Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

Discussion in 'Agnosticism and Atheism' started by Okiefreak, Oct 4, 2009.

  1. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,946
    Ah, yes. Fr. Teilhard: paleontologist, geologist, evolutionist and mystic, co-discoveror of the Peking Manwho believed that evolution was not only consistent with Christianity but was the very centerpiece of God's Plan. Unlike secular evolutionists, Fr. Teilhard contended that evolution was not a random process at all, but followed a definite direction toward increasing complexity and consciousness. Humans represent a layer of consciousness which has "folded back upon itself" to become self-conscious. Besides this important development in our anatomy and physiology, the trend toward complexity and consciousness continued by means of mass communication and information technology. Fr. Teilhard died long before the internet, but I'm sure he'd be pleased to see his predictions coming true in this latest stage in advancement of our evolution toward the Omega Point, when we will be united with God. As we enter this dialogue on Hip Forums, we are participating in this process--according to Teilhard's followers.

    Needless to say, Teilhard's unorthodox theories caused a stir among both Neo-Darwinian evolutionists and Christians. Among Neo-Darwinian evolutionists, Stephen J. Gould was particularly outspoken in denouncing Teilhard--going so far as accusing him (with little evidence) of being behind the Piltdown Man controversy. As an orthodox evolutionist, Gould believes evolution is a completely random process, and that Teilhard was introducing "vitalism" into the process--vitalism being the theory of philosopher Henri Bergson, that evolution is guided in a particular direction by some "life force". And it's true, that Teilhard was a disciple of Bergson. Teilhard's work was also condemned as heresy by the Vatican, which finds Darwin okay but couldn't abide these strange new interpretations of Christianity. But earlier this year the Pope finally had good things to say about Teilhard, and the Jesuit does have a following among some maverick scientists, in particular biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky, astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, and mathematician/physicist Frank Tipler--all of whom are regarded by mainstream scientists as walking the fine line between genius and insanity.

    I really feel lucky to be having this conversation with you, because according to Gould, Teilhard's nemesis in the science realm, it's pretty much a fluke that we're even here. Gould thinks it all happened by chance, and that there were countless forks in the road where, if things had randomly taken a different course, none of us would be here. That is the orthodox version of the New Synthesis--it all happened "by chance alone' (to use the title of Spetner's book). To Gould, this is no big deal--if we weren't here, something else would be, intelligent or otherwise. But I'm impressed that these lucky turns brought us to where we are--intelligent (some of us; I'm anticipating the comeback from the genius), conscious beings who can contemplate how we got here, where we might be going, and how remarkable the universe is around us. Intuitively, I suspect that this is, as Hoyle says, a "put up job". Which is why, while I think evolution is a valid scientific theory, I also suspect that it can't be completely right about the blind, random part.
     
  2. Rudenoodle

    Rudenoodle Minister of propaganda Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    3,726
    Likes Received:
    11
    I believe your trying to make it seem more balanced than it really is, who are some of these respected scientists?
     
  3. honeyfugle

    honeyfugle pumpkin

    Messages:
    1,080
    Likes Received:
    5
    Here's some names of just a few Creationist scientists, from this source.

     
  4. shaman sun

    shaman sun Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    8
    This is what I particularly like about Teilhard's writing. He was able to see the chaos of the world and not mistake it as simply chips falling where they may---but that, yes, there was order emerging from chaos. Complexity transcending the destruction and bringing newer and more encompassing waves of unity, convergence. This is, I think, an intuitive cosmology that will be shared by future generations more than contemporaries, who are still fixated, or should we say not seeing the forest through the trees. I think Teilhard's awesome predictions speak for themselves... He took the phenomenology, ran with it and made predictions. Many of them are coming to be true. A scientific and a spiritual man for sure!

    Glad to see someone else who is familiar with him. :) Pleased to meet you.
     
  5. shaman sun

    shaman sun Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    8
    So these folks all believed in the current Intelligent Design theory? Or did they just accept the possibility evolution had some divine origin?

    I get the feeling most of them were somewhere in the middle about these things, particularly because they were scientists.

    In response your former question... I'd be glad to look more into it and try to answer them, but here's a big point... If you're interested in the scientific theory, speak to scientists! Or read their books. Inform yourself. I don't think I have as much credibility as a scientist, and we all take scientific knowledge to be truer than we can know (since we aren't scientists ourselves). There is a degree of faith the general public puts into scientific theories and laws. But given that, there is a reason... A majority of scientists accept evolution as a reality, and there is some very rigorous methodologies behind the scientific method to even develop a working theory, let alone a law.

    That being said, evolution is pretty commonly accepted, world-round. Just because me or someone else on this forum can't answer, or yells at you (and they shouldn't be dogmatic about it), doesn't mean the theory isn't scientifically valid. That being said, I'm not assuming you think that either :) Just an impression I get when folks asks -me- to show evidence.

    We should always question ourselves, but I think a hefty list of scientists in favor of evolutionary theory can be presented too.
     
  6. honeyfugle

    honeyfugle pumpkin

    Messages:
    1,080
    Likes Received:
    5
    Also to add, the inventor of the MRI scan, Dr Raymond Vahan Damadian, is also a fundamentalist Christian and works for the Institute of Creation Research [link].
     
  7. honeyfugle

    honeyfugle pumpkin

    Messages:
    1,080
    Likes Received:
    5
    Thanks for your input. The main reason why I try and get people to give their evidence is that so far, the debate is very one-sided in terms of evidence put forward. It does seem to me that for every valid point that a doubter of evolution makes, the evolution believers make some dogmatic speech about why we dare to question it at all.

    In actual fact, yes I do believe that evolution is a decent theory, scientifically, not that I believe in it myself. The problem here is that no-one as yet have proved themselves able to properly debate in the favour of evolution.
     
  8. shaman sun

    shaman sun Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ah, talking to you is a breath of fresh air. I'm used to hearing dogmatism on both ends. Maybe here, there is more of a juvenile attitude about science and evolution (as you mentioned, one sided and dogmatic).

    I share frustration with the commonly accepted theory's details. It's a work in progress. The problem is, I think, that many people think the current details are all that are needed to explain evolution. I believe it has a great deal of work to do, but that evolution is indeed real. In other words, I think there is a more "groping" or "direction" in evolution, a more Teilhard-like view. Intelligent Design, or Creationism, I feel, don't offer any legitimate counter theories, only hole-poking into neo-darwinism. The more logical and intuitive perception, to me, is that evolution is a reality we do not yet understand integrally, but the more we learn the more room I think there is for science and spirituality, evolution of life. As someone mentioned in another post, the idea that evolution is guided, or groping towards greater unity, consciousness and ultimately, Spirit, is really intriguing to me. Are you familiar with Teilhard's work? Also, in light of this... the book "Thank God for Evolution," seems interesting and while I can't recommend it yet (haven't read it), it could have some insight.

    Many fields, such as epigenetics, are showing that DNA isn't just the fall of the dice, or random mutation and natural selection. Some mutations are "intentional," in that the organism responds to the environment by activating and deactivating genes. These discoveries are only helping change the current paradigm.

    Edit: I got a really in-depth article you may find interesting, called "The Real Evolution Debate."

     
  9. Rudenoodle

    Rudenoodle Minister of propaganda Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    3,726
    Likes Received:
    11
    Who said this was a debate?

    A debate requires structure this is just a winding conversation.
     
  10. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,946
    It's a discussion, and I must say I like a few winds and turns in the road. The latest posts raise so many interesting issues it's hard to just ignore them and move on, and I think they are germane to a deeper discussion of the scientific validity of the theory of evolution. Snappy one liners are entertaining, but tend to follow a beaten path. And Honey is right. We haven't yet had a focused discussion on the pros and cons of the New Synthesis. That has to be the main course, but I enjoy a few appetizers. ( I know I'm mixing metaphors with roads and meals, but it's time for supper).
     
  11. shaman sun

    shaman sun Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    8
    Well put! A synthesis is in order. Insights all around!
     
  12. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,946
    Same to you. Namaste. I see the right hemisphere of your brain is in good working order. That's the trouble people like us encounter on forums like this. Science is used to cautious, sober analysis rather than intuitive leaps--which is why I contend science can never provide answers to questions of meaning. Some people are content to leave it at that. I'm willing to take a chance on "softer" paths to knowledge to fill in the gaps: the social sciences, history, philosophy, and (gasp) religion. I recognize, however, that all of these are far less reliable than science as ways of acquiring knowledge. My solution is to hold opinions tentatively, and to rely on discussions like this to set me straight.
     
