Evolution v ID v Desire

Discussion in 'Science and the Universe' started by peale, Nov 28, 2005.

  1. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    No need Sarah you were perfectly clear :)

    I agree with all you say, especially mental focus not being a credible factor. Protien switching in individual genes, where the only discerable factor of difference in the observed protien is the knowledge of its origin, is quite mind blowing however.....and I had never come across this before. There is no obvious way that a protien can carry a record of its ancestry, it hints at much deeper level of coding than we have so far assumed.

    Enviroment enduced rapid changes in a species are possibly aided by this function. (pure speculation). It effectively doubles the rate at which mutations can take place and so may be in part activated when enviromental stresses are present. It also allows 'breathing time' in that if the advantage/disadvantage of a particular mutation is carried through several generations it may produce permanent changes, without full commital at first try. So perhaps it may be the 'code writer', or its short hand note-taker at any rate. It may be some time before we figure out whats really going on there. But aint it fascinating !!!

    Regards

    TE
     
  2. Hazratio

    Hazratio Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Awhile back, I posted a draft of an essay in one of the evolution threads. Here's a link to the finished essay--feedback appreciated:

    [​IMG] Intelligent Design
    While it seems rather obvious that the objections raised by conservative Christian groups against the theory of evolution have less to do with scientific evidence than with what they perceive to be its moral and theological implications, their belief in intelligent design is not at all unreasonable. [More]

    All the best,

    Wayne (aka Hazratio)
     
  3. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice little bit of writing Wayne.

    I dont personaly see any reason why a christian should have any problem in accepting the duality you propose. The problems really stem, it seems to me, from the christian hard right. These people are not interested in truth but control and manipulation. They want a monopoly on truth and use whatever they can to that end. The vast majority of such ministries are in reality financial structures and it boils down to greed and corruption. The best thing to do is expose this fact wherever and whenever possible.

    Regards

    TE
     
  4. Hazratio

    Hazratio Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the feedback, Tao_Equus...

    With some qualification, I would agree with your characterization of the "christian hard right". Certainly, the financial/institutional structure has a way of skewing the approach of those leaders to the truth (i.e. they find it harder to entertain questions and criticism inasmuch as to do so would put at risk their position -- cf. the pharisees reaction to Jesus). And these institutions claim to have a monopoply on the truth and, by design, seek to have a monopoply on the hearts and minds of the whole world. However, I'm not sure if their leaders are consciously pursuing control and manipulation for its own sake. Rather, it seems to me that control and manipulation are techniques which the tradition-- which has a life of its own --employs. The leaders, themselves, are (to some extent) victims of the tradition in the service of which they work. This is the most negative interpretation of the situation--one that I used to believe without reservation. At that time, I characterized the sins of Christianity, in general, as follows:


    1. Social, political, or ecclesiastical control over

    freedom of speech and thought.

    2. The disparagement of the body or of the temporal order
    as intrinsically evil or flawed.

    3. The acceptance of mythic and religious imagery as
    scientific/historical explanations of phenomena.

    4. The acceptance of various prevailing cultural norms
    as absolute moral imperatives, not subject to rational
    criticism.

    5. The idolatrous acceptance of particular texts as the
    essential foundation rather than an essential expression
    of religious faith. [from Spinozism and Chrisitianity]

    However, I have mellowed a bit, and have begun to look for the good even in the Christian Right--see "The Purpose Driven Life".


    Thanks again!

    Wayne (aka hazratio)
     
  5. Ghaniel

    Ghaniel Explorer

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2005
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read an article yesterday about ID. A non was interviewed and she thought that the debate about ID, science is rather a debate about a materialistic/mechanical world view and a spiritual world view. A good thought.

    I believe there is also a fear of being controlled by natural laws and bound to a primitive biology that in every individual is concentrated on reproducing and only cares for its own survival(selfish gene theory!). I am myself scared by the thought that I am a mechanical being with no ability to choose. And no matter how much I believe in altruism and every man's need for a spiritual life, our world is a place where the genetically fittest will survive and all other lesser, "inferior" individuals will perish.

    Actually, we act against evolution of our own species. Because we take care of the sick and mentally retarded. And they are allowed to reproduce and their negative genetic traits will pass on to the next generations. To an evolutionist I'd ask: Why not delete these individuals? They reproduce and contaminate our gene pool. Fortunately for them, designer babies are coming around and we will have the opportunity to engineer individuals in a lab - perfecting humankind.

    But hey wait! you can say. What about respect for life, respect for the individual, care and kindness? And altruism? Are they all lies?

