I have been thinking about this question for quite some time now, and finally decided to discuss it with you guys.
We know that the universe has not existed forever, that is, it had a beginning, a start. Either be it the Big Bang or God creating everything, the universe hasn't always existed. This is a logical deduction from thermodynamics, because if the universe has an infinite past, then there should be no mroe energy 'transfer'.
Knowing this, it seems that there are two option concerning the development of life:
- Either animal kinds are static
- Or they are not static, and so they can become other animal kinds given enough time. (I use the word 'kind' instead of 'species' because it has a broader sense then the later)
Now, in a Naturalistic, or atheist etc. point of view, there seems to be only one option: the second one. I come to this conclusion because there are no naturalists that I have ever heard of who are proponents of the first option.
Also, it seems a logical conclusion from the fact that we know the universe does not have an infinite past, and so since animals do not pop out of thin air, the only option is that they evolved from a lesser state, and a lesser state, etc. up to a primordial soup. I have to be careful here and make a precision: I am not saying that Neo-Darwinism (as natural selection+mutation are the mechanisms of this evolution) is the only option, but only that evolution is.
The Theist, or the non-Naturalist, still has both option. I come to this conclusion because there are Theists who are proponents of both ideas, and also that a universe that had a beginning does not prevent a force, or God, etc. outside of nature to create the animal kinds as static.
Please Discuss this.
Am I missing an option? Do you think it is possible that the universe does not have a beginning, and thus allowing the first option from a naturalistis point of view ? etc. etc.
Edited by Admin, : Improve formatting.
™ Version 4.2