Thursday, May 25, 2006

 

Evolution...hmmm...

Well just a very quick post but wanted to bring something up that I am finding quite interesting. I am currently reading the Origin of Species by Darwin and first of all it is a fascinating read. The conclusions drawn about change, natural selection, mutated gene placement as recessive rather than dominant to ensure longevity and give greater chance of eventually becoming dominant...all of it is amazing.

However, the more I read, the more insane it seems that the Christian community should take his writings and the facts about nature that have been drawn as harmful or even blasphemous to the Bible and the Christian faith. If anything, I think the amazingly complex system shows again how the well designed this world is.

Now, I know some (Zhubin) might disagree with me that the complexity of evolution points towards a highter power, but regardless, there is no reason that Christians should not be able to fully embrace the process of evolutionary change and rectify it with the Christian belief system. All this book and science as a whole tells us is how...it doesn't and shouldn't touch the why. And, even in the preface, it talks about how, even though we aren't the Lords of Creation, we are singularly different from all other living things in our knowledge of our change. We are different and special amongst all things on earth.

Just thought I would throw out that we can try and figure out the how without impinging at all on the why and, in fact, the why to someone of faith makes the beauty of our world that much more proof positive of actual design.

Your Rebuttal, Mr. Parang...

Comments:
I, also, Chris am reading Origin of Species--alas, it seems to behoove all biology majors to read the somewhat overwhelming book--and I find it quite interesting, too. But don't read too much into the preface. Darwin, at the time of his publication, felt many internal and external pressures to keep the book from shattering the typical mindset of the high-society English. He refrained from fully expressing his opinion on faith. Rest assured though, he expressed it fully and well in his later journals, attacking the idea of religion from multiple angles--and rather eloquently.

Also, do not get caught up in the alluring trap of human complexity, and how we are clearly different from the rest of the natural world. Sure we are complex, but we are no different from bacteria. Our bodies serve as vehicles for genes attempting to replicate and propagate.

Why do we exist? Well, "we," broken down to the fundamental level are a series of genes who interact in a way to find the optimal circumstances to replicate themselves. We exist in order to propagate, and the how, well, as you said, evolution explains that.

Now, if you are talking about the origin of life, that's a whole new ballgame that science can not answer at the moment.

By the way, I hope I was the Mr. Parang you addressed.
 
Ok, first of all I was actually hoping Farzin was going to respond, then your dad, and then it was a toss up between you and Zhubin...so I am already let down.

Now, I am not "caught up in the alluring trap of human complexity." I know we, physically, are no more or less complex than the meanest of bacteria. However, what we do have is the knowledge of how we work and how we change and no other organism knows the how of the change. That is what makes us special.

As to your explanation as to why we exist, you are still talking about the how. Even the need to propogate doesn't answer a why. In fact, in order to determine where the why of ours starts and the how ends is perhaps where we differ completely from the animals. By that, I mean that all animals propogate, need shelter and safety, and numerous other things that we humans need as well. However, when you get into more intangible things such as higher powers, self-esteem, etc. then you are wholly in the domain of humanity. Science should show how things happen and why our physical bodies and chemicals change, but the overarching why cannot be answered in that way.

Also, I find your comment on the origin of life as one science can't explain yet as quite simply invalid. Science can never answer the intangible questions. What is beautiful in our world is that science and religion interact and coexist but cannot fully overcome the other and become the only necessity. Science will never be able to tell us the meaning of life, why we are here, what is goodness, etc. just as religion can't map out the genome, determine genetic trends and traits, and explain how this world works.

Rambling thought over....
 
Whenever I think of evolution, I am immediately transported back to Mr. Ferguson's Honors bio class and to the pictures of Darwin's giraffe that evolved over time. How can you deny that happened? I also think of this crazy National Geographic special I watched last summer about how man evolved and where he came from. The fossils, the bones, the caves... unless its all one big superb fraud, evolution occurred, plain and simple.

I guess the question to me is: as a Christian, where do I think God came into the grand scheme and how does that comply with evolution? To me, that's a better question to ask. :)
 
Even I haven't read Origin of Species, Christopher, and I'm probably the biggest supporter of evolution this side of a biology degree.

I'll echo my brother's caution not to read too much into the book - our understanding of evolution has grown leaps and bounds since then, especially since the discovery of genetics. If you want a better - and more eloquent - reading of evolution, you should read Gould's books.

That being said, though, I'm fully in agreement with you that religion and evolution are easily reconciled, and that our complexity can just as easily point to a higher power as to none.

In fact, it seems that after nine years, we've reached a final agreement on the issue of evolution. You accept that it did and continues to occur, and I accept that its existence is irrelevant to the question of God. Let us celebrate this arrangement with the joining of chocolate to milk.
 
By the way, if you want a hilarious example of the retarded end of your side's position in the debate, check out this video - especially the "banana" segment starting at 3:30. The "soda can" segment right before it is equally good.

Actually, anything the Scottish guy says is pretty much hilarious.
 
Well, first of all the guy is Australian, not Scottish and the simple fact that he is Australian shows without a doubt there is an Australia. You can't look at this Australian and not know, without a doubt, there is an Australia. Look at his neck...an indention in the middle which is ideally suited for the thumbs of the hand to squeeze and choke.

I hate videos like that because they make a mockery of intellectual believers. To use a soda can and a banana as our "ta da" examples is a bit inane. I do believe the compexity of creation points to a higher being whereas you don't but to convert an atheist by simply showing him a banana is laughable. Unfortunately, it IS quite representative of much of American Christianity.

I think faith has too easily been relegated to include blind belief rather than knowledge of the world and how belief fits, oh so sweetly, into those facts. It is only through thorough knowledge of the scientific facts and imperical evidence that we can have a reasoned debate with the unbelieving community.

Let the chocolate and the milk join and let there be much rejoicing!!!
 
That's a great story. Waiting for more. » »
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?