Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Evolution
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 7:35 PMAfter a volley of attacks at God in the past several years from prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, God’s side is finally fighting back. And some of the most effective efforts are coming from the International Society for Krishna consciousness.
Coming soon from ISKCON’s publisher the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, Lalitanatha Dasa’s Rethinking Darwin launches a powerful intelligent design argument from the Vedic perspective—but for now, a Hungarian book originally published seven years ago is making some pretty impressive waves.
Written by Isvara Krishna Dasa (István Tasi) and Bhagavat-priya Dasa (Balázs Hornyánszky) Nature’s IQ presents one hundred of the most amazing instinctive behaviors in the animal kingdom. Often highly complex, these behaviors are successful only if all elements in the chain are simultaneously present—any go missing, and the behavior is useless. The authors thus logically conclude that such animal conducts probably did not evolve over a long period of time, but appeared as a whole. This is their distinctly anti-Darwin take on life’s origin, backed up by the ancient Vaishnava perspective.
Nature’s IQ attracted plenty of media attention upon its Hungarian release in 2002. Some was positive—author Isvara Krishna had an article published in Hungarian Science, one of the country’s leading scientific journals—and some, unsurprisingly considering the book’s controversial subject matter, was negative. But it looks like it could do even better in the USA, where Darwinism is less popular. With its 2009 release landing in the wake of Darwin’s 200th anniversary, publisher and translator Torchlight already has the book selling at major outlets such as Barnes & Noble and Amazon.
It has also garnered many favorable reviews. “In scientific circles the theory of evolution is widely accepted as factual,” commented Christopher Beetle of the Ivy League school Brown University. “Books like Nature’s IQ remind us, however, that it is only a theory, and a theory with serious drawbacks at that… I recommend this book to anyone seriously interested in science and the origin and meaning of life.”
So where did it all begin?
Like many people, even Nature’s IQ author István Tasi grew up thinking of Darwin’s theory as fact. His parents never questioned it, and, until the age of twenty, neither did he. This despite the fact that he was fascinated by the living world, reading many books on nature and animals.
But with the demise of communism in 1989, many different ideologies began streaming into Hungary. At first, István was skeptical—critics of the evolutionist view he heard speak were weak and unclear. Even when he read Origins magazine from ISKCON’s Bhaktivedanta Institute, and understood the basic deficiencies in the theory of evolution, he still couldn’t completely reject the Darwinian way of thinking and accept a design-based worldview. “I simply could not believe that I had been mislead so deeply in the fundamental question of life’s origins,” he says today.
That all changed when István met ISKCON devotees in 1990. Although at first he found their idea of God as a person “shocking,” he was drawn to the style with which ISKCON’s founder Srila Prabhupada delivered his message. “I loved his boldness and criticism of the modern world—it was perfect and refreshing,” he says. “Listening to him, I began to accept that God has personal features, and that although he has a form he is able to create the world through his expansive energies.”
ISKCON’s philosophy proved itself to be logical and highly consistent, and its followers seemed happy and content next to István’s own dissatisfaction with life. Gradually, he reappraised his worldview according to Vaishnava philosophy, and finally in 1992, he was initiated by Sivarama Swami as Isvara Krishna Dasa.
On becoming a devotee, Isvara began to think back on all the study of nature he had done earlier in his life. “Perhaps I can use my knowledge to disclose the mistakes in materialistic thinking,” he thought.
Collaborating with Bhagavat-priya Dasa, a friend and colleague at Hungary’s Bhaktivedanta College, Isvara began to study hundreds of instinctive animal behaviors. It took two years to find one hundred of the best examples, discuss them deeply, structure the book, write it, and collect two hundred vivid color photos. Bhagavat-priya, a bio-engineer by profession, used his knowledge of biology to describe the astonishing instincts in the animal kingdom. Isvara Krishna used his degree in cultural anthropology—comparing ancient and modern civilizations—to analyze the modern explanation of inborn instincts’ origin and compare it to the Vedic perspective.
Ethology, the field of biology concerned with the origins of animal behavioral patterns, tends to give a Darwinian explanation to these behaviors—that they are inherited, and have been acquired through gradual changes as a result of environmental selective pressures. But in Nature’s IQ, Isvara and Bhagavat have taken ethologists’ own data on specific animal behaviors, and highlighted the problem with such an explanation.
For many key anatomical features found in nature, they point out, a necessary behavioral pattern must be present to fulfill its desired function. The protruding bioluminescent bulb of the anglerfish, for example, must carry out a slow, waving motion if it is to lure its prey. Any intermediate behavior on the way to becoming the creature we see today would have been inappropriate and insufficient for catching its dinner. Anglerfish are endowed with an IQ, therefore, that must have appeared at once and in parallel with its predatory anatomy in order to give it an advantage.
The same principle plays out in the trap-like lures of other creatures such as the decoy scorpion fish, the Argentine Horned frog and the copper-head snake. Most amusing is the New Guinean dung spider, who is able not only to assume the appearance of bird droppings, but also to produce their smell as a way of enticing and trapping insects that normally feed on the real thing.
In all these cases, say Isvara and Bhagavat, both the anatomical features and the accompanying behaviors must have arisen all at once if their functions were to have been achieved.
The examples in Nature’s IQ also point to a higher intelligence guiding every living being. In fact, Isvara says that his research has strengthened his own conviction in this intelligence, known in Vaishnava philosophy as Paramatma, or the Supersoul. “Through deeper analysis,” he says, “One can see that time, genetics, mutations and selection cannot explain the actual knowledge possessed even by lower species.”
One of the examples given in Nature's IQ to illustrate this point is that of the small fish the Blue-streak Cleaner Wrasse, which voluntarily swims into the mouth of the predatory Coral Gruper to eat the worms and dead skin from between his teeth. Amazingly, although the Coral Gruper eats all other fish of the same size, he does not harm the Cleaner Wrasse.
When Isvara Krishna once asked an evolutionist university professor to explain this behavior, the man tried to write a long article in response but finally admitted that he couldn’t—at least not at that moment. “This is a typical response,” says Isvara, who has participated in several public newspaper debates with Darwinist scientists. “Usually they say: ‘We cannot explain these behaviors now, but maybe in the future.’
“School text books and mainstream media never mention the flaws of Darwinism,” Isvara adds. “With Nature’s IQ, we’re trying to show people the problems with it and give them the opportunity to make up their own minds. And for those who already don’t accept the theory of evolution, our book gives them the tools with which to point out its mistakes to others.”
As it always has, the debate on evolution will continue, and the numbers of supporters and opponents will fluctuate. “Darwinism will probably always remain on the stage,” says Isvara. “We cannot control that. But we will continue to inform others about its weaknesses, and about the other choices they can make.”
Today, Isvara Krishna does just that at the officially accredited Bhaktivedanta College in Budapest, where 250 students, most of who had never heard of Vaishnavism before enrolling, learn about every aspect of its philosophy and culture. Specifically, he heads up the College’s Vedic Research Center, which aims to answer modern scientific and social questions based on the Vaishnava understanding.
“For me, it’s amazing to see how dramatically the situation has changed,” he says. “When Krishna consciousness first appeared in Hungary, it faced a lot of opposition. Now we regularly appear on TV, in magazines, and at public events, often speaking about the Vedic approach to scientific subjects.”
The next thing Isvara wants to do is to make nature movies that don’t include the evolutionary statement ‘everything happened by chance.’ “In today’s ‘Youtube culture’ many people watch movies rather than reading books,” he says. “So I’m trying to show nature from the right point of view, so that we can think about its original source, rather than thinking, “I’m simply a hapless group of molecules, without any higher goal.”
Continuing along the same theme, Isvara’s latest book, “What if There Is No Evolution?” is a dialogue between himself and an an atheist biologist. He has also collaborated with Rethinking Darwin author Lalitanatha Dasa (and others) to edit the forthcoming November/December “evolution issue” of Back to Godhead magazine.
