Why Darwin Matters
POSTED BY: misbehaven
UPDATED: Monday, September 11, 2006 18:05
VIEWED: 12064
PAGE 3 of 9
Quote:And this parallel:
Originally posted by rue:
The evidence for Smith's influence is only by historical inference.
"The theory of natural selection is a creative transfer to biology of Adam Smith’s basic argument for a rational economy: the balance and order of nature does not arise from a higher, external (divine) control, or from the existence of laws operating directly upon the whole, but from struggle among individuals for their own benefits." -- Stephen Jay Gould
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
Anyway, Darwin is of course correct and very important. At least from a way of viewing how life evolves. Now humans probably less so in the near future because we will have the ability to control our own evolution through genetic engineering and such.
Exactly. Darwin could tell you how, but not why. Science sais, "we can control our own evolution", but questions like "should we?" cannot be answered by science. It's just a totally different area - the area of philosophy ethics and - well - religion. And that's why I don't see them bugging eachother. Darwinism and Religion for me are just on different plains. And actually, I blame the church for mixing them up, making everything blurry.
Esther
Love my captain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, since I restrict MY notion of religion to the concept of a supernatural being mucking about in an arbitrary manner, in MY system of definitions science and religion don't mix.
Now you might not be too far appart from religious people. The concept of a supernatural being mucking about in an arbitrary manner (cutely said, by the way
) presumes, that there IS something "natural". Te "mocking about" is the definition of a wonder. If religious people believed, that everything was arbitrary, there would be no "wonder". e.g. If the Jews had no concept of how water normally behaves, they would not have been so astonished (calling it a wonder), when Moses parted the red sea. I don't want to go into the discussion, whether this story is true or not. All I want to say, that also religious people have the notion, that there is a "normal" and "scientific" way the wold works. And if they belive, that God CAN "override" these laws, they admit, that in 99,9% of the cases, he doesn't (why should he - after all he created them
)Quote:
If that were the case, may as well take all predictions and chuck them out the window.
Actually, I heard that newer physics, acknowedging that everything is energy, and that electrons are constantly moving, now say, that it's not totally impossible, that a stone will fall up, instead of down. It's just very, very, VERY unlikely.
So there you go
Uff, can you belive that? It's 22:35 over here, and I'm still at my office, catting away with you shiney people! Gotta go home now!
Esther
Love my captain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Esther:
Main point is: an organism cannot be "closed for renovation". If the environment changes, the organisms cannot change to adopt, they need to have changed BEFORE, otherwise, they just die. So fish needed to have lungs BEFORE they left the sea.
They did...lungs (or air bladders) have uses beyond breathing (bouancy for instance). So some fish developed air bladders, maybe some had weaker walls surrounding the air bladders than others or something, the fish were given a reason to move over small bits of land, the fish with the weakest walls around the bladder had the most oxygen seep into their bloodstream and survived the most. Or maybe one of a few dozen other reasons that air bladders would be advantageous.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I could have said - by people making historical inferences, in this case, S J Gould.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:And this parallel:
Originally posted by rue:
The evidence for Smith's influence is only by historical inference.
"The theory of natural selection is a creative transfer to biology of Adam Smith’s basic argument for a rational economy: the balance and order of nature does not arise from a higher, external (divine) control, or from the existence of laws operating directly upon the whole, but from struggle among individuals for their own benefits." -- Stephen Jay Gould
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I see. I get it.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, since I restrict MY notion of religion to the concept of a supernatural beng mucking about in an arbitrary manner, in MY system of definitions science and religion don't mix.
My supernatural being doesn't muck.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS - I was going to ask Signy, but I'll ask you.
There are many contradictions in the definition of god, so I was wondering how you specifically think of god.
And are these questions (below) pertinent? If yes could answer them? If no, why are they irrelevant?
Is your supernatural being all powerful?
If yes, is your supernatural being not capable of contradicting their nature of being non-interfering?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is he all powerful? Yeah sorta. He's not powerful enough to change the nature of the system he created. (Or you can say he chooses not to change the system he created.) Yes, he is capable of interfering sorta, but he chooses not to.
Originally posted by rue:
Is your supernatural being all powerful?
If yes, is your supernatural being not capable of contradicting their nature of being non-interfering?
My idea of God is like a superhero coach in a football game. He is on the sidelines, watching, giving advice, inspiring, motivating. But he doesn't play the game. Can he help play the game? Well, I suppose physically, he can, but it would be against the entire raison d'etre of the game for him to jump in. In that sense, he can't play the game--it wouldn't count, it would defeat the purpose of the game if the coach jumped in and played.
So is the coach all powerful? Well, yeah, sort of. But he isn't powerful enough to change the nature of the game. He CAN jump in the game and win it. But he chooses not to.
Or you can imagine a parent helping his child with homework. He CAN do the homework for the kid, but that would defeat the purpose of the homework He chooses not to do the homework for the kid and simply teaches and advises.
Hope that makes some sense.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think, that acknowledging the truth that is evolution, necessarily means that someone can't have faith in a god. Intelligent design followed by evolution seems like a order that theist should be able to reason out in their heads, and still go to sleep at night believing god has got their backs.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME