The answer to Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
POSTED BY: BadgersHat
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 22:38
VIEWED: 15240
PAGE 1 of 11
Here's the simplest solution to a rather simple problem:
God is the ultimate engineer. he created us as single cell organisms, knowing we'd eventually evolve into what we are today.
He did it like this because he knew exactly what he wanted us to be, perfections and flaws and all, and knew that the human mind he wanted us to have is beautiful and extremely fragile.
So, had we been created as we are now, from day one, we'd be different, less of the human species we are now.
Therefore, he knew he had to create us one step at a time, to slowly evolve, both physically and mentally, in order to become what we are.
Sure, he could've skipped it all--he IS God, you know--but it would have meant skipping all the changes, all the different ways we were, which, I believe, he found no less beautiful than what we are now. But this model is the one he ultimately was going for.
So, like any good engineer, he designed the prototypes first, and slowly upgraded and improved them, so that we'd have the time to grow into what he wanted us to be.
Simple, huh? Not sure why I'm the only one who sees this...
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
(pretty freakin obvious when I spell it out for you, huh?)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually it could go further back than that.
Why couldn't God have kicked off the big bang knowing exactly where it would lead?
Who says we're the ultimate end to gods plan?
That if humans are mearly a step?
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Exactly.
I didn't bring the Big Bang in, because the thread I was originally responding to was strictly about Evolution and Intelligen Design.
But your statement goes exactly with what I was saying.
Ever see those nylon things, they're folded up to like a 3 inch box, you pull a string, throw it in the air, and it suddenly goes FHHWUMPH!!!! and expands into a 7 foot tall tent, complete with flaps, doors, windows, etc?
I think God made the Universe in pretty much the exact same way, folded it up REEEEEEEEEEEEAAALLLLYYY tiny, and then made it go FHHWUMPH!!!! and start expanding into the Universe (which is still expanding, the noise people think it quasars and stellar radiation is actually the ongoing FHHWUMPH!!!! of the tent expanding... trust me, I looked it up).
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
Brilliant, no?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That noise (I assume) is white noise?
It is (so we believe) in fact left over radiation from the big bang, alluding at flucuations in the 'energetic soup' of the early universe.
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The trouble with that argument is that it pleases neither side. The theists would point out that it contradicts Genesis which very clearly states six days to create the world and everything on it. The scientists would point out that you're adding a level of complication where none is necessary (i.e. why bring an omniscient being into it when you can explain it all naturally).
The theory of "intelligent design" exists solely for the purpose of getting God into evolution somehow. It's also a very American problem in that most countries are quite happy teaching children evolution in biology classes and Genesis's account in RE. If you believe in God, Genesis supersedes evolution (or you could take it as a metaphor). If you don't, then you have an explanation as to why there's life on earth.
Plus I rather hope that we've still got a few evolutionary steps yet to take. After all, homo sapiens sapiens has only been around for 100,000 years or so, I don't think the story of us is quite finished yet.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
The trouble with that argument is that it pleases neither side. The theists would point out that it contradicts Genesis which very clearly states six days to create the world and everything on it. The scientists would point out that you're adding a level of complication where none is necessary (i.e. why bring an omniscient being into it when you can explain it all naturally).
Ah, but we mystics find it perfectly acceptable and slightly more accurate than the either/or of more narrow-minded theorists.
You know, there are a lot of folks who actually know the answers to these questions, folks that don't have to theorize. The trouble is, the information is purely experiential, very difficult to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it for themselves; it's like trying to describe the color blue to someone who's never seen it. But people try--oh, how they try! (That's where all the bibles and sutras and self-help books come in.
)But it's not exactly like trying to explain "blue," because all of us, all us conscious beings here, contain the memory of what we are and where we come from within us. It's just really buried for a lot of folk. When we find a book or a religion that touches these memories, even just a little, we tend to fixate on it and tell the world that we've found "the one true path," etc. But there are at least 6.4 billion ways to awaken these memories, sometimes they even come into awareness seemingly by their own volition.
Yes, science can deny the presence of trans-human consciousness, because science is totally unsuited to measuring or observing it. Science is fundamentally concerned with mechanically repeatable phenomena and consciousness is too willful, moody and mercurial to get down on a petri dish and wait around to be noticed. Nonetheless, modern science is beginning to nibble around the edges of mysticism with all that quantum mechanics and chaos theory the kids are so keen on nowadays.
But you're quite right:
Quote:
The theory of "intelligent design" exists solely for the purpose of getting God into evolution somehow.
The controversy has nothing to do with phenomenology; it's purely a battle of political factions who want to maintain control.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't see the problem with putting God in the evolutional theory.
Most arguments I've seen against Intelectual Design is that it involved God.
The dutch minister of education wanted to start a discussion about Intelectual Design but got completely shot off by our parlament.
The politicians talked about it that Christians are just creating it to hide the embarrasment from the evolutionary theory..
Also one favor of the ID theory. In the book of Genesis it also says that Kaïn was fearful poeple would kill him because he had murdered. But if you take the creational story litterally there were no poeple there to kill him. Besides the early world in Genesis seemed to have grown quite fast anyway and often mentions stuff that could't have happened if the story should be taken litterally.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Time was hard to measure back then. Six days could really stand for a million years or whatever. God has a lot of projects he's workin' on, and a million years to him is like a hiccup.
Originally posted by SimonWho:
The theists would point out that it contradicts Genesis which very clearly states six days to create the world and everything on it.
Thing is, a bathroom break is longer than a hiccup, and when he gets off the can and sees how we turned out, well, I just hope he doesn't terminate the experiment...
Blasphemous Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You know, there are a lot of folks who actually know the answers to these questions, folks that don't have to theorize. The trouble is, the information is purely experiential, very difficult to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it for themselves; it's like trying to describe the color blue to someone who's never seen it. But people try--oh, how they try! (That's where all the bibles and sutras and self-help books come in.
You're right in that science disregards for the most part non-repeatable, purely perceptional data. It does this for one simple reason: it's not very reliable.
People are stupid animals. We, by and large, believe whatever our brains want us to believe. Feeling "touched by God" could be a genuine theistic event. Or it could just be someone needing to feel special, or having a minor blood clot, or just pure and simple faking it.
Oh, and Quantum Physics has nothing to do with mysticism, it's just been hijacked by certain groups who half read a few of the books and decided that it was "beyond science". It is a science, bound to the same principles as all the other ones; theories backed up by data from repeatable experiments. The fact that it bears no resemblence to physics as we knew it is neither here nor there.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think there is something beyond us, more than us, like god, and Im really have a problem with understanding why the big bang and evolution precludes such existance...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME