Darwin's Debt to Christianity (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

no1nose -> Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/7/2008 10:36:58 PM)

While many words have been written about the differences between evolution and religion far few have been written about the similarities and parallels between the two – that is mainly the parallels between Christianity and Evolution. The point is that there are many parallels and understanding this will uncover the dynamics of the conflict that has been raging for the past 150 years.

When we look at evolution we find that it parallels Christian thought. This is most easily by posing the question, “If evolution is true then who in history would be a prototype for human evolution?”

Surprisingly, Jesus is the most logical choice. No one else in history has had as much influence. If we treat Jesus as an evolutionary prototype we will find that he exactly fits the evolutionary model for a prototype. Jesus was different at birth, and as such was the first member of a new species who proved his survivability by being resurrected. Members of the old species are faced with the choice of transforming and becoming like Jesus or becoming “extinct”. From an evolutionary view point Jesus is the prototype for mankind's next evolutionary leap. While Jesus did not procreate - his "spiritual genes" are in billions of people making him the most prolific of all humans.

There is a one to one correlation of themes between Christianity and Evolution. It would seem that Darwin took from Christian thought and simply gave things a different name. For example redemption became survival and transformation became mutation. The main differences are the Christianity is concerned with the redemption of the unfit and evolution then focused on the survival of the fittest (that is until it became PC incorrect). The other difference is that in Christianity God is in charge whereas in evolution things happen by chance.

What needs to be brought out is that Darwin’s evolution was not as novel and original as many people believe. He plagiarized 19th century Christianity and this I believe is the true source of the conflict. At the core both Christianity and Evolution are very similar but with differences that lead to strikingly different philosophical values. Evolution seeks to displace and take over the Christian platform and install a new set of moral values.

If evolution is built on a plagiarized Christian foundation then the strength of evolution as a world view must in turn validate Christianity also. The point is we may not have a correct understanding of the Christian message but its ideas and thought forms are so powerful that no one can ignore them and many wish to use them for their own ends.

So what is Darwin’s debt to Christianity? Everything except the idea of survival of the fittest and the denial of God - and these weren’t his ideas either.



Method -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/7/2008 10:59:38 PM)

First off, this is a very interesting post. It's quite original.


quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose
Jesus was different at birth, and as such was the first member of a new species who proved his survivability by being resurrected.


In the theory of evolution new species are not founded by a single individual. According to the theory, populations evolve and speciation occurs between populations. Perhaps the rise of early christianity would be a better comparison.

quote:

There is a one to one correlation of themes between Christianity and Evolution. It would seem that Darwin took from Christian thought and simply gave things a different name.


If Darwin stole from anyone it was Malthus. It is also possible that he stole a bit from Russel Wallace who was forming the same theory as Darwin during the same time period.

quote:

The main differences are the Christianity is concerned with the redemption of the unfit and evolution then focused on the survival of the fittest (that is until it became PC incorrect).


Just to nitpick. Evolution focuses on the production of biodiversity. The proposal that the most fit produce the most offspring is just an unavoidable fact. It is one of many mechanisms that produces biodiversity. The other major mechanisms are random mutation and speciation.

quote:

The other difference is that in Christianity God is in charge whereas in evolution things happen by chance.


It is not chance when the slowest elk in the herd is eaten by wolves. While the production of mutations may very well be random, at least with respect to fitness, the selection of individuals within a population is non-random and not chance.

quote:

He plagiarized 19th century Christianity and this I believe is the true source of the conflict.


I really don't see that connection. Darwin based his original theory on his observations of how populations act. He also referenced artificial selection quite a bit, such as the wide range of variation among pigeons that was produced by human breeding. Natural selection is just an extension of his observations of what happens in artificial selection.

quote:

Evolution seeks to displace and take over the Christian platform and install a new set of moral values.


Evolution gives us no morals at all, no more than any other scientific theory. You might as well claim that germ theory is trying to take over the christian platform. You also forget that around 30-40% of biologists are christians who fully accept the theory.

quote:

So what is Darwin’s debt to Christianity? Everything except the idea of survival of the fittest and the denial of God - and these weren’t his ideas either.


Darwin was a believer when he penned "On the Origin of Species".



no1nose -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/8/2008 12:21:46 AM)

Hi Method
Thanks for your remarks. I find it interesting that there are so many interperrations of what evoluation is and how it works.

I would disgree with your comments. I doubt that Darwin would have come up with Evolution if he not had a Christian background.

Without doubt Evolution and Christianity both follow a "redeemer" scenario. In Christianity Jesus is the redeemer and those who follow him are "saved". In Evolution the redeemer is the one member of a species that has a mutation that is advantageous and leads the way to survival.



no1nose -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/8/2008 5:12:59 AM)

The Theory of Evolution is not an accurate representation of the natural world, rather a distorted view at best.

Hard physical evidence demonstrates that reality is nonlinear (c squared, r squared etc) and discontinuous (quantum). However the human mind is not capable of rational nonlinear and discontinuous thought. Instead we think sequentially and in a linear straight line (A is followed by B which is followed by C etc). The Theory of Evolution portrays a linear and sequential natural world and is most likely in just another limited human construct and not a accurate representation of the ultimate reality of nature.



gluadys -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/8/2008 7:58:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose
The other difference is that in Christianity God is in charge whereas in evolution things happen by chance.


Two things wrong with this statement.
1. Evolution is not a chance process.
2. Even if it were, God is in charge of chance anyway.

quote:

Evolution seeks to displace and take over the Christian platform and install a new set of moral values.


Well, no it doesn't. Evolution, like all science, is pretty much neutral when it comes to moral values. If you choose to change your moral values because of what you learn, that is your choice. It is not forced upon you by evolution. If you choose to retain the moral values you grew up with, that is also your choice and not forbidden by evolution.

quote:

So what is Darwin’s debt to Christianity? Everything except the idea of survival of the fittest and the denial of God - and these weren’t his ideas either.


You are right. Darwin did not include denial of God in his theory of evolution. Nor does the theory of evolution today include a denial of God. And "survival of the fittest" is a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin.


quote:

Without doubt Evolution and Christianity both follow a "redeemer" scenario. In Christianity Jesus is the redeemer and those who follow him are "saved". In Evolution the redeemer is the one member of a species that has a mutation that is advantageous and leads the way to survival.


No, evolution is not about redemption. If no member of the species came up with a new adaptive mutation, the species would survive without it. It doesn't need a new mutation to survive.

quote:

Hard physical evidence demonstrates that reality is nonlinear


So is evolution.



gluadys -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/8/2008 8:02:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
Evolution gives us no morals at all, no more than any other scientific theory. You might as well claim that germ theory is trying to take over the christian platform. You also forget that around 30-40% of biologists are christians who fully accept the theory.


And among non-scientists who fully accept evolution, it is likely that the majority hold religious views of life. Certainly of the Christian denominations accounting for the majority of Christians, most accept evolution.



no1nose -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/8/2008 3:55:18 PM)

Gluadys, thanks for your reply. I would disagree with most of what you wrote. What impresses me is the inconsistency in the many interpretations of what exactly is Evolution. In your case stating that Evolution is not a “chance” process puts you at odds with most other versions of evolution.

Considering that broad spectrum of official versions it can be just about anything. And so I have taken a more general view to deal with. I find it absurd that Evolution is an example of original thinking that came out of nowhere. Darwin and others got their ideas from the environment they lived in – which was Christian. The hidden parallels between Evolution and Christianity demonstrate this fact. As a science Evolution lacks the predictive power that one would expect of a good theory. And as a way of seeing that natural world it is flawed at best.

I have found that Evolutionists suppress and filter out unwelcome evidence and then make an issue of “good” science vis “bad” science. Bad science is anything that contradicts evolution.



drj11 -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/8/2008 4:57:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose

Gluadys, thanks for your reply. I would disagree with most of what you wrote. What impresses me is the inconsistency in the many interpretations of what exactly is Evolution.


If you get most of your info from creation centric websites, I do understand your confusion. They routinely present evolution in a dishonest, simplistic and confusing way in order to give the appearance of being wildly contrived and in disarray.

quote:


In your case stating that Evolution is not a “chance” process puts you at odds with most other versions of evolution.

Considering that broad spectrum of official versions it can be just about anything. And so I have taken a more general view to deal with. I find it absurd that Evolution is an example of original thinking that came out of nowhere. Darwin and others got their ideas from the environment they lived in – which was Christian. The hidden parallels between Evolution and Christianity demonstrate this fact. As a science Evolution lacks the predictive power that one would expect of a good theory. And as a way of seeing that natural world it is flawed at best.


I'm confused here. What is your point exactly? Evolution is bad, but it came from Christianity? Evolution is good because it came from Christiantiy? Both evolution and Christianity are bad and nearly the same? Your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premise.

quote:


I have found that Evolutionists suppress and filter out unwelcome evidence and then make an issue of “good” science vis “bad” science. Bad science is anything that contradicts evolution.


They debunk false evidence and charlatans of creationism, but thats not really equivalent to censorship. Its just disproving ideas that are wrong. Unfortunately, creationists don't stop when their ideas are proven wrong; they expect a free ride into every school classroom, and cry persecution and censorship when people rightly put a stop to their foolishness.



gluadys -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/8/2008 6:07:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose

Gluadys, thanks for your reply. I would disagree with most of what you wrote. What impresses me is the inconsistency in the many interpretations of what exactly is Evolution. In your case stating that Evolution is not a “chance” process puts you at odds with most other versions of evolution.

Considering that broad spectrum of official versions it can be just about anything.


There is not a "broad spectrum" of official versions. There is one scientific consensus (="official version"?) on evolution, and it agrees that evolution is not a chance process.

There are many non-official versions of evolution which say otherwise. In fact, many of them are dedicated to making evolution sound as confusing as possible. If you want to clear up the confusion, start by reading a basic text on evolution written by scientists for science students. Then you will know that when you hear other statements they are not "official". You will be surprised by the clarity you get when you screen out the nonsense that comes from other sources. You may even learn enough to pinpoint what they are getting wrong.

quote:

And so I have taken a more general view to deal with. I find it absurd that Evolution is an example of original thinking that came out of nowhere. Darwin and others got their ideas from the environment they lived in – which was Christian.


Actually the concept of evolution in some form goes back to pre-Christian Greeks. Furthermore, Darwin's own grandfather was a proponent of evolution, and scientists like Lamarck had offered ideas on how evolution works before Darwin did. So you are right to say that Darwin did not come up with the idea out of the blue. What he did do, and why he has an honoured place in the science hall of fame, was figure out the mechanism of natural selection. Until then, nobody understood how evolution works.

quote:

As a science Evolution lacks the predictive power that one would expect of a good theory.


Actually, its solid predictive power is the main reason it continues to dominate the field of biology.


quote:

Bad science is anything that contradicts evolution.


No, bad science is anything that fails to account for all relevant observations and be consistent with other fields of science.



no1nose -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/8/2008 7:34:42 PM)

Thanks for your comments
quote:

I'm confused here. What is your point exactly? Evolution is bad, but it came from Christianity? Evolution is good because it came from Christiantiy? Both evolution and Christianity are bad and nearly the same? Your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premise.


Making the point that Evolution is based on a set of Christian
themes.


quote:

There is not a "broad spectrum" of official versions. There is one scientific consensus (="official version"?) on evolution, and it agrees that evolution is not a chance process.


Please quote and show link to evidence of a consensus that chance is not the driver.


quote:

Actually the concept of evolution in some form goes back to pre-Christian Greeks
.

Yes, the "redeemer scenario" is as old as mankind or at least the Garden of Eden. And it is basis of the hero theme in many Hollywood movies. It is what Jung would call an arch-type.

quote:

Actually, its solid predictive power is the main reason it continues
to dominate the field of biology.


Please give an example of any that TOE can predict.



Method -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/8/2008 7:42:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose

Hi Method
Thanks for your remarks. I find it interesting that there are so many interperrations of what evoluation is and how it works.


The theory of evolution covers a large range of mechanisms. However, the productionn of supernatural offspring is not one of them.

quote:

I would disgree with your comments. I doubt that Darwin would have come up with Evolution if he not had a Christian background.


Why? Alfred Russel Wallace discovered the same theory at the same time as Darwin. It was a race to publication, and the two ended up collaborating after Darwin published "On the Origin of Species". Both men credit their observation of nature, not the Bible, for the inspiration for their theory. You can read "On the Origin of Species" for free on the internet. A simple google search will find it for you. You will find that Darwin sites a lot of evidence as support for this theory, and not scripture.

quote:

Without doubt Evolution and Christianity both follow a "redeemer" scenario.