“The evolution theory often goes side by side with materialistic philosophy, and is strongly proposed by atheists,” he says. “So it is crucial that the Hare Krishna Movement contributes to the argument against the highly imperfect evolutionist paradigm. Evolutionary thinking has a negative effect on religion, morality, and other fields of society. So if ISKCON really wants to raise the spiritual level of humankind, then we have to show that biological forms have been given to us, and that we are conscious eternal souls transmigrating through these forms.”
“Evolution does exist,” he concludes cheekily, “But not on a material level. We, as conscious beings, are able to develop our consciousness from ignorance to the highest level of understanding the absolute truth. That is real evolution.”
Nature’s IQ is sold in most major bookstores in the USA , including Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com. It is also available for purchase at Krishna.com.
news.iskcon.com/node/2319/...tion_theory -
-
Re: Evolution
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 9:03 PMwww.enviroliteracy.org/articl...58.html
"Current estimates of the total number of species on Earth range from 5 to 30 million, of which, the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment notes approximately 2 million have been formally described."
Hurm, 100 oddities vs 2 MILLION?
that would be a %0.00005 rate.
But of course, God created the world in 6 days 8 thousand years ago...
This still doesn't explain how giant lizards got encased in stone.
---
rodent (putting the eek in geek) -
-
Re: Evolution
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 9:06 PM"This still doesn't explain how giant lizards got encased in stone."
God = ultimate troll
Iskon actually has an intelligent design museum is Delhi where they explain away the early human fossil record by claiming that these were simply Hanumans foot soldiers from the Ramayana, and extol, via cheesy 1980's animatronics, how god does not approve of spicy food.
The whole tour is quite sinister -
-
Re: Evolution
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 11:01 PMBe careful with the ISKCON. They have a reputation for getting people knocked off...
www.google.com.pk/search -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 12:21 AMHa, my friends used to organize raves at the golden temple, back in the nineties. So I got to discuss the events, surrounding the place, with many of the people who experienced it first hand, on a head full of acid.
Beautiful space, but def some bad juju rests there
-
-
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 12:49 AM"This still doesn't explain how giant lizards got encased in stone. "
They were encased in mud from the Noahic flood
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 10:53 AM<This still doesn't explain how giant lizards got encased in stone. "
They were encased in mud from the Noahic flood
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology >
are you being facisious here Ron or are you seriously arguing that dinosaurs and man lived together in earths history? -
-
Re: Evolution
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 12:31 AM"are you being facisious here Ron"
I have never been facisious. I believe in democracy!
-
-
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 10:07 AM<But of course, God created the world in 6 days 8 thousand years ago...
This still doesn't explain how giant lizards got encased in stone>
Genesis describes two beginings, one with earth and the universe being created in the begining and then the earth became dark and void and then it speak about the renewal of the earth in six Yoms which are periods of time, not days. Certainly the fossil record backs up a period of mass extinction and darkening of the earth due to meteor/comet impact.
-
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 12:52 AMWhat irritates me about the evolution/anti-evolution skirmish is the assumption that there's one single understanding of evolution.
Intelligent design and evolution are not incompatible. That some or most of life evolved doesn't necessarily mean that it all did -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 12:55 AM"Intelligent design and evolution are not incompatible. That some or most of life evolved doesn't necessarily mean that it all did"
I always saw intelligent design as an attempt to reconcile theology with Modern Science. Which minus the attempts to push it in schools, I think is a positive -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 10:51 AM<I always saw intelligent design as an attempt to reconcile theology with Modern Science. Which minus the attempts to push it in schools, I think is a positive>
The attempt to put it into schools is a reponse to the atheist religion which has been teaching its faith in our science classrooms for years. I believe that both are mistaken, Evolution only describe a process it does not decribe the intelligence of lack of intelligence in the universe. Such discussions are a matter of philosophy and religion and should be discussed in our schools in that context. Neither the Athiest nor the creationist should have space in our science curiculum. -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 11:11 AM<<a reponse to the atheist religion which has been teaching its faith in our science classrooms for years.>.
