Replies

I don't think biological evolution speaks to the condition of the universe. There are physicists and biochemists (and information theorists) that worry about cosmological constants and such, and whether the laws of physics and chemistry are purposefully tuned to allow evolution to happen.

These are independent lines of inquiry and do not directly affect research in biology, except that it is possible for discoveries in chemistry or physics to falsify biological evolution by depriving it of sufficient time to operate. Should this happen, someone will get a Nobel prize and a lot of textbook manufacturers will get rich printing corrections.

This brings to mind a famous scene fron "the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" in which a computer is programmed to calculate the answer to life, the universe, and everything. At first the (unionized) philosophers and pundits are horrified by the prospect of their jobs being automated. But when it is explained to them that the answer will not be revealed for several million years, they are content to go on making their living predicting the outcome.

If some new theory replaces traditional concepts of evolution, it will first have to explain all the existing data. This in itself will take decades to catalog and verify. No one will be out of a job. Second, it will open up vast new lines of research. No one will be unemployed. In fact, science writers and pundits will get rich attempting to describe the new ideas to the public.

Appreciate your observations, js.

But then why do so many choose to embrace Evolution as the guiding force of all that is and use it to attempt to obviate any or all of the following?:

- God's existence
- God's mastery
- God's creation
- God's immanence in his creation
- God's control, as he chooses
- God's constant involvement in the lives of man
- God's judgement of sinners