About the Cambrian explosion, Scientists think that the causes of the sudden rise in animal diversity can be attributed
to four things:
1. Evolution of more complex predator-prey relationships.
2. Increase of oxygen in the atmosphere required by higher organisms to respirate.
3. Climate changes.
4. Evolution of more complex genomes.
This however is another story. I wish to state that the problem may not be with a simple black and white context between
who's correct, and who's not; But rather with a narrowed notion of God who we attempt to perceive with our
senses five, and our existence in three dimensions.
Let me tell you something about the almighty.. Do you honestly think that we could ever hope to comprehend what exactly
he is through our limited means? Do you think that through a book that was written by man supposedly indirectly under
the direction of God that we could ever hope to understand his being?
John Scotus Erigena once said to the Frankish King Charles the Bald (circa 840 CE.): "We do not know what God is.
God himself does not know what he is because he is not anything. Literally God is not, because he transcends
being."
People seem to enjoy thinking that God can be quantified, perceived along the lines of another person, or be placed into
context through a literal interpretation of scripture (see fundamentalism), as a reaction to scientific progress, or
modernity. Sadly he cannot be placed into permanence or classifications based upon a three-dimensional perception of his
being. It simply does not work. We may have to accept the fact that the Bible, as written was done by man as a way to
attain a sense of being closer to that which they could not understand, and that which we still cannot understand.
Such was a concept present all throughout Victorian Literature as well. In Thomas Carlyle's "Sartor
Resartus" or "The Tailor, Retailored" toward the end of the piece, the philosopher Diogenes
Teufelsdröckh (God-begotten Devil's dung) comes to the realization that the answer to his questions about the
meanings of life, existence, and God will never be understood, and that to not accept this uncertainty as an everpresent
aspect of life would be an utterly pointless waste of time.
God cannot be understood through the mere reading of scripture, or interpreted by our minds, he has simply transcended
to a point that is completely incomprehensible to us. We may have to accept the fact that sections of the bible are
indeed wrong, just as science does when a hypothesis or theory is found to be wrong. The Bible is an interesting book,
although it cannot be used as a literal guideline for anything, among those is trying to argue the existence or
non-existence of God through it's pages.
On Creationism, Darwin, and Evolution. The science speaks for itself. For example, the origins of life itself. Through
chemical and biochemical understanding, it has been found that when Ammonia, Hydrogen, and Methane are placed in a
sealed tube, and have an electric current run through them, simple organic molecules (amino acids) are produced as a
result. Over time these combined to form more complex molecules, until of course they became self-replicating, thereby
leading to the first prokaryotes. This process alone took more than three billion years to complete, the evolution of
prokaryote to eukaryote took around an additional billion, and from there to us, roughly 540 million plus years.
Evolution is somewhat difficult to observe in the higher animals, as that factors such as natural selection and
reproductive rates play key roles in this study. However, the unicellular world is ideal for the study of evolution in
progress due to the high reproductive rate exhibited in individuals of protozoan, or prokaryotic nature. Mutations in
certain populations of the said protozoans or prokaryotes leads to adaptation to environmental change. Another example
of evolution in progress is speciation, in which two or more populations may branch off due to environmental change,
change in habitat, or response to environmental pressure. Given enough time, speciated individuals will not be able to
breed with one-another to produce fertile or viable offspring.
Furthermore, on Darwin and the Origin of Species. There is a fallacy that Darwin and the scientific community among the
creationists that the human race descended from monkeys. This is not the case, we are known only to share a common
ancestor with the lesser simians at a juncture in time some twenty six million years ago. The same holds true with the
great apes, the number of genetic markers that separate Humans from Chimpanzees is only one, thus leading to the
suggestion of a common ancestor (most likely a precursor to Ramidipithecus). Darwin also argued that members of
populations that are better equipped to survive will do such and pass on their genetic material to additional
generations. Natural selection can be observed in the everyday world and in higher animals, although evolution is based
mostly on the lower animals and the constant mutations they undergo as a response to environmental pressure. The same
biochemistry applies, therefore mutations will also occur in the higher animals, many are deleterous, although some do
manage to become successful new species as life progresses onward.
Finally, on the subjects of the literal interpretations of Creationism, Fundamentalism, and the Intelligent Design
fallacy. I laugh at all of them. All three movements are chock-full of antediluvian morons who in order to compete with
science, keep to their literal interpretations, attempt to convert unproven fictitious accounts into real science, and
refuse to accept the fact that God is so far beyond any of their understandings that they're simply just wasting
their time.
Watch them, and learn. This is what happens when you empower an irrational minority, The Cobb County schoolboard and
Marietta Georgia are but the tip of the iceberg, and despite them ruling in favor of creationism being taught in schools
over evolution, they, in their entirety have merely refused to accept that they were wrong, that the evidence levied
against them is far too numerous in account and discovery to be ignored, and that their shallow conception of God will
need to change, even if it means to look at the scripture from a less literal context.
Until then, I see no worth in them except as more occupied space impeding on scientific progress, some of whom may
eventually become extremist or suicidal as their views are overwhelmingly smashed again and again by a
"harsh", "unforgiving", and "un-Godly" scientific community. If you want to learn about
creationism, go and take a class on theology. Otherwise, keep that psuedoscience garbage away from my classrooms, I want
factual evidence and provable citations alongside of that evidence, not a primitive account written by early
Judeo-Christian prophets on their interpretations of God, and the creation of the world; And Intelligent Design?
Fallacious bullshit meant to make the Bible sound like a scientific dissertation, and also therefore psuedoscience crap.
Perhaps the Christian faith needs a cohesive overhaul if it is to survive the coming storm, this is but a taste of years
to come as the intellectually challenged, so-called "good Christians" are assaulted time and again in
repetitive fashion, limited perception of faith leading some to absolute desperation to try and uphold dying faith in
whatever way possible, in this case the possibility of extremism and terrorist activities (akin to the
"Retros" from the Wing Commander universe) no different than Bin Laden and his ilk.
A faith is a wonderful thing to have, it makes our cultures and peoples unique, it gives us a sense of belonging to
something so much greater than any of us. Although, to claim it as infallible is as wrong as it is narrow-minded. Man is
fallible, God is not. End of story.
I have no sympathy for them. If they cannot hold a malleable system of belief, then quite frankly I believe they are
nothing more than occupied seats at the church that believe in a God solely to avoid going to the medieval notion of
hell that they have loathed for so long. I almost feel as if it would be appropriate to say that they do not deserve a
faith (as horrid or evil as this may sound) if all they are going to do is misinterpret and twist it to compete with the
scientific world, or to push their own agendas across.
To conclude, yes, God and science can co-exist if even by running parallel only. The perceptions of God, the nature of
God, and the followers of God must change if this is to be accomplished. This holds true for all religions that concern
deities, they transcend our state of thought, and being to a degree that we cannot hope to understand in our current
forms, nor should we fixate on trying to understand them, as that the search for such would be fruitless.
That's just my take on the issue. Arguing God as you would any other person or object just doesn't work. Nor
will it ever work, as that it is impossible to quantify that which cannot be quantified, or perceive that which is
almighty with your limited and meager existence.
-Acyx
merged: 05-17-2006 ~ 04:39pm
Quote by kiopiPeople did try to
mix science with religion...and ended up with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
Actually.. that's what happens when you have a Sci-fi writer who first creates a path to self-improvement, and then
re-tweaks it into a cult. Scientologists strike me primarily as a group of scam-artists, frybrained disciples,
disillusioned celebrities, and generalized morons who buy into this crap. Even I could write better science-fiction than
L.Ron..
All in all, psuedoscience is a fallacious foray into a realm meant either for personal gain, or to substantiate that
which cannot be substantiated by normal science (I.E. God). In the case of these bozos, you have a disillusioned basis
of peoples dumb enough or kooky enough to buy into a scam, claiming that it is an actual way to salvation.
Pfft.. -Laughs his ass off.-
-Acyx
merged: 05-17-2006 ~ 04:44pm
Quote by tobiast88Because god
and his fanclub don't tolerate anything that might jeopardise their monopoly on the "Ultimate Truth"
(which is a fallacy, since truth can be subjective and entirely relative). Science recognizes its flaws and works to
overcome them; religion blindly follows whatever some person wrote as a novel ages ago, whether it applies or not to
modern times.
I like this, and yes, much of the bible is tailored to meet that of an Agrarian society, for example. There were not ten
commandments mentioned in the old testament, but rather six hundred thirteen commandments that would apply to the
societal workings of an agrarian people. Many persons often omit that key portion of the old testament, often choosing
to stop after the first ten.
As stated before, the perception of God needs an overhaul, as does the literal interpretation of the scripture need to
be tossed aside, and the uncertainty (no matter how foreboding) accepted as being a query that we may never definitively
solve.