Say what? You clearly have an agenda and confuse teaching science with "atheist religion...teaching its faith," whatever THAT is!
IMO, you didn't have a good education in science in schools if you think that is "teaching faith"! -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 11:30 AM<Say what? You clearly have an agenda and confuse teaching science with "atheist religion...teaching its faith," whatever THAT is!
IMO, you didn't have a good education in science in schools if you think that is "teaching faith"!>
I am not confusing science with religion but I am accusing the atheist and the creationist of doing so. And I am pointing out that creationist are the reaction to athiest doing the same thing and that both are wrong. -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 11:46 AM<The evolution theory often goes side by side with materialistic philosophy, and is strongly proposed by atheists,” he says. “So it is crucial that the Hare Krishna Movement contributes to the argument against the highly imperfect evolutionist paradigm.>
Heres my point, first the atheist try to use science to push their faith, then the creationist do it, now the Hare Krishnas. Everyone one of these religion share one thing in common, they apply their own logical fallacies to the existing science, Atheist rely on the "absence of Evidence equal evidence of absence, the Hare Krishna seem to have choosen "argument form ignorance" and the creationist, well they don't even pretend to be logical.
-
-
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 11:47 AM> Neither the Athiest nor the creationist should have space in our science curiculum.
Wrong. Evolution is science based and has a place in the science class curriculum. ID is faith based and belongs in the social studies or philosophy curriculum. Otherwise, all creation myths need to be taught in the science room.
---
rodent (putting the eek in geek) -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 3:25 PMIt's hopeless with people like this, rodent. "Cast ye not your pearls before swine!" -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 3:43 PMYou do realize the point of this board is to have discussion, right?
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 7:50 PM<It's hopeless with people like this, rodent. "Cast ye not your pearls before swine!" >
I offered pearls I haven't gotten any in return. I am religious person, I am also a scientist. I recognize the need to seperate philosophy from science, but it seem that rodent and your self are only able to see when others apply their philosophies/religion to science and are unable to distinguish your own philosophies/religion from science. Atheism is no more supported scientifically then is Christianity, or any other philosophy or belief. You seem to believe that it is your natural right to use Evolution to support your religion, and the right to do so in the classroom but get offended when others want to do the same thing. Well your all wrong, get your own room and leave Science and evolution alone. -
-
eclectic protestants
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 8:17 PMLet's note that Mainstream Christianity isn't pushing I.D.
The Catholic Church and Protestant denominations lacking the wild umerkan frontier flavor are reconciled to evolution. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: eclectic protestants
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 12:34 AM"Let's note that Mainstream Christianity isn't pushing I.D.
The Catholic Church and Protestant denominations lacking the wild umerkan frontier flavor are reconciled to evolution. "
Thank you for noting that
-
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 8:42 PM<<I offered pearls I haven't gotten any in return.>.
It's all in the eye of the beholder, dear one.
You make no more sense to me than I seem to you. So?
We're at an impasse. Give it up! I have.
You're impossible to have a logical discourse with, period.
-
-
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 7:40 PM<Wrong. Evolution is science based and has a place in the science class curriculum>
You misunderstanding is that you believe that evolution by itself supports athiesm it does not. Evolution belongs in the science room atheism does not.
<ID is faith based and belongs in the social studies or philosophy curriculum. Otherwise, all creation myths need to be taught in the science room. >
Evolution should be taught based on the science alone not athiest philosophy or creationist philosophy, or hara christina's or anyone elses. The Atheist, creationist, christian, hara christnas can battle out the meaning behind evolution in the philosophy/religion class. -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 8:46 PM<<Evolution should be taught based on the science alone not athiest philosophy or creationist philosophy,>>
So that's what i say, too. Where's the difference between our perspectives?
it's that you impute some atheistic agenda to what our science teachers and curricula are doing. Prove that, rather than just continuously claiming it, as you have so far kept doing! -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 9:16 PM<it's that you impute some atheistic agenda to what our science teachers and curricula are doing. Prove that, rather than just continuously claiming it, as you have so far kept doing>
Fair enough, I don't know of any offical study, but it is my opinion based on my own experiences that prior to creationist theories it was common place for science teachers to openly question the existence of God and to openly dismiss the existence of God. Creationism was born as a backlash to this situation that is my observation take it as you will. Evolution taught without philosophy and religion speaks of a process by which species evolve and diferentiate, it does not say anything for or against the existence or involvement of God any beliefs about God derived from evolution is a matter of philosophy and should not be taught as science. At least we can agree on that much. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 9:47 PM<<it was common place for science teachers to openly question the existence of God and to openly dismiss the existence of God>>
That's pure hearsay or speculation on your part. Prove it. Give verifiable examples of it, if you can. Otherwise, it's simply your opinion. I wonder why you have that opinion?
<<Evolution taught without philosophy and religion speaks of a process by which species evolve and diferentiate, it does not say anything for or against the existence or involvement of God any beliefs about God derived from evolution is a matter of philosophy and should not be taught as science.>>
You contradict yourself! Science should be taught as science and not as religion or philosophy. That's what i learned and was taught when I was young in both Christian and public schools before this "Creationism" non-science religious philosophy came along.
<<At least we can agree on that much.>>
Hardly! -
-
Re: Evolution
Tue, November 10, 2009 - 9:42 AM<You contradict yourself! Science should be taught as science and not as religion or philosophy. That's what i learned and was taught when I was young in both Christian and public schools before this "Creationism" non-science religious philosophy came along.
<<At least we can agree on that much.>>
Hardly!
>
So what your saying is that atheism IS science? is that right, just so that we are clear.
-
-
-
-
Re: Evolution
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 1:14 AMThis, I can agree with. Thank you.
---
rodent (putting the eek in geek)
-
-
Re: Evolution
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 12:33 AM> Neither the Athiest nor the creationist should have space in our science curiculum.
Wrong. Evolution is science based and has a place in the science class curriculum."
You're assuming that atheism is somehow inherent in evolutionary theory. It isn't. Teaching atheism should have no place in science classes. -
-
Re: Evolution
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 1:22 AM> It isn't. Teaching atheism should have no place in science classes.
One could say that science is atheism since science tried to explain things without saying "oh, God did it".
The existence of God or any metaphysical phenomenon has not been proven scientifically.
---
rodent (putting the eek in geek) -
-
Re: Evolution
Tue, November 10, 2009 - 9:47 AM<One could say that science is atheism since science tried to explain things without saying "oh, God did it".
The existence of God or any metaphysical phenomenon has not been proven scientifically.
>
Athiesm is not science, because science demands a testable proof for any assertion, even negative ones such as "God does not exist" Science can potentially prove the existence or nonexistence of God or any other metaphysical assertion, but it hasn't yet. Accepting the absence of evidence as the evidence of absence is neither scientific, nor rational. The best that science and rational thought can say is " I don't know if God exist" Evolution in of itself is well established scientifically, it describes a method by which species evolve, to speculate as to whether or not it is guided, is a matter of religion and philosphy. Atheism is no more correct then Hara Christnas are in proclaiming their philosophy to be science. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Evolution
Tue, November 10, 2009 - 9:51 PM"The existence of God or any metaphysical phenomenon has not been proven scientifically. "
Since scientific testing is based on assumptions of the laws of physics and observations of regularities in the physical universe, I don't see how science could prove the existence of a proposed creator of the physical universe and the laws within it. It wouyld be like trying to understand about the designers of my Mazda Millenium by reading the owner's manual.
But of course there's plenty of things people reasonably believe that aren't scientifically proven, like moral beliefs and the laws of logic themselves.
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Evolution
Tue, November 10, 2009 - 9:53 PM"Science can potentially prove the existence or nonexistence of God or any other metaphysical assertion, but it hasn't yet."