    Apparently. Because each and every one struggles for themselves. No one cares and any love and togetherness and empathy is false. It is nature's way of keeping us together as a species and making sure that our off-spring will be taken care of - because they have our genes.

    It is sad that some people adhere to this thought. What kind of persons are they, I wonder. Narcissistic? Perhaps. At least I am glad I'm not one of them.

    ID is a good thought if only it would present more scientific evidence!

    And there are many documented findings that support the idea of an evolution. Yet it isn't enough to satisfy my spiritual hunger. Perhaps some evolutionist will claim that spirituality is a psychological self-deceit designed to preserve our minds? Some bloke on another forum got eager when I proposed this and I suggested that we delibarely engineer all future generations' DNA to annihilate spiritual tendencies and save Mankind from such "irrational thoughts". He said "Yes!" I played the devil's advocate of course, but if we look at evolution... why not? I long to be disproved and have my arguement debunked!

    Spirituality is important to many(me too)... but am I just a slave of a God-gene? Is religion a survival mechanism, a good help when things go wrong that make you rise again and struggle to win? I am convinced it is not...

    But science rules. Hope someone find my queries interesting.
     
  6. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    The scientific "evidence" for intelligent design is available, and has been presented over and over. Evidence for evolution is available, and has been presented over and over. However, evidence is worthless to those who refuse to accept it as valid. In my opinion, the two camps should be looking for evidence to confirm or refute the other's claims, instead of looking at their own material and ignoring everything else. That would be the objective way of coming closer to solving this issue.

    If I were an evolutionist, I would be delving into the micro-level of things, to try and find evidence for or against Creationism. If I were a Creationist, I would delve into the macro-level of things to try and find evidence for or against evolution.

    I happen to be one who accepts Intelligent Design as viable and probable (and no, ID is not Creationism in disguise). The concept combines God's genius for creating and Nature's function to evolve into something higher.

    As far as time goes, we already are aware that time is relative, subjective and can be modified. But at one time we thought it was fixed and absolute. We once thought that light had only one speed and moved in a straight line, now we know it can be decreased or increased, and bent.

    I also think we each are evolution examples on a daily (or within a lifetime) basis. We adapt to our environment, we adapt to handicaps, we improvise with what is available, we compensate for imperfections, we overcome difficulties, and we flourish, not simply die off. The "evolving" is in our mind, thought, sense of self. Sometimes it is gradual, and othertimes punctuated (instant or quick).

    Ghaniel, commented on our bodies being mechanical. The truth is our bodies are based on mechanical principles. It is a electro-chemical machine, highly complex, impossible to synthesize, or directly repair. Our minds are even more complex. And that which make us, us (our "essense" if you will), is impossible to define, let alone even partially conceive of (simply consider the miriad of religious, philisophical ideas we have about ourselves).

    But the strangest most unfathomable part is we are more than the sum of our parts. We know it even if we don't want to admit it, because we profess it daily to each other (His body is buried there, He's lost his mind, His spirit is heavy, She is beyond herself...).

    No, I would think the best way to find the answer to this issue, would be if evolutionists and creationists took the approach of "What if the other one is right?", then set out to finding any evidence to confirm it... that would be interesting indeed, and I bet we come to some kind of answer sooner, than later...;)

    v/r

    Q
     
  7. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,570
    Likes Received:
    2,412
    An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem
    science has with God, The Almighty.
    He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

    Prof: So you believe in God?

    Student: Absolutely, sir.

    Prof: Is God good?

    Student: Sure.

    Prof: Is God all-powerful?

    Student : Yes.

    Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal
    him.
    Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How
    is this God good then? Hmm?

    (Student is silent.)

    Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God
    good?

    Student :Yes.

    Prof: Is Satan good?

    Student : No.

    Prof: Where does Satan come from?

    Student : From...God...

    Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

    Student : Yes.

    Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything.
    Correct?

    Student : Yes.

    Prof: So who created evil?

    (Student does not answer.)

    Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these
    terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

    Student :Yes, sir.

    Prof: So, who created them?

    (Student has no answer.)

    Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the
    world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?

    Student : No, sir.

    Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

    Student : No, sir.

    Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelled your God?
    Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

    Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

    Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?

    Student : Yes.

    Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science
    says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

    Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.

    Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

    Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

    Prof: Yes.

    Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

    Prof: Yes.

    Student : No sir. There isn't.

    (The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

    Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat,
    mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have
    anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no
    heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as
    cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We
    cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat,
    sir, just the absence of it.

    (There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

    Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as
    darkness?

    Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

    Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something.
    You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....
    But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called
    darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be
    able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

    Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

    Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

    Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

    Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue
    there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are
    viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can
    measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity
    and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either
    one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact
    that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the
    opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you
    teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

    Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of
    course, I do.

    Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

    (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where
    the argument is going.)

    Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at
    work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor,
    are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a
    preacher?

    (The class is in uproar.)

    Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's
    brain?

    (The class breaks out into laughter.)

    Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain,
    felt it, touched or smelled it?.....No one appears to have done so. So,
    according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable
    protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due
    respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

    (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face
    unfathomable.)

    Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

    Student : That is it, sir.. The link between man & god is FAITH. That is
    all that keeps things moving & alive.

    That young man was ALBERT EINSTEIN.......


    Interesting story any truth to it?
     
    juantoo3 likes this.
  8. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    No, but it is a good story. ;) What A. Einstein did say (among many quotes), is that God does not play dice with the Universe. What he meant I suspect, is that there is an order, that randomness can not explain, and entropy can not overcome. I think Einstein was in fact agnostic. He didn't express an understanding one way or another. He however, had questions...and one of them was "What if...". see, he did not limit himself to the box...he ventured outside the box every day.

    Yes he set the stage for the Atomic bomb, but then he wrote a personal letter to President Roosevelt, pleading with him not to use it. (Roosevelt didn't, but Truman did). Once unleashed, Einstein recognized that man could literally create "hell" on earth.

    If God did not play dice with the universe, then man should not either.

    You surprised me with your post (pleasantly I might add). ;)

    v/r

    Q
     
  9. Ciel

    Ciel in essence

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thanks wil and Albert,

    Where the dual and the nondual are concerned, great truth. Though strange as Albert was considered a brain amongst brains that he should focus on the denial of the brain unless seen. And Albert was a brain unto himself.
     
  10. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    He was a man, who refused to be placed into a category, and refused to accept the status quo. He simply let his mind wander, and wonder...
     
  11. Jaiket

    Jaiket Token Atheist

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm afraid you've been beaten to the punch buddy. Lamarck nipped in with that one just ahead of you. I recommend you discover Mendel's genes next, and you'll hopefully understand why the idea of conscious evolution was discarded.
     
  12. Awaiting_the_fifth

    Awaiting_the_fifth Where is my mind?

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    0
    Evolution driven by desire, I don't totally agree with that, but I do believe in evolution driven by "mental focus".

    My Buddhist view of the world leads me to believe that it is not the brain that generates the mind, but rather the mind which generates the brain, as well as the rest of the body.

    I think that our deluded consiousnesses produce this physical form that we consider to be "The World" but our conciousness is evolving all the time, and as such, the physical form which we inhabit also evolves.

    So I suppose I really do believe in ID, but the intelligence is not God, it is us! We are all our own God and we create ourselves.

    Wow, that was pretty deep for me.

    Peace
    @5
     
  13. Ghaniel

    Ghaniel Explorer

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2005
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unfortunately, Einstein became an atheist sooner or later.
     
  14. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Actually Einstein was a "deist". He had no choice but to conclude that there was something, after he realized that the Universe had a beginning...;)

    "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

    Albert Einstein

    v/r

    Q
     
  15. Ghaniel

    Ghaniel Explorer

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2005
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doesn't give him salvation though... But he was close...
     
  16. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    I wonder, for those who believe in life after death .... what ol' Albert Einstein might be thinking (and "doing") right now! ;) Maybe he's adding to his theories, with a little help from even Greater Geniuses! Hmmm ....

    andrew
     
  17. Nitai

    Nitai Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you like to check out this link?

    Nitai
     
  18. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Jeannot presented this scripture in another thread, but man did it strike home for me concerning Evolution and Man, vs ID and Man.

    "The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine. You are but aliens and sojourners with Me." (Leviticus 25:23)


    To be "alien" is to not be part and parcel of the original. To be a "sojuorner" is to be a traveler who seeks.

    In short, we are not of the earth, but alien to and travelers over...

    We don't "own" this planet because we are not from this planet, or not part "of" this planet?

    Could it be possible that this planet is a "foster home" for humans? It might shed light onto the fact that we can't seem to live within the ecosystem, but rather attempt to force the ecosystem to accomodate us...

    just some thoughts

    v/r

    Q
     
  19. flowperson

    flowperson Oannes

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    3
    I myself can't wait till earthlings travel to Mars and see what's really there. Maybe we'll find a lot of our own histories. I totally agree with you and Jeannot on this one.

    flow....:)
     
  20. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    443
    Remember this one Wil?
     

Share This Page