Skip to main content

View Diary: Let's Teach the Controversy of Evolution vs Intelligent Design **Updated with Poll question** (365 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is like arguing the the sun... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elmo, MKinTN, Oh Mary Oh

    revolves around the earth.  I do not think the religion and biological science are mutually exclusive just like I do not think astronomy and creation is mutually exclusive.  

    However, if creationists want to continue being taken seriously, they will have to accept that evolution is real and incorporate into their beliefs in the same way they did after Galilio and Newton proved that the earth circled the sun.  If creationists continue to resist by claiming mutual exclusion, then they will be cast into the same dust bin as Roman and Greek Mythology.

    I always liked the reasoning that God could not explain DNA to a bunch of shepherds 2000 - 5000 years ago so he gave them a story to answer their questions (and they verbally passed it down to their families for additional generations).  

    If Christians (and all other religions for that matter) would simply quit being afraid that some new piece of evidence is going to destroy their faith, they would see that it is a fantastic, beautiful thing.  If God is the creator, it is obvious that he is a God of mathmatics and that he established rules which govern the universe.  Couldn't he just as easily designed evolution to accomplish his desired outcome?

    "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

    by Buckeye Nut Schell on Tue May 07, 2013 at 06:35:46 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Buckeye Nut Schell, MKinTN, Joieau

      Science has no good answer for how the universe came into existence in the first place, so that's a perfect place for religious people to posit their God.  Nothing stops them from positing that it was God who created the scheme of evolution in the first place.

      •  I always counter (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elmo, Buckeye Nut Schell

        with the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a beginning to the universe.  Sure the Big Bang happened but we have zero evidence to say that was the initial start of the universe, only that it is the OBSERVABLE evidence.  There's no reason to not assume there have been infinite Big Bangs, that the known Universe expands to a certain size and then collapses back in on itself until it has to explode outward again.  

        In fact logic actually tells us that to assign a beginning and ending to matter and energy, time and space, just adds complication.  Our minds are designed for our finite world and the concept of infinity, of no boundaries to time and space, is not something that sets well with us.  However, to designate a beginning simply adds the question "what was it like the moment before the beginning?" or if one assumes a creator, "Who created the creator?"

        The simplest, Occam's Razor explanation, is that matter and energy have always existed and what we can observe is but a tiny piece of the puzzle, that space extends forever, that we will always find more past the known limit of our universe as we gain ways to do so.  

        •  "Bubble" universes are (0+ / 0-)

          an entirely metaphysical supposition, just as multiverses are entirely metaphysical. I always find it interesting that mathematicians can apply their art to such metaphysical musings just for shits and giggles. Doesn't turn metaphysics into physics, though. IOW, it ain't science.

          Dueling metaphysics is the game of those dreaded religios. Why would anyone without skin in THAT game care to play?

          •  I had never heard (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joieau

            of any of the concepts that you're talking about.  I simply refuse to be able to grasp that there's some "beginning", a point where there was nothing and suddenly there was something.  Nothing in what I know of physics or science has shown me that it is possible to create matter and energy out of emptiness.  My brain of course wants there to be finite limits to things.  My DNA is programmed for life and dealing with the hazards humans face in a very finite world so I try to take away that wiring and look at what the possibilities are without that bias.  If what I think is right is true, not a single instrument or mathematical equation known to man will get the truth to that within our lifetimes, the distances too vast to peer much beyond what we now see.  However, as our telescopes have gotten stronger and we've gazed out at what we believed to be the end of our universe we simply found more and more, expanded those boundaries.  It's my GUESS that we always will.

            •  Bubble universes and multiverses (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Oh Mary Oh

              are fairly common out there, there's hundreds of returns if you Google either or both at the same time. Some arising from the "observer problem" of quantum physics and probability, some arising from a complete inability to imagine a Nothing from which Everything is born. People will tend to 'subscribe' to a version of one of these or some other model ('Branes, anyone?), but like the multidimensional string theories and Theories of Everything, they don't strictly qualify as science because they cannot ever be demonstrated or falsified. Metaphysics.

              We are of course limited by the fact that our physical equipment evolved on this planet and not somewhere/time else. But it's not that hard to imagine a beginning - a "Big Bang" that would qualify as the Mother of All White Holes (from where, one could legitimately ask but not answer). Hell, I can put my mind all the way back to the first nanosecond of creation (as we know it at this point in time) infinitely faster than light can travel - the Speed of Thought, Consciousness in action. Magnetic flux can do that too, from beginning to very leading 'edge' of the entire universe while encompassing everything in between, instantaneously. I think gravity can probably do that too, but wouldn't even try to 'prove' it. I doubt either of those phenomena are conscious, but I could certainly be wrong.

              And while trying to wrap your head around that, scientists 'discovered' some years ago that there was a certain probability in experiments smashing heavy hadrons with heavy hadrons at close to light speed that the resulting quark-gluon plasma might recombine into "Strangelets," a form of matter apparently not allowed in this universe [3 strange quarks rather than some admixture of strange, colored, charming, up, down, etc.]. Such a result, some equations suggested, would cause an instantaneous phase-change in the collective wavefunction of the universe itself, turning it all suddenly stable [all of the dynamism of our universe is the result of its basic instability]. Which freezes everything, unzips it, wipes out all possible forms of life and consciousness - everything. So fast we'd never know what hit us. This, btw, is much, much worse than just creating some mini-black hole singularities.

              That's sure spooky, isn't it? §;o)

        •  I believe that... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau, artmartin

          The dimensions we now observe were also created in the big bang and that other dimensions existed before (if you can actually call it before if time as we now know it didn't exist).  

          There is still the question of where did all of the antimatter go and why it does not still exist in equal proportions to matter.  If all matter is simply energy (E=MC²) and a solid state is merely an illusion, all kinds of possibilities arise.  If the entire universe is merely a collection of energy, it may resemble the neuron activity of a supreme (or maybe just an ordinary) being and we are nothing but a dream.  I do not know.  I also do not understand how paired particles can communicate instantaneously across any distance if light is the universal speed limit.  How could the Big Bang originate from singularity in anything but uniform distribution in all directions begging the question, what made it collide and join into the initial clumps that formed the galaxies and stars we see today?

          Where I think most Christians and I diverge is that they feel that they have to have an exact answer for everything and I believe that we will always be moving toward a more detailed understanding, though we will never truly understand.  That does not diminish my faith, it makes me more amazed and even more faithful if that makes any sense.  

          The rules that are in place that created everything is the real miracles in my eyes.  That we have figured out mathmatics (and that it actually works) to explain these rules is my most compelling argument for some type of intelligent design.  These rules (as opposed to some carvings in stone tablets) are the true universal laws of God.

          "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

          by Buckeye Nut Schell on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:12:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site