That's highly unlikely to be true. -
-
Re: Evolution
Tue, November 10, 2009 - 10:26 PMActions can be tested for being attributable to a deity. -
-
Re: Evolution
Tue, November 10, 2009 - 11:45 PMHow? For a hypothesis to be testable, it would have to make predictions. What predictions are inferrable from the hypothesis of an omnipotent, omniscient creator of the physical world? -
-
Re: Evolution
Wed, November 11, 2009 - 12:05 AM -
-
Re: Evolution
Wed, November 11, 2009 - 12:16 AMagreed*
not completely certain but them there could very well be proof of those furless mammals by divine intervention
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 10:13 AM<<Intelligent design and evolution are not incompatible. That some or most of life evolved doesn't necessarily mean that it all did>>
Occam's razor: the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred. -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 10:20 AM<Occam's razor: the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred. >
Your right it is far simpler to see intelligence behind the complex structures of life and to rely on God as default, however Occam's Razor is not a scientific principle, but a rule of thumb. A short cut to deducing the truth, however if you rely on it as a priniciple then you will not see the solutions that are indeed complex. -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 10:32 AM<<Your [sic] right it is far simpler to see intelligence behind the complex structures of life and to rely on God as default,>.
Quite the opposite! Why insert "God" in the process?That's adding an undemonstrated unknown and unnecessarily complicating the whole thing!
<<rely on God as default>.
Where'd he come from? Why "rely" on him as a "default"? -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 10:45 AM<<<Your [sic] right it is far simpler to see intelligence behind the complex structures of life and to rely on God as default,>.
Quite the opposite! Why insert "God" in the process?That's adding an undemonstrated unknown and unnecessarily complicating the whole thing!
<<rely on God as default>.
Where'd he come from? Why "rely" on him as a "default"? >
Your argument was to apply occam's razor which states:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion, thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. Occam's razor may be alternatively phrased as pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate ("plurality should not be posited without necessity").[2]
The assumption of intelligence behind evolution eliminates the assumptions of plurality of random and unrelated events. So Occams razor is best applied to intelligent design, but the point is moot as I have pointed out Occam razor is simple a method for deductive reasoning and isn't designed for revealling complex solutions. It is no more acurate or scientific then is racial profiling, which is a similar method to reducing and simplifing deductive reasoning.
-
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 11:13 AM<<The assumption of intelligence behind evolution eliminates the assumptions of plurality of random and unrelated events>.
Those are not pluralities or assumptions.
It's no use to argue with someone who doesn't even have a basic grasp of scientific method,but must insert faith into the discussion!
Go back to your cave! -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 11:26 AM<Those are not pluralities or assumptions.
It's no use to argue with someone who doesn't even have a basic grasp of scientific method,but must insert faith into the discussion!
Go back to your cave! >
First of all, Ad hominem attack doesn't help your argument. Second, we are not discussing science here we are discussing intelligent design which is a philophical/religious argument.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 10:48 AM"Occam's razor: the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred."
Faith isn't science -
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 11:14 AM<<Faith isn't science>>
Exactly! Thank you....
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 11:27 AM<Occam's razor: the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred."
Faith isn't science >
Right neither is Occam razor, nor is atheism. Occams razor is an intellectual shortcut, and atheism is philosophy/religion.
-
-
Re: Evolution
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 12:28 AM"Occam's razor: the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred."
That assumes that evolution without intelligent intervention can account for all life and the characteristics of life (including human intelligence) on earth (and hence intelligent design is "needless"), but that has never been established.
-
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 10:14 AM<Intelligent design and evolution are not incompatible. That some or most of life evolved doesn't necessarily mean that it all did >
The bible supports both indicating that God commanded life to come forth and that he active in it's creation.:
Here god command an evolutionary process to take place creating grasses and fruit trees and he also command them so speciate
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Here God command an evolutionary process for living creature to come forth from the waters:
Gen 1:20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Here the bible confirms that evolution and God work as one:
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
-
-
-
-
Re: Evolution
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 5:30 AMWhile it has the status of a law in biology, details of evolution are still being figured out. Especially as more tools are needed to understand the molecular evidence for evolution.
It's a bit like the principle of least action in physics. Details of the forces of nature are being worked out in its light.
-