprojection of the associated patterns onto the source of the perceptions requires theoretical models that are synthesized within the mind and reprojected through our individual selves.
These conceptual theories allow greater collections of individuals to reflected more deeply into the outer (phenomenal) world through the inner (noumenal) structures. If one gets stuck trying to interpret any of these conceptual analyses or syntheses as any form of "ulitmate reality" there will be great disappointment.
It's been a while since I've read anything about Darwin. My understanding is that his basic theory was iconoclastic but that the theory of has evolved, so to speak, to better explain the fossil record and biological sciences. There are no dinosaurs mentioned in the bible and there were too many observations being made of the natural world at the time of Darwin which caused a great deal of doubt in the notion of 6 days of creation. Lamarck was ridiculed and the whole idea that life could be just a bunch of chemicals was a horrible thought to those who believed in divine creation. It was believed impossible to synthesize any form of chemical substance associated with life. When urea was synthesized, this was another case where the dogmatism of antiquated religious doctrine broke apart. The entire field of organic chemistry followed.
The bible may, at one time, have provided an effective cosmological example by which one could live in this universe but the bible addresses virtually nothing about what is discovered through observation of the natural world. Science allows for a more believable (putting our faith in others) means of understanding the manifested reality.
Unfortunately science imposes its own preferred theories that can be difficult to overcome. We collectively begin to think the theories that arise within the process of science is real and lose our childlike wonder. MOST science is bad in that it simply regurgitates theory as fact. Many scientists themselves don't realize they are in a prison of theories and can't see beyond them to the mystery. It took many years before the Bohr model of the atom could be overthrown. Thomas S. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" describes some of the difficulties in giving birth to new theories.
There is both good and bad in scientific method. When Newton came up with the theory of Gravity (which is wrong if interpreted as reality), there were a bunch of hokey theories about the heavens and angels moving the planets in their orbits and such. Kepler was totally incapbable of seeing beyond his religious conceptions of the heavens and the way the planets moved. He was using "sacred" geometry and fitting anything he could find from the wisdom of the ancients to his world view of the celestial spheres.
There is almost no good in an outdated dogmatic belief system (or theory) that doesn't recognize it is no more real than the next set of concepts that replaces it. Science simply happens to be less concerned about new observations that may overthrow its cherished beliefs (theories). There is a rule of order built in to the scientific method which allows change in the accepted beliefs through dialog of its scientists (priests). But doesn't religion have a similar process in theology discussed by its priests (spiritual scientists)? Is theology to science what spirit is to nature? This seems to be another source of separation. I think dogmatism applies to both science as well as religion and both anchor us firmly in the world.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Jayme | February 14, 2009 at 11:10 AM
I saw the transitional fossils on that page. It doesn't show anything.
Evolution has no proof. There will never be real transitional fossils. There will never be half fish half something else or half monkey half human or half anything half something else.
You'll never see a bird evolving into something else with its wings slowly going away and it transforming into another species.
There will never be convincing transitional fossils.
It will always just be two species that look similar and scientists jumping to conclusions.
Posted by: Sid | February 14, 2009 at 02:21 PM
there never will be any god or gods except for the ones made up in your head.
Posted by: JJQ | February 14, 2009 at 02:40 PM
People who want to find evidence regarding evolution will find plenty and with the Internet, it's easy for anybody to understand. Someone who says a fish becomes a man doesn't grasp the original concept and doesn't want to do so. It's not that man came from chimpanzees. It's common ancestors with some developing one way and some another. There are all kinds of such fossils but Sid doesn't want to believe that and he won't believe any evidence because it threatens his belief system. Man didn't come from a fish but from the basic materials developed life. Some believe what suits them and this is one of those cases.
Posted by: Rain | February 14, 2009 at 02:44 PM
Plain and simply the decedents of humans are.... humans. It's no surprise to me. It would in fact surprise me that single celled organisms could EVER turn into a human species over any given amount of time.
JJQ:
"there never will be any god or gods except for the ones made up in your head."
Yeah God doesn't exist and instead only random events cause things. This whole universe is just a chance thing. The matter of this universe and councioussness just happen to have arose "somehow."
"One evasive tactic is to claim that the universe didn't have a beginning, that it has existed for all eternity. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons why this obvious idea is unsound. For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course."
Fools ignore the above statement. They forget that God does create the creation.
Posted by: Sid | February 14, 2009 at 03:46 PM
Here read this whole website:
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Posted by: Sid | February 14, 2009 at 04:09 PM
"Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book The Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened."
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Posted by: Sid | February 14, 2009 at 04:18 PM
Dear Friends,
Have you considered that there is an antithesis to
evolution and I dont mean de-evolution but involution.While evolution seems to work on a broad
front perhaps involution works on an individual basis.Perhaps self-awareness is the result.
Just a thought.
Keep Happy
Obed
Posted by: Obed | February 15, 2009 at 04:32 AM
Sid,
The article you point to is essentially propaganda. The article you point to says that:
"Either every part of every living thing arose by random chance, or an intelligence designed them."
-- The implication is that creationism is a defensible theory. It isn't. It also implies that there are no patterns in this universe ("random chance"). Obviously there are patterns. Science applies a methodology to explain the causal relation between patterns. Invoking "God" is fine if you do NOT wish to participate in the field of science.
Hi Obed,
I think you have an interesting hypothesis. Do you think sufficient scientific evidence exists with which to build a case for an involutionary theory?
Although there does appear to be a common physical basis for consciousness, will this basis fit within any scientific framework? This may fit under the idea of teleology which I don't think is considered "serious" science. If I'm not mistaken, this implies purpose and there is no real purpose to "this that is."
Ultimately, I think, this all arises simultaneously and there is no time, no space, no being, no thing... and no proof.
Respects,
Posted by: Jayme | February 15, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Dear Jayme - your post on Feb 14th 11.10am was a very well written piece indeed.
Thanks.
Posted by: manjit | February 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Thanks manjit.
I wasn't sure if it made sense as it wasn't edited much.
Posted by: Jayme | February 15, 2009 at 01:30 PM
Jayme said:
"Sid,
The article you point to is essentially propaganda. The article you point to says that:
"Either every part of every living thing arose by random chance, or an intelligence designed them."
-- The implication is that creationism is a defensible theory. It isn't.
To tell you the truth I don't know and scientists don't know exactly how the first living organisms showed up or all the other things of this universe. We don't have the eyes to see it, or at least we haven't opened those eyes yet.
I just feel that species don't evolve. I feel that all species came from their own species. The first animal of each species must have been that animal itself. How was it born? I feel that God projected all the things of this universe somehow.
But I don't think that he projected matter that turned into cells that turned into species. That isn't defensible.
But I do think that he directly projected all the living species and so forth. What it looked like and how exactly it happened I don't know.
He projected deer he projected cells he projected bacteria. Sure a lot of the species look similar but if one has the power to look way back in time I don't think those two species converge in any way. I feel that the further we look back the more clear it is that each species stays its own species. Were they all created at once? Well I would think so. Scientists often say that only simple creatures were alive back in the day.
It also implies that there are no patterns in this universe ("random chance"). Obviously there are patterns. Science applies a methodology to explain the causal relation between patterns. Invoking "God" is fine if you do NOT wish to participate in the field of science."
I just don't see science as being the sole drive behind things.
This universe IMO is too favorable in too many ways to not be the product of a living God.
Look at the birds and so forth. Did they arise from random scientific jargon? Did they simply evolve from single celled organisms?
Did even those single celled organisms evolve from matter?
I feel that matter arose and also living things arose from God.
I don't think that matter arose which then turned into living things.
Posted by: Sid | February 15, 2009 at 01:47 PM
Sid,
There is a definition for your opinions - religious dogma.
I am not saying that that is a negative thing per se. What I am saying is that we must realize that dogma is not fact and to promote it as such is both misleading and dangerous!
Dogmas and doctrines are merely concepts (which cannot be falsified) about an unknowable mystery - end of story!
Bob
Posted by: Bob | February 15, 2009 at 03:52 PM
Sid,
If this present moment is all that is then any and all causal chains are broken (there is no time). Each species manifests in its own perfect way. Evolution is a time sequent theory. It is a framework from which we can engage in meaningful dialog with other individuals. The theory is not the ultimate cause. Obed's involutionary idea maybe a way of linking the inner world and outer world through science but even this is ultimately explanatory in nature and exists as a transient form in time and space.
The formalized process of science is not the only way to think. Intuition is often used as a rich soil out of which the conceptual seeds of theory arise and fields of science are born. I think that most of the best scientists have also been concerned with issues of the creation, God, and the lot. The identification of the Benzene ring structure by August Kekule came to him in a bizzare "non-scientific" dream of a snake eating its tail. Science is filled with hunches (hypotheses) but it is only when reason is applied and hypotheses tested that these experiences can be adopted as a common set of shared experience (consensus reality). Theories are to science as religions are to spirit. Theories and religion are codified systems of belief (dogma) intended to represent some form of reality. Science and spirit are living aspects of a dynamic energy of experience. Science and spirit are the life essence embodied by the carcasses of theory and religion. Most sciences and religions are corpses. Examples of these are the theory of phrenology and (insert your favorite religion to bash here).
In Sant Mat, we look for common phenomenal experience of light and sound. The final objective being the void. However, this is not subject to objective reality (formal science) since these experiences cannot be shared except through personal experience. I believe some of Sant Mat because I've seen or heard it. I cannot offer my experience as proof since it is not generally accessible to others. In science, there is a similar dilemma. Most modern science is conducted in laboratories with expensive equipment. The experiences of the individual scientists cannot be had by most of us and so we take their work on faith. The proof we get as consumers of science is better medicine, stronger materials, interesting technology. These are as close as the lay people come to the truth known to scientists. The science you see is processed artifacts that cover over a deeply human character. Evolution is no different. How it happens is conjectural. One can introduce God but this doesn't explain all the patterns observed in any way that can be formulated into an objectively useful tool for understanding cause-effect relationships.
Sid asked: "Look at the birds and so forth. Did they arise from random scientific jargon? Did they simply evolve from single celled organisms?
Did even those single celled organisms evolve from matter?"
-- Science is simply a set of commonly accepted ideas that include a body of evidence and a model to explain the patterns observed within the body of evidence. It doesn't mean the ideas are Truth. Good science doesn't claim the theories are absolute Truth. Evolution is a loose theoretical framework but overall possible alternative theories it is the best model available which explains the observed body of evidence across many disciplines. Simply invoking "God" removes all objective ability to understand why we see what we do in the world.
-- Single celled organisms are matter. Amino acids do form in electrical discharges within a postulated atmosphere believed to be consistent with what we know about planetary formation. You wish to see for yourself a cell forming out of a priordial broth concocted within a laboratory bottle. The reason this does not happen is that we do not know all the mechanisms that have taken place. We are trying to capture within a single theory a dynamic process that happens over approximately 1 x 10^-15 (1 femtosecond) to 1.1 x 10^17 (3.5 billion years) across the span of the surface of the earth. If one considers cause-effect down through the planck scales and the theory of panspermia then we may be talking solar or even galactic scales. Evolution is not too bad considering what it is addressing.
To say that evolution didn't happen is like saying "I quit trying to make sense of my world and God did it." Okay, but the body of evidence (the world and universe) are still there. To simply ignore the patterns in the body of evidence or deny there is an explanation, is to deny God. In effect, the creation itself is denied. This is okay if you have gone beyond all form and recognize yourself as having never been born but who here has done that?
If you have a better explanation as to why chemistry, biology, physics, animals, plants, geology, stellar and planetary formation, and the whole lot of these fields for which science has offered theories and you have a very thorough understanding of the current failures within the existing theory, you might consider publishing a book or at least an article in a refereed topical journal.
Posted by: Jayme | February 15, 2009 at 06:23 PM
Bob said:
Sid,
There is a definition for your opinions - religious dogma.
-Religious dogma comes from religions. But Saints are not religions. They are human beings. They tell us things honestly and tell us how to confirm those things. This process happens. People become Saints from following Saints. Ask them. Ask Gurinder Singh he'll tell you. Don't believe him that's you. You can try the path.
I am not saying that that is a negative thing per se. What I am saying is that we must realize that dogma is not fact and to promote it as such is both misleading and dangerous!
-Evolution is not only not a fact but creationism is.
It is a fact that random events cannot end up creating a human being. That is not dogma. It is a fact that conscious living beings cannot have come into this world without God. Living beings don't just randomly get created. Look at the world. It has complexity beyond our stupid arrogant tiny insignificant intellects.
At one time this universe was created, agreed. But it was God that made things go into motion. He projected the universe out of nothing.
Science claims nothing. Scientists are not Saints. They have a lot of theories.
Dogmas and doctrines are merely concepts (which cannot be falsified) about an unknowable mystery - end of story!
Bob
-Again scientists use mere guess work to say that this fossil evolved into this fossil. The actual process of this ocurring is imposible and only has evidence against it.
On the other hand we humans can see that this world has a great divine creator that made this whole universe come out of nothing.
If we look at most of the scriptures of the world we find mentioning of Adam. We know that humans didn't evolve from singled celled organisms. They came from Adam and Eve.
How long ago? Well certainly not 6000 or 4000 years ago. That is not what Christ or other Saints have said.
This world is old but all the species were created at once.
There was never fish that turned into different species.
How laughable.
I used to believe in evolution. I never even thought about it. I didn't take a moment to think about it. But now I see that it is just a theory. It is so hard to believe in reality.
Ah just look at the hilarity of it. Fish turned into all the animals we have today. This animal was that animal and that animal became this giant creature which turned into dogs which became this then that then oh human beings came. Of course this happened all by chance!
Sorry but I'm not a fan of incredibly blind faith.
Posted by: Sid | February 15, 2009 at 08:46 PM
And I'm not a fan of closed-minded non-sensical fundamentalist religious preaching. Call it quits, Sid. You're repeating yourself over and over because you don't have anything to say that makes sense.
I rarely stop people from commenting on my blogs. But annoying repetitious preachiness is an exception.
Posted by: Brian | February 15, 2009 at 08:50 PM
Jayme I don't know about evolution.
The evidence suggested isn't the most definitive evidence IMO. There is reason to think that evolution occurred but to fall right into it without thinking that maybe this evidence is just a bunch of "what ifs" then it will become exaggerated in the mind.
I think that science believe that humans have come by chance.
Of course they believe in natural selection and so forth but it is still by chance that the Great Human beings are walking this greatly designed planet.
Everything seems too perfect. I think God can be thanked for projected this universe and its creatures that's all.
I don't think that anything but God could have had the infinite power to create humans and this whole universe. The consciousness of the creatures of this world I don't think came with the birth of the creatures. I think God also has created souls that take birth here and after death experience other things.
Posted by: Sid | February 15, 2009 at 08:53 PM
Brian forget all the religious talk.
I just want an explanation for the complexity of this world. If you don't have it then that's fine. But to me it seems very complex. I often would wonder why is there something instead of nothing let alone this complex universe.
Posted by: Sid | February 15, 2009 at 09:22 PM
Sid, one thing that might help is to compare the creation as outlined in Genesis with "evolution".
What happened first, second, third,....
The Bible and evolution agree right down to the letter.
So how long did God take to evolve nature into the form that we presently witness?
Notice that after each creative day God saw that it was good.....
...EXCEPT for the LAST DAY!
You will not read that God "saw that the 7th day WAS GOOD".
That is because we are presently in that last creative day.
How long, in human terms, have we been in this "day"?
Answer: many thousands of years.
God has not stated that this creative day "is good' as he did the previous, because:
1) The day is not over.
2) It isn't good. It sucks. Sin entered our world in our present day.
Well brother Sid, I think it is a sin to discount all of the wonders that lay apparent in history that allow us to marvel at the unmasking of the creator's progress in delivering us to the present.
Isn't that what Satan did; discount all of what God presented?
"Evolution" is mearly an attempt to understand God's handywork better.
To get all dogmatic and defensive at each and every fossel find and DNA discovery is to spit in God's face, in my opinion.
But go in peace brother. What you think, say and do is between you and God, I'm just an inocent bystander in regards to your soal.
;-)
Posted by: Harry Vanderpool | February 15, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Dear Friend,
I am not discounting all that has happened after the creation. I simply say that after the creation there was no need for single celled organisms to become all the species of today.
I feel that from the seventh day onwards all the species were already formed and from then to now many important things have happend I agree.
I'm not 100 percent sure on any of this. But I feel that if you ask any Christian they will agree that the Bible means that after the sixth day all the species were formed already. Or they will generally tell you that species don't come from other species to exist.
But correct me if you feel I'm still missing the picture, thanks.
Posted by: Sid | February 15, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Sid,
Go inside yourself and ask these questions. Find God and ask him. This is not the right place for "Science of the Soul (c)". Gurinder forbids you to visit sites like this for this very reason. That is, any concept discussed is just a concept. You are to give up concepts and go within. Go in peace.
Posted by: Jayme | February 16, 2009 at 07:53 AM
Just a bit of fun, here's another concept, albeit an interesting one:
From The Independent – Science Section: “The origins of Darwin’s theory: It may have evolved in Tibet”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-origins-of-darwins-theory-it-may-have-evolved-in-tibet-1623001.html
Posted by: zenjen | February 16, 2009 at 03:14 PM
That was short and sweet zenjen. These great ideas are... well... great. Darwin had to be coaxed to publish his work. He had no interest in causing a ruckus.
Thanks
Posted by: Jayme | February 16, 2009 at 04:22 PM