Evolution does not. Redemption is a christian/moral/religious theme, not a scientific one.

quote:

In Evolution the redeemer is the one member of a species that has a mutation that is advantageous and leads the way to survival.


Then a redeemer is few and far between given the fact that 99+% of species are now extinct.



Method -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/8/2008 7:54:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose
I find it absurd that Evolution is an example of original thinking that came out of nowhere.


Why? Perhaps you should read "Origin of Species" before making such accusations.

quote:

Darwin and others got their ideas from the environment they lived in – which was Christian. The hidden parallels between Evolution and Christianity demonstrate this fact.


The parallels are of your own making.

quote:

As a science Evolution lacks the predictive power that one would expect of a good theory.


No, it doesn't. The theory of evolution can be used to predict the placement of endogenous retroviruses in genomes that have not been sequenced. The theory of evolution can predict the placement of transitionals in the geologic record. This is how scientists narrowed down their search for the transitional tetrapod Tiktaalik rosae. They used the theory of evolution to predict the strata that the transitional would be found in.


quote:

And as a way of seeing that natural world it is flawed at best.


How is it flawed?

quote:

I have found that Evolutionists suppress and filter out unwelcome evidence . . .


Which evidenced is being suppressed and filtered?

quote:

Bad science is anything that contradicts evolution.


Bad science is anything that can not make predictions and is inconsistent with the evidence. Evolution is neither.



swan42 -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/8/2008 7:55:28 PM)

quote:

I find it absurd that Evolution is an example of original thinking that came out of nowhere. Darwin and others got their ideas from the environment they lived in – which was Christian.


Same here, but so what? It is absurd to think that Evolution is considered original thinking that "came out of nowhere". Every new idea is built upon old ideas in one way or another; and every new idea in Europe during Darwin's time came from a Christian environment.

Let's play the connection game shall we?

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/lincoln-kennedy.asp

Just as you can pick correlations between two presidents; you can also pick correlations between two ideas.

I bet if we stretched reality, we could correlate Christianity to just about anything.



no1nose -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/8/2008 10:46:46 PM)

quote:

Just as you can pick correlations between two presidents; you can also pick correlations between two ideas.


True, but it is good to know that Evolution is a distortion of the Christian message. And not some stoke of original genius



drj11 -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/8/2008 10:51:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose

quote:

Just as you can pick correlations between two presidents; you can also pick correlations between two ideas.


True, but it is good to know that Evolution is a distortion of the Christian message. And not some stoke of original genius


Simply saying evolution is a 'redeemer' story or somehow drawing an incoherent connection to Jungian philosophy/psychology of all things most definitely does not make it so. It is a scientific explanation, there is no metaphysics involved.

If you want to put some authority into what Jung says, maybe we should pull out some quotes illustrating his thoughts on Christianity. He wrote quite a lot about it... and most of his words weren't all that kind. I don't particularly recall where he taught that evolution was one of his archetypes though.



gluadys -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/8/2008 10:53:31 PM)

quote:

quote:

There is not a "broad spectrum" of official versions. There is one scientific consensus (="official version"?) on evolution, and it agrees that evolution is not a chance process.


Please quote and show link to evidence of a consensus that chance is not the driver.


These quotes come from two of the major scientific presentations of evolution on the internet.

quote:

Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940.html



quote:

Misconception: “Evolution means that life changed ‘by chance.’ ”

Response: Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random.

For example, some aquatic animals are more likely to survive and reproduce if they can move quickly through water. Speed helps them to capture prey and escape danger. Animals such as sharks, tuna, dolphins and ichthyosaurs have evolved streamlined body shapes that allow them to swim fast. As they evolved, individuals with more streamlined bodies were more likely to survive and reproduce. Individuals that survive and reproduce better in their environment will have more offspring (displaying the same traits) in the next generation. That's non-random selection. To say that evolution happens “by chance” ignores half of the picture.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/ICchance.shtml


quote:

quote:

Actually the concept of evolution in some form goes back to pre-Christian Greeks
.

Yes, the "redeemer scenario" is as old as mankind or at least the Garden of Eden. And it is basis of the hero theme in many Hollywood movies. It is what Jung would call an arch-type.


The "redeemer scenario" is not related to evolution. I would agree that both are ancient concepts, but not that they are linked to each other.

quote:

quote:

Actually, its solid predictive power is the main reason it continues
to dominate the field of biology.


