Tweet
Re: Re: Re: Evolution and religion....
I'm not "right until proven wrong", I'm simply right in this sense because I ask for the evidence that leads from one species to another, and that evidence is lacking. Whether I am right or wrong in the long term sense of whether or not evolution will prove meaningful, well I might be just as wrong. Whether the theory of evolution is right or wrong, or the belief in God is right or wrong, in my opinion, will never be revealed to us on this physical dimension. Those that claim it is about observation, well, obviously no one has observed any species changing to some other new unknown or unpredicted species. All the changes that we exhibit, for the thousandth time, are within species, and one must be a really paranoid Bible thumper to deny within species variation. Macroevolution, or puncuated equilibria, is something of a mystery that was simply asserted and believed. Even now you are expressing faith in the theory by admitting that we do not know the mechanisms yet clinging to it because you have hopes. Thus by doing so, you are by your own hand putting faith in the theory, something that no evolutionist dares admit to. Simply put, if all we have is statement that say "This leads to that" but no way to prove that, then there is no need to claim evolution is immutable fact, which you are doing, yet at the same time admitting indirectly there is no evidence for those assertions with the "mechanism for evolution is not known".
So whether or not it was proven that one fossil led to another, it is something that you "feel" to be true so therefore it must be so. All we have are some fossils that appear out of no where, and the die out all of a sudden. This is why evolution was in an embarrasing area prior to punctuated equilibria for the long contended notion of the intermediate forms was lacking and the embarrasments that mainstream evolutionists went through to provide missing links, from gemmules to bathybius, to Nebraska Man, were sad attempts to give examples of intermediate forms. To compensate for that we have Gould and Eldridge using the powers of human imagination to try to alleviate this problem and patch up the holes. Now we don't need intermediates for the jump from one species to another is a drastic, rapid jump, therefore eliminating the notion of any intermediate forms. Fossils are fossils, they exist whether one is a creationist or an evolutionist. I myself have a hard time trying to conjure how some random mutations would be enough to produce a whole new species, since we see in our everyday lives examples of mutations and their harm on the organism. Thus the numbers I highlighted in the human body are anything but the result of randomness, for they are all multiples of 11. That our DNA is our blueprint containing our specific information, and all the nucleotides are arranged in a specific order, and when that is violated we have harmful effects, is to any thinking mind automatically a sign that randomness is out of the question, for that exhibits purpose.
I should add that, I am not here to indict science, for I believe it is an integral part of the human species, for it deals with how things react and behave in our natural world, which we are a part of. When science attempts to step into a different realm, not of the material world, and tries to answer questions, then I will say science is going overboard, since we already have other forms of thought to deal with what is unknown and the paranormal or the superstitious. Perhaps evolution is indeed responsible for the changes that occured, meaning there is no purpose and it was randomness all along, but I will be waiting for the evidence that led one species to jump to another. Perhaps it is the hand of God stepping in to make these changes possible, answering the improbable, why certain things may seem improbable mathematically, but logically apparent ( that we see a progression in the fossil record ); that maybe because of God these improbabilities are moot since some force may have intervened and caused these changes. Perhaps it was God all along. Of course everyone is entitled to their personal view here, based on your own arbitrary experiences and worldviews.
Even within the evolutionary community there are disagreements and bickering. I believe that most scientists have deviated far from their stated aims and have gotten bogged down way too much with the evolution vs creationist debate, and that can have harmful effects on the scientific academia, and it has in fact led to the intolerance towards any scientist who might question the dogma that evolution is responsible for where we are now.
Originally posted by Arvestaked That is actually exactly what I wanted to see as a response. It is true the mechanism for evolution is not known and that natural selection and mutations are, most likely not responsible. But I feel it is illogical and arrogant to have the "right until proven wrong" attitude that the godfearers tend to have.
Originally posted by Arvestaked Between vestigial structures, the increasing complexity of genetics, and the fact that fossils of all species cannot be found from any given period is enough to feel that evolution is something that exists.
Originally posted by Arvestaked Just because we do not know why does not mean it is wrong. There were many things just 100 years ago that were not unknown and attributed to God that are now answered and obvious. The only reason that people feel the need to attribute the origin of species to God is because they are used to the idea and put the pressure on themselves to prove he exists (and by prove I mean point out what science yet has not). If the idea of God was never invented by man, the lack of evidence for the mechanism by which evolution occurs would not have brought it about. Some feel the need to be faithful when it comes to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. However, them aside, remember, technology works, so do not judge science as a whole because of a certain few. The ones that argue against the said mechanisms claim that adherence to either of those theories is unscientific.
Even within the evolutionary community there are disagreements and bickering. I believe that most scientists have deviated far from their stated aims and have gotten bogged down way too much with the evolution vs creationist debate, and that can have harmful effects on the scientific academia, and it has in fact led to the intolerance towards any scientist who might question the dogma that evolution is responsible for where we are now.
Comment