  13. jumbuli55

    jumbuli55 Member

    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whatever you call it, no one so far has presented any shred of relevant evidence and plausible argument to prove that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution has anything to do with Science.

    Repetitive assertions that it is a valid and proven scientific theory just because some posters repeatedly keep aseerting it to be so don't count as proof of it being so.
     
  14. Rudenoodle

    Rudenoodle Minister of propaganda Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    3,726
    Likes Received:
    11
    From vestigial organs to the fossil record, the evidence has been presented by numerous posters many differing times and in verying ways, what has not been presented is any basis of proof offered for the title of this thread.

    Nor will there be. :cool:
     
  15. jumbuli55

    jumbuli55 Member

    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    0


    That's right, Munchausen could fly to the Moon on cannonball because he said so. He probably had mountain of evidence in the form of tall-tales as well.:D
     
  16. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,946
    Let's return for a moment to your earlier Flat Earth question. There was an International Flat Earth Society, an organization founded in 1956 by Samuel Shelton and held together under the presidency of Charles K. Johnson from Lancaster,California, until his death in 2001. Membership eventually reached 3,000. There are various websites going by the same name, although some appear to be tongue in cheek. Johnson's group, however, appears to have been serious. It based its beliefs on an interpretation of the Bible, developed elaborate explanations of contrary facts, and denounced NASA, the press, and the "science religion" as a vast conspiracy of deception. Suppose we were asked to prove that the round earth theory is a valid scientific theory. How would we go about it? Photographs of earth taken from space? Fake! Footage of the moon landing? Backlot of a Hollywood movie studio. Some people might claim that they had traveled around the world, but obviously they were either part of the conspiracy or were tricked somehow. If Flat Earthers were smartasses with too much time on their hands, as some successors to the Society seem to be (not to mention certain members of Hip Forums), they could lead us a merry chase, with pictures of flying elephants and all kinds of specious arguments.

    It's possible to maintain virtually any position about reality if we make enough elaborate assumptions. Bertrand Russel pointed out that it's possible to maintain the pre-Copernican theory that the sun travels around the Earth if we make enough complex assumptions about epicycles, etc. We often settle such arguments by appeal to Occam's razor, favoring simplicity in deciding which theory to go by, but maybe reality is really complicated. Even within the Creationist camp, we see these wars going on between the Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists--e.g., the on-going debate between Creationist superstars, Duane Gish (Young Earth) and Hugh Ross (Old Earth). Both are "scientists", in the sense that they have Ph.Ds in scientific disciplines. Both appeal to arguments based on scientific evidence. How do we decide who's right? I do consider demeanor; I wouldn't buy a used car from either of them, but Gish seems to be particularly inclined to debaters tricks and sleight of hand logic. I'd also consider their scientific standing in their disciplines, especially, have they done research in the area of their claimed expertise and published it in refereed journals--and how recently. Where those two are concerned, it would be a tie, since neither of them has. Their day jobs are Christian apologetics. I'd also consider how congruent their claims are with the body of evidence available in refereed scientific journals. There Hugh Ross would have the deciding edge, in my opinion. Young Earth Creationism has a much larger following and greater sophistication than the Flat Earth Society, but I judge them to be comparable in credibility. Of course, I could be wrong, as is true with everything. But that's how I form judgments. I think the same considerations are applicable to the controversy over evolution. It comes down to a judgment call.
     
  17. Monkey Boy

    Monkey Boy Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,908
    Likes Received:
    392
    Thanks for the link. I found it very interesting especially complexity science.
     
  18. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,946
     
  19. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,693
    Likes Received:
    4,504
    thread title = silly statement frequently made by people who understand neither evolution nor science. people who's understanding even of their own beliefs i somewhat seriously doubt.
     
  20. jumbuli55

    jumbuli55 Member

    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    0
    What you posted above is a common dogma among zealous worshipers of Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution.

    Somehow they believe that saying those magic words releive them of responsibility to make good of their claim.

    Of course anyone who didn't believe Munchausen could pull himself by his own hair must have been an idiot who never understood laws of physics.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice