this does not address the problems with your previous posts. To make things abundantly clear science does not nor will ever address the the philosophical question why concerning the physical nature of existence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
this does not address the problems with your previous posts. To make things abundantly clear science does not nor will ever address the the philosophical question why concerning the physical nature of existence.
Science of the future might come to accept the primacy of consciousness and see the universe as a production of consciousness.
The interest here is not only science, but the honest relationship and understanding of science from the theological perspective.
So am, but do not let my personal views, wisdom traditions, nor spiritual beliefs interfere with the unbiased factual nature of science. am also a scientist.
What makes you look at the OP question as only about science's perspective?
Reread my post. I do not consider the OP only about the science's perspective. I believe in the harmony of science and religion, and science is naturally in harmony with the spiritual and physical nature of our existence. I believe that science must be considered 'honestly' from the human perspective when considering the 'spiritual and religious nature' of human nature.
As a matter of fact I consider science factual about the nature of our physical existence, because it works. Yes science is subject to change over time, but consistent and sound in this evolving body of knowledge concerning the physical existence.
From the spiritual perspective I consider 'spiritual principles' of the religions relevant in the conscience of science and how it is applied to benefit humanity, instead of the contemporary motivation as 'materialism.'
gnostic
The Lost One
You are projecting your belief that “intelligent” source is involved, by default, because you believe it.
You are arguing that science don’t know, but you know better than science (eg DNA), on the basis that DNA is too complex to require intelligent source.
But no hypotheses, nor theories, are “true by default”. They (hypotheses and theories) will remain false, until empirical and verifiable evidences can demonstrated they are true.
Your Intelligent Design isn’t falsifiable and isn’t testable, therefore ID isn’t even a hypothesis. Because any hypothesis required to be at the very least falsifiable even before actual initial testing proceed.
ID has never been falsifiable, because you cannot test if the Designer is involved in nature’s origin.
You saying that DNA required Designer (or intelligent source) simply because of DNA’s complexity, is treating what you believe in - to be true by default.
Your stance on ID is “true”, is simply personal opinion, circular reasoning and pure sophistry.
gnostic
The Lost One
Well, George-ananda seems to have forgotten single-stranded RNA, because he focused on DNA.
And George seems to have forgotten the other important biological molecule that’s important for life - PROTEIN.
Without proteins, there is no possibility of replicating DNA.
People working on abiogenesis on creating organic matters from inorganic matters, in attempting to replicate how life may have started, so they have been trying to make amnio acid, which are what proteins are made from. Abiogenesis researchers are working on proteins before they actually work on RNA or DNA; baby steps.
gnostic
The Lost One
“Designer’s will”?
There you go again.
You are conjecturing. But worse, you are trying to anthropomorphise nature, which is similar to Bronze Age and Iron Age superstitions.
Last edited:
This is a possibility, no matter how remote, but first science must be accepted as it is, and not how one wants science to be. At present consciousness and the mind are explained in science in terms of a physical relationship to the brain. This by the way does explain most. but of course not all, aspects of consciousness and the mind. It is possible science can explore mind to mind connections, group consciousness, and awareness beyond normal perceptions of consciousness in the future. This will take patience and time for science to advance to these levels.
That’s fine for science. I am pro-science for understanding of the physical but look to other wisdom traditions like eastern (Indian/Vedic) for understanding of the metaphysical.
gnostic
The Lost One
You are making false statement, here.
A half-truth statement is still a “false” statement.
Only some Christians are anti-science - they are called Creationists and Intelligent Design adherents.
Not all Christians follow these two paths.
Many of Charles Darwin’s contemporaries, who did understand and accept evolution as to how life changes over time via Natural Selection, were Christians.
eg John Stevens Henslow (botanist, geologist, priest), Charles Babbage (mathematician, engineer), Asa Gray (botanist; Gray actually believed that the Creator guided life through evolution, perhaps the first known to believe in “theistic evolution”), Joseph Dalton Hooker (botanist). These were all Christians.
Darwin himself was both Christian and agnostic.
On the other Thomas Henry Huxley (biologist) and Herbert Spencer (biologist, anthropologist) were agnostics, Charles Lyell (geologist) was a deist, Alfred Russel Wallace (biologist) was into spiritualism.
The current and official stance of the Roman Catholic Church, accepts evolution.
Currently, there are qualified biologists, who are also theists (Christians, Jews, Hindus) have also understood and accept evolution.
The notion that Christians are anti-science is generalising. Not all reject evolution, and those that do, are normally Young Earth Creationists (YEC), and only some Old Earth Creationists (OEC).
gnostic
The Lost One
The only way science will accept consciousness directing, designing or creating the universe, is when science stopping seeking verifiable evidences, and begins relying on blind faith or leap of faith.
It is not just remote possibility, it is highly improbable.
Philosophy may deal with possibility, but science deal in probability, and probability required quantifiable evidences, not what George-ananda want science to be.
For George-ananda to think that science should accept Intelligent Design is asking science to go backwards, into the bloody Dark Ages.
The position of the Roman Church is more complex than this. Even though science is encouraged the view toward evolution and some aspects of cosmology are conditional and not entirely clear. The Roman Church allows individual interpretation concerning the history of life and the evolution involving humans.
From: Adam, Eve, and Evolution | Catholic Answers
"What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.
Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).
The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).
Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are."
True, but guidance is often inconsistent from scripture and the leaders of the religions,
Yes it is generalizing, though there deep problems in traditional Christian views on science on evolution and other aspects of science, because of the lack of consistent guidance. There is a consistent trend in recent history of 40 to 50%+ of believers in the USA that oppose evolution, and many others that only conditionally accept it. Recent polls 2017 are encouraging for some increase in the acceptance of evolution. Polls for 2018 are not out yet. Believers that accept evolution are considered Theistic Evolutionists.
gnostic
The Lost One
Their (Catholic’s) position is that of theistic evolution, which itself isn’t science too.
Hence...
But at the same time, they rejected the position of Intelligent Design, as advocated by those at the Discovery Institute.
Those that believe in Theistic Evolution do not consider it science. It is a theological view of the science of the history of our physical existence and life.
gnostic
The Lost One
Yes, that sounds about right.
Theistic evolution is more of a philosophical position on how they view evolution.
Last edited:
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
It wasn't as if there was meat hanging off of a bone. Very small remnants of soft tissue were found deep in the bone where they were locked off from bacteria, water, and other elements. They only took on the properties of soft tissue when they were rewetted and the bone was removed from around them.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
The problem, as I see it, is that the evidence is overwhelmingly consistent with "happenstance" with regard to the evolution of species (i.e. the production of biodiversity from a universal common ancestor). Why would a designer make it look like happenstance if the production of separate species did not occur through happenstance? There is absolutely no reason why life should look like it evolved if species were designed separately, so why does all of the evidence look exactly like life evolved?
This seems to be a really big metaphysical question that the ID/creationism crowd avoids.
But my argument is that it is pretty difficult to see complex life and the DNA molecule and all that get rolling by 'happenstance'. I am not saying it is impossible even, just I believe the chances are remote that it happened that way. I see nature as progressing with intelligence that science can not see by only seeing the physical results.
In my view it looks like it evolved because it did evolve. But I believe the whole system is also fostered by nature intelligence. I think it remote in the extreme to think that life developed and occurred by only the forces accepted by current science.
Another point in my consideration is that I am also a student of paranormal studies. It is my opinion that life contains aspects that are not even physical. This makes the happenstance development producing life from a physical only dead planet seem even less believable.
I am not part of the Christian based ID/creationist crowd myself. My personal leanings are more towards the Vedic (Indian/Hindu) worldview.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
One of the first things you learn as a scientist is to lay your biases and unfounded incredulity to the side. For some people, it was difficult to see how light could act as a particle or a wave, but it turned out to be true. For others it was difficult to see how gravity was the result of warped spacetime, but it turned out to be true.
If your stance is based almost entirely on what you believe is impossible or possible then the best strategy is to take a step back and start with the evidence. Don't start with "I see the world this way, or that way". Start with facts.