Please give an example of any that TOE can predict.


Method covered this with two examples. There are many more. For example, Darwin himself predicted that remote islands would be inhabited by flightless birds. He was right.



no1nose -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/9/2008 1:03:58 AM)

What rubish!!!!

Evolution is an scenario of events with an outcome. If this scenario does not have it roots in Christianity then where did it come from?



swan42 -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/9/2008 2:28:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose

quote:

Just as you can pick correlations between two presidents; you can also pick correlations between two ideas.


True, but it is good to know that Evolution is a distortion of the Christian message. And not some stroke of original genius

Evolution might originally have been a distortion of the Christian message, but you'll never be able to prove it.

quote:


If this scenario does not have it roots in Christianity then where did it come from?


I claim that nearly all ideas conceived in the past 2000 years have roots in Christianity;
but there is little hay to make of this claim.



gluadys -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/9/2008 7:50:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose

What rubish!!!!

Evolution is an scenario of events with an outcome. If this scenario does not have it roots in Christianity then where did it come from?



Common ancestor.

After all, Christianity didn't come from nowhere either.



no1nose -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/9/2008 3:13:18 PM)

Recently someone wrote this to me,

“Christianity plagiarized the gods of countless religions and mythologies that preceded it, from virgin births, to son of god made flesh, to turning water into wine, to dying for us and promising to return. Jesus is version XX.0 of the same, tired stories that were told thousands of years before him.

Yes, the idea of a suffering redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. There were many people before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and there have been many since. Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted. The Western movie is famous for the lone hero who rides into town to save people from a gang of villains. But there are also many adventure, war, action or drama movies feature a hero who suffers and then rescues the innocent. Often in movies a hero appears to die only to have to somehow have escaped death and reappears to everyone’s joy. The fact saviour myths existed before the time of Christ doesn’t disprove the validity of Christianity. Far from it, if anything they show that in the heart of mankind there has always been the need for a saviour.

The Gospels in the Bible are the best accounts we have of the true Messiah. But long before the Gospels were written there were detailed prophetic accounts of the saviour in the books of the Old Testament. And before this the stories of the Messiah was passed on from one generation to the next by oral traditions. Some people believe that even the Zodiac was once used to tell the story of the one who would save mankind. The twelve signs of various “Zodiacs” are found Indian, Chinese, European and Mayan cultures. And from ancient times it appears that the Zodiac was the one thing that almost all of mankind had in common. It was certainly known to the Jews. As the ancient Jewish historian Josephus wrote that astrology was handed down from Seth the son of Adam. And archaeological excavations in Israel often find Zodiacs in the floors of synagogues.

Today the signs of the Zodiac are used to predict one’s fortunes but this may not have been its original purpose. The star pictures of the constellations may have originally served as way for nomadic people to record picture stories. Instead of paper or tablets the story was recorded using the constellations in the skies at night. As the pictures of the constellations moved across the night skies people gathered around the camp fire and heard the prophecy of a saviour who would be born of a virgin and die and rise from death. This prophecy was played out in the figures of the constellations and the names of the stars within the constellations. Unfortunately there are only fragments of this story left to us now. It is thought to have originally began with Virgo. This virgin held within one hand a star named “branch” and within the other hand a star named “seed”. This matches up with the prophetic account of Jesus being the “seed of woman” and the “branch” of Jesse. The Zodiac ends with the Leo, the lion which is portrayed in the constellations as attacking and destroying Hydra the giant serpent. The appearance of the Magi at Jesus’ birth is evidence of existence a prophetic prediction of the true messiah based on the stars that was outside Judaism.
.



Method -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/11/2008 8:31:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose
Evolution is an scenario of events with an outcome. If this scenario does not have it roots in Christianity then where did it come from?


It came from observation, the formation of testable hypotheses from those observations, and the testing of those hypotheses. This is otherwise known as the scientific method.



no1nose -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/12/2008 7:07:28 PM)

My suspicions about evolution began when I was studying relativity and quantum mechanics. Both relativy and quantum desirbe the physical world with great precision but they are contra intuitive and seemingly implausible. The reason why it is so hard to get our heads around quantum mechanics or relativity is that our thinking process takes place in a different “space” than the actions in the world around us. Crudely put, it is like trying to stuff a three dimensional object into a two dimensional space. Information from the world around us comes into the brain from our senses where “who knows what” happens to convert a four dimensional world into a mind’s image of that world. Because our minds are working with images and not the real thing we will never fully grasp the natural world in our minds. And for this reason any real descriptions of the world around will always seem contra intuitive to our reasoning process.

