The Evolution Conflict

[_Z_]

I’ll just jump in here as I am new & this thread is massive! so forgive if I am repeating what has already been said. also i am a philosopher not a scientist so please forgive ignorance.



The humanative: concerning creationism vs evolution & the current debate on intelligent design, I thought I would add yet another dimension.

Does evolution arrive at e.g. humanity just by chance? I don’t think so, for me it is a question of source. What comes first principle or events moulded by it! The universe surely has a set of laws and principles before it began or else there would be chaos. The humanative is a principle by which evolution is ‘pre-set’ [loosely meant] to arrive at humanity! This is not a rigid thing, it is an idea that there is universal human nature e.g. intelligent beings throughout the universe would develop human like features & or high intelligence & ethics + religion. All creature, plant, star planet etc. types would also have a pre-destined nature! The whole evolution tree would thence be within the belly of god – so to say, thus it is not mere co-incidence [which I find vague beyond belief] that we exist and are here debating our nature!



Just an idea ladies and gentlemen, what do you think?

[Quahom1]

Interesting and logical.

v/r

Q

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by _Z_

The humanative: concerning creationism vs evolution & the current debate on intelligent design, I thought I would add yet another dimension.

Does evolution arrive at e.g. humanity just by chance? I don’t think so, for me it is a question of source. What comes first principle or events moulded by it! The universe surely has a set of laws and principles before it began or else there would be chaos. The humanative is a principle by which evolution is ‘pre-set’ [loosely meant] to arrive at humanity! This is not a rigid thing, it is an idea that there is universal human nature e.g. intelligent beings throughout the universe would develop human like features & or high intelligence & ethics + religion. All creature, plant, star planet etc. types would also have a pre-destined nature! The whole evolution tree would thence be within the belly of god – so to say, thus it is not mere co-incidence [which I find vague beyond belief] that we exist and are here debating our nature!



Just an idea ladies and gentlemen, what do you think?

hi Z, welcome to CR, enjoy your stay!

sounds a bit like a varient of the Strong Anthropic Principle... though the whole pre-destined thing sort of undercuts that view.

of course the modern synthesis never teaches that evolution is by chance....

metta,

~v

[_Z_]

Quahom1: thank you – does the humanative make sense to you then – at least as a loose principle roughly describing god’s method in a relatively crass manner [as I am only human].



Hello vajradhara. I’m looking forwards to a long stay, after looking around I think I have finally found my kind of forum!

I don’t know anything about the strong anthropic principle – I’ll look it up. Yes evolution isn’t about chance more chemical reactions primarily then survivalism etc. although I think animals just try to ‘live’ as we do then survival comes into it, thus we have different creature & plant archetypes that adapt to others that want to eat them. Yet for me looking at the big picture – all chemical reactions & every other kind of relative interaction, are pre-considered [very loosely speaking of course], to cut a long story short; it all works & there is not chaos! Everything from the big bang onwards [spacial evolution – if you will] clicks together in a round about way – well most of it ha. Basically I believe there are principles before existence, & this would infer ‘that which organises law’ a supreme intellect of some kind?

[juantoo3]

Bump for exposure.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by _Z_

I don’t know anything about the strong anthropic principle – I’ll look it up. Yes evolution isn’t about chance more chemical reactions primarily then survivalism etc. although I think animals just try to ‘live’ as we do then survival comes into it, thus we have different creature & plant archetypes that adapt to others that want to eat them. Yet for me looking at the big picture – all chemical reactions & every other kind of relative interaction, are pre-considered [very loosely speaking of course], to cut a long story short; it all works & there is not chaos! Everything from the big bang onwards [spacial evolution – if you will] clicks together in a round about way – well most of it ha. Basically I believe there are principles before existence, & this would infer ‘that which organises law’ a supreme intellect of some kind?

Namaste Z,

why should the organizing "principle" be an intellect of some sort? why not the Strong Nuclear Force, for instance? or the, as of yet, unknown aspects of Quantum Gravity?

predicated on some of the modern theories regarding the singularity as demonstrated by Harwking, if something existed prior to the so called "big bang" (though i feel that this theory, in any of its permutations is insufficient to address all the questions) the effects of said "something" could not be passed into this universe.

if you have a chance to read it, both "A Brief History of Time" by Hawking and "The Nature of Space/Time" by Hawking and Penrose are quite excellent references for this sort of thing.

metta,

~v

[_Z_]

Namaste vaj



I have read those books and many similar. That which lies ‘outside the universe’ is infinity [there is no outside], it has an initial value of zero yet can become manifest as everything. There is no beginning or end, the whole thing is a universe melting pot of manifestation and unmanifestantion. I will post a thread soon [at the weekend probably] in the philosophy section concerning infinity, it is vast and I will question many misconceptions concerning the infinite – I think as a Buddhist you may find it interesting! In short there is no passing from one place to another – from the pre-universe to the singularity/universe – there is no such thing as seperateness! [or duality eh!]



Respect



Z

[wil]

The humanative: concerning creationism vs evolution & the current debate on intelligent design, I thought I would add yet another dimension.

Does evolution arrive at e.g. humanity just by chance? I don’t think so, for me it is a question of source. What comes first principle or events moulded by it! The universe surely has a set of laws and principles before it began or else there would be chaos. The humanative is a principle by which evolution is ‘pre-set’ [loosely meant] to arrive at humanity! This is not a rigid thing, it is an idea that there is universal human nature e.g. intelligent beings throughout the universe would develop human like features & or high intelligence & ethics + religion. All creature, plant, star planet etc. types would also have a pre-destined nature! The whole evolution tree would thence be within the belly of god – so to say, thus it is not mere co-incidence [which I find vague beyond belief] that we exist and are here debating our nature!

Is this the Peter principle in action?

[_Z_]

I think ‘the humanative’ notion needs a re-think, it is more something that points in a direction, than the final product.

Is this the Peter principle in action?

I don’t know is it – explain – sounds interesting.

Z

[DrFree]

And you might look at In Search of Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller to learn why evolution is essential to modern science. Miller, by the way, is both a Christian and a biologist, and works hard to demonstrate the compatibility of both.

I doubt, however, that there is any point to a my-source-is-better-than-yours type of argument.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by DrFree

And you might look at In Search of Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller to learn why evolution is essential to modern science. Miller, by the way, is both a Christian and a biologist, and works hard to demonstrate the compatibility of both.


I doubt, however, that there is any point to a my-source-is-better-than-yours type of argument.

Actually I personally find no conflict between the two. It is the either/or arguement that really rubs one the wrong way.

v/r

Q

[lunamoth]

Welcome to CR, DrFree

I also do not see a conflict and I agree with you, Q, that the either/or debate is ridiculous.

I've heard good things about Miller, I think one of his essays was posted here at one time and I remember enjoying it. I would be interested in reading Finding Darwin's God and discussing it here.

peace,
lunamoth

[bob x]

Quote:
Is this the Peter principle in action?


I don’t know is it – explain – sounds interesting.

The "Peter Principle" is that eventually everyone stops getting promoted: namely, once they have reached jobs for which they are incompetent!

[wil]

The humanative is a principle by which evolution is ‘pre-set’ [loosely meant] to arrive at humanity!

The "Peter Principle" is that eventually everyone stops getting promoted: namely, once they have reached jobs for which they are incompetent!

While the theory of evolution doesn't indicate that it arrives at humanity as the be all and end all...there are many branches to those trees arriving at various 'mutations' in their highest levels.

However with humans we have now supposedly evolved to what we are today, a point where survival no longer determines the gene pool. Artificial insemination, government run entitlement programs, equal rights, sperm banks, etc., equal technological and moral advances that insure the 'weak' survive and repopulate. Good, bad, thoughtless or indifferent, if evolution is true, we've put a stop to it, likewise if Creation and/or some Creative/Divinely Guided Evolution is true, with genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms, and artificial insemination, seedless plants and all the rest...we've decided that we are smarter than our Heavenly Father, Creator, and Mother Nature as well.

A variation of the peter principle in action, no/yes?

namaste,

[lunamoth]

Hi Wil,
That's interesting, but...

Originally Posted by wil

While the theory of evolution doesn't indicate that it arrives at humanity as the be all and end all...there are many branches to those trees arriving at various 'mutations' in their highest levels.

How have you determined this, that any species is at some highest or most perfected level? This actually does not make sense at all with respect to the mechanism of evolution based upon descent with modification. All species will continue to change as their environment changes, those most suitable for their environment will be best adapted and have highest survival, leaving the most offspring. Species best suited today may very well not be competetive at all in several thousand years.

However with humans we have now supposedly evolved to what we are today, a point where survival no longer determines the gene pool.

Wrong. Survival always effects the gene pool, although not in time frames we can observe, or in ways that we can reliably predict. Too many variables!

Artificial insemination, government run entitlement programs, equal rights, sperm banks, etc., equal technological and moral advances that insure the 'weak' survive and repopulate. Good, bad, thoughtless or indifferent, if evolution is true, we've put a stop to it, likewise if Creation and/or some Creative/Divinely Guided Evolution is true, with genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms, and artificial insemination, seedless plants and all the rest...we've decided that we are smarter than our Heavenly Father, Creator, and Mother Nature as well.

Evolutionarily speaking, we live and die as a species. We have not and can not put an end to evolution, although we may be effecting the end of our own species. What we have observed throughout recorded history is like looking at one still frame of a movie and saying that because the picture does not change the movie is at an end. And YEC implies that the movie also has no prior plot; what we see is what we have always had with little or no changes. We may (or may not) be affecting the competiveness of our species, and we are also in the position as a speicies of having a large and far-reaching impact on our environment, which will also effect our survival, but in no way have we terminated evolution, in no way have we stopped the work of our Heavenly Father as you put it.

All the so call "artificial" means of altering the gene pool do not mean that we've put a stop to evolution, in fact it might be that we are speeding up the process by introducing mutations at an ever increasing rate at the same time that we are changing our environment.

Science fictiony perhaps, but we could be either the termination of an evolutionary branch or the "common ancestor" for a future next plethora of humanoid species to survive on this planet. I don't think that man's doing, no matter how extreme, could wipe out all life on this planet, but I think it sure could wipe out all human life.

A variation of the peter principle in action, no/yes?

namaste,

When we can no longer compete, we will no longer survive as a species.

Just wanted to brighten your day.

cheers,
lunamoth