Replies

I've always believed that the universe was infinite. That the universe is filled with a large variety of life that is constantly coming into being. Would you agree? I found it interesting in one of your posts you state something to the effect that evolution is constantly creating new life. Did you mean new life forms coming into existence on their own, or the traditional evolution meaning coming into existence as the result of a less complex life form changing into a more complex, different life form?

You also state Belief in the process of evolution is no different from a belief in the process of erosion, lightning formation, or gravity. That hardly requires us to approve and/or look the other way when the results are contrary to human compassion or concerns. Erosion is a natural process, but I'm not going to allow a landslide to happen and bury a town. Gravity is a natural process, but I'm not going to let a child fall off a cliff.

I would think that these analogies contradict evolution as most of us understand it. Evolution must let that child fall off the cliff so to speak. Otherwise it must first create the intelligent agent that can act independent of the radomness of nature.

There is nothing evolution must do. Evolution is only a process that happens to imperfect replicators.
Also, you shouldn't derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. So if you only allow people with a long nose to procreate, you'll end up with a population that's equipped with humongous noses after several generations.
However, just because this can happen doesn't mean you should do it.

I've always believed that the universe was infinite.

Then how you avoid Olber's Paradox?