The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world. It is something that exists only as images in our mind. It is a nothing more than a world view. And like some sociopath among Theories it has a sullied history associated with it. Mankind has a history of adopting world views that seem laughable in retrospect and I believe that this is just another episode of that scenario. As knowledge increases the Theory of Evolution will seem less and less relevant.



swan42 -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/12/2008 7:27:40 PM)

quote:

The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world. It is something that exists only as images in our mind. It is a nothing more than a world view. And like some sociopath among Theories it has a sullied history associated with it. Mankind has a history of adopting world views that seem laughable in retrospect and I believe that this is just another episode of that scenario. As knowledge increases the Theory of Evolution will seem less and less relevant.


Perhaps you should first begin studying Lamarckism; Larmarckian Evolution was much more plausible and believable than Darwinian Evolution yet it is a less accurate description of the natural world and shares the analogy you would draw from Newtonian Physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism



swan42 -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/12/2008 8:06:31 PM)

quote:

Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive

Another way to put this into perspective is to recognize that there are not only two competing theories. Two most widely known are the 4000-6000 year old book of Genesis and the 200 year old Darwinian Evolution are not the only competing explanations for biological life.

Additionally, there is Larmarckian Evolution, Darwinian Evolution as improved by Mendelian genetics, Darwinian Evolution as improved by modern genetics. As the theory evolution was improved it was done so during times of scientific ignorance of where the theory was heading. Today however we have the benefit if hindsight.

Ask John Doe on the street about Larmarck and he will have never heard of him, but ask John Doe about Newton, or Einstein and the names will ring a bell, yet neither Newton nor Einstein could accurately describe the natural world as well as quantum mechanics can.

I think your intellectual objection to the Theory of Evolution is partly due to a lack of historical awareness of the theories that the Theory of Evolution have supplanted.



Method -> RE: Darwin's Debt to Christianity (6/12/2008 10:32:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: no1nose

My suspicions about evolution began when I was studying relativity and quantum mechanics. Both relativy and quantum desirbe the physical world with great precision but they are contra intuitive and seemingly implausible.


It's interesting that you bring this up. Gary Zukav wrote a book entitled "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" In this book he highlights the parallels between QM and eastern philosophy. Zukav does not claim that QM was stolen from or based upon eastern philosophy, but he does a good job of illustrating how QM fits quite well with Buddhism among others. If you want an example of a scientific theory that can find sources in a theology/philosophy other than christianity then QM is a great example.

quote:

The reason why it is so hard to get our heads around quantum mechanics or relativity is that our thinking process takes place in a different “space” than the actions in the world around us. Crudely put, it is like trying to stuff a three dimensional object into a two dimensional space. Information from the world around us comes into the brain from our senses where “who knows what” happens to convert a four dimensional world into a mind’s image of that world. Because our minds are working with images and not the real thing we will never fully grasp the natural world in our minds. And for this reason any real descriptions of the world around will always seem contra intuitive to our reasoning process.


I don't think that is it at all. For QM, particles at the atomic level act very differently than the macro-world around us. Our expectations are based on our observations of the macro-world.


For relativity, Gauss's Bookworm is a great analogy for what you are talking about. The bookworm lives on a sheet of paper and the bookworm itself is two dimensional like the paper. If you crumple the paper the bookworm will still see the paper in two dimensions (i.e. flat). However, as the bookworm moves across the page the three dimensional fold will push the bookworm to and fro. To the bookworm this is a force equivalent to gravity in our three dimensional world.

quote:

The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world.


Never heard that one before. Evolution is "too good to be true"?

quote:

It is something that exists only as images in our mind.


You can witness it first hand with experiments like the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation assay and the Lederberg-Lederberg plate replica experiment.

quote:

As knowledge increases the Theory of Evolution will seem less and less relevant.


The theory of evolution is being used right now to gain knowledge in the fields of comparative genomics and phylogenomics. Our knowledge of biology can not increase without it.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI