Posted on 04/01/2005 3:20:04 PM PST by Heartlander
Have you ever been shown why evolutionary theory is accepted as true? I do not ask if you have heard of Darwinism or have been told by ten gray-bearded men with Ph.D.'s that evolution is a fact; but have you ever really seen any "proof?"
I was speaking to my physics professor about evolution a couple of semesters ago and asked where the matter, energy and finely tuned physical constants necessary for the "big bang" came from. Instead of admitting evolution's inability to explain the ultimate origin of the physical universe, or at least the inherent weakness of the Big Bang theory, my professor just waved her hand and said, "Oh, well, science just has not told us that yet."
But, if science has not told us this yet, then we certainly should not reject all opposing theories and claim to be doing so on scientific grounds. After speaking to her, I thought to myself, "What a flippant dismissal of one of the greatest questions facing mankind!"
Whenever we accept a theory regarding society, mankind, or the origin of the universe, we must be mindful of its consequences. If we think man is designed for a specific purpose, then what does that purpose tell us about the nature of his designer? If society is morally obliged toward patriarchy, then what of the value of women? Are they really truly inferior to men? These types of questions are indispensable to measuring the truthfulness of theories with such vast, life-defining import.
And, from a purely logical perspective, any of these theories we propose must not simply pass on one or two points but must provide a logically cohesive possible answer to all the questions which fall within the theory's explanatory context. In other words, if someone comes up with a theory about God which explains very well the reason for "loving" one another, yet contradicts the reality of pain and suffering in the world, then this theory simply does not work. When a young boy tells his mother the scratches on his knee are the result of him taking-a-spill at a local skating rink, he has said nothing extraordinary -- unless there is no local skating rink, in which case the mother would toss his explanation into the flames.
By all means, we are entitled to ask, "Does the Darwinian theory of evolution meet this criteria?" And I mean a non-theistic, naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. This theory of evolution supplants a creator, God, and says that all life emerged after an incomprehensible number of random mutations, occurring over an incomprehensible amount of time, and defying incomprehensible odds. Strictly, technically, and literally, we are but the products of time, matter, chance and energy -- or so claims evolutionary theory.
Perhaps one of the most direct ways of measuring evolution -- as there are great scientific minds on both sides of the debate -- is by weighing evolution against the experiential realities of our daily lives. After all what evidence or subject of study could we possibly know better than mankind?
Take for instance, human sexuality, the physical consummation of one's love for another person. Think about its wonder and complexity; the immense pleasure it brings, the binding affect upon the heart, the eruption of emotions, and the creation of a new life. Every one of us has felt the gravity of the desire for human sexuality, and almost every one of us has been privileged to hold a newborn baby in our arms.
Both sexuality and life are two of the most sacred things to us. But if we are but the products of time, matter, energy, and chance, from where do we derive this sacredness. If sex is simply natural, then laws against rape prohibit natural affections. If life was created by natural selection, then Hitler was an icon of evolutionary progress, for he simply expedited the process of natural selection to benefit the human species.
Furthermore, if we are but random off-shoots of DNA, then why is it so important to strive to further our own race? Without a transcendent reason for our existence, our desire to live and help one another is no more noble than our preference for spicy or salty foods -- we simply respond to our DNA. Darwin himself struggled with this very issue; he worried that if we believed nature was simply "red in tooth and claw," then the out-workings of this philosophy would be devastating and horrendous.
If you look at almost anyone claiming to be on a religious pilgrimage, you will find they are basically searching for meaning in life. And throughout our own lives, if we are honest, we will admit that meaning has been one of our chief pursuits. A meaningless existence is simply discontenting to the human heart.
But ask any believer in non-theistic, naturalistic evolution if the universe has any meaning, and they will answer in the negative. For the universe is simply energy in its various configurations acting upon matter, nothing but a simple cause and effect.
So could it be that ultimately all life is meaningless, yet we feel such a desperate need to find meaning in our own lives? That is to say, the surpassingly meaningless path of evolution is brindled with little bitty pieces of meaning along the way. There is such a vast incongruity between the nature of mankind and the theory of evolution, that it behooves us to at least question if not wholly doubt the theory.
Ultimately, if we are to accept this form of evolution, we do so by faith and at the altar of everything we understand about the desires and dignity of mankind.
A once professor of quantum physics at Cambridge University, Dr. John Polkinghorne, discussing the likelihood of the conditions necessary for the Big Bang, has said, "It would be like taking aim at a one-square-inch object at the other end of the universe twenty billion light years away and hitting it bull's eye."
We would do well to understand that believing in evolution -- a theory which flies in the face of the ineluctable, experiential realities of our lives -- is a bold leap of faith.
Email Daniel at viewpoint@technicianonline.com
If you don't like my answer, let's hear yours.
You say evolution is bunk? Fine. How did humanity and all other bilogical life arrive on this planet (skip Big Bang theory; it has nothing to do with evolution)?
I don’t say evolution is bunk.
Fine. How did humanity and all other bilogical life arrive on this planet (skip Big Bang theory; it has nothing to do with evolution)?
From intelligence rather than mindlessness….Now please let me state that evolution and design theory are compatible. It could be front loaded intelligence as you suggested, but it would still be designed.
Are you claiming that Heartlander is a child?
le bump for later
Name 3 on the Creationist side.
The question is: What accounts for "the matter, energy and finely tuned physical constants necessary for the "big bang?"
Let me profer a guess. The advanced scientific minds haven't a damn thing to say.
Make that "proffer." I want to be an advanced scientific mind, too. :)
Newton Galileo Pasteur
Even if this were so, the C side regulars on these threads should know better.
TOE does NOT include abiogenesis either, if that is what youre asking.
You asked for 3, and I gave 'em.
Here are some livers:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=302
I suppose they are all hacks?
Yeah. But when the argument is "there are great scientific minds on both sides of the [current]debate - ", a couple of guys who died 400 years ago is not exactly a clincher.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.