Philosophy about evolution

(Please read this sincerely and with an open mind)Mans brain is made so that it categorizes the information as a way of making it easier to handle the expressions from the outside world in order to act intellegently to the environment we live in.
No matter how refined this ability that we share is, it will limit us to the experiences that we have encountered.
That is to say, we cannot comprehend what we havent seen , touched, heard of or felt.
Lets imagine that I draw a beautiful picture containing trees, the sun, wildlife on a fertile earth with all the necessary colours to our delight.
Lets now examine it, can we tell any specific similaritys in this picture.
Of course we can.
For example, the trees will contain the colour green, the flowers as well, some creatures will have a similar colour , some might be similar in size and so forth.
The same thing goes for the world around us.
But the "colour, size and shape" of the living organisms isnt dependent upon my pencilbrushes or my prefered colour but upon genetic information.
When I drawed the grass I used the colour green, just as I used it on the trees I made.
Naturally around us we see that grass and trees have similar DNA "colour", but in this case some of us make the assumtion that the similarity is due to evolution, is this really an evidence.
I believe that there is in a western society a tendency to believe that everything CAN and MUST be explained and preferebly without any divine intervention.
And then whenever it encounters a "problem" that cant be explained a sense of anxiety is sure to come.
Just like when we ask them to show us the smooth graduate fossil record from lets say the reptile to the perfectly adapted Archeopteryx you are gonna get answers like "well, that isnt how evolution works"( then how does it?), or "well, that isnt how the process of fossilazation works" (Then how does it?, Im sure that if you would find such a fossil then it would suddenly be perfectly normal).Its just like when you have lost a key, and you decide that it MUST be in this room.As soon as you have done that then you have made up your parameters and excluding that it can be in ANOTHER room or even outside the room.And you continue to search, convinced that it is hidden somewhere in that room.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
(Please read this sincerely and with an open mind)

​

Mans brain is made so that it categorizes the information as a way of making it easier to handle the expressions from the outside world in order to act intellegently to the environment we live in.
No matter how refined this ability that we share is, it will limit us to the experiences that we have encountered.
That is to say, we cannot comprehend what we havent seen , touched, heard of or felt.
Lets imagine that I draw a beautiful picture containing trees, the sun, wildlife on a fertile earth with all the necessary colours to our delight.
Lets now examine it, can we tell any specific similaritys in this picture.
Of course we can.
For example, the trees will contain the colour green, the flowers as well, some creatures will have a similar colour , some might be similar in size and so forth.
The same thing goes for the world around us.
But the "colour, size and shape" of the living organisms isnt dependent upon my pencilbrushes or my prefered colour but upon genetic information.
When I drawed the grass I used the colour green, just as I used it on the trees I made.
Naturally around us we see that grass and trees have similar DNA "colour", but in this case some of us make the assumtion that the similarity is due to evolution, is this really an evidence.
I believe that there is in a western society a tendency to believe that everything CAN and MUST be explained and preferebly without any divine intervention.
And then whenever it encounters a "problem" that cant be explained a sense of anxiety is sure to come.
Just like when we ask them to show us the smooth graduate fossil record from lets say the reptile to the perfectly adapted Archeopteryx you are gonna get answers like "well, that isnt how evolution works"( then how does it?), or "well, that isnt how the process of fossilazation works" (Then how does it?, Im sure that if you would find such a fossil then it would suddenly be perfectly normal).

​

Its just like when you have lost a key, and you decide that it MUST be in this room.As soon as you have done that then you have made up your parameters and excluding that it can be in ANOTHER room or even outside the room.And you continue to search, convinced that it is hidden somewhere in that room.

​

---

I take it that you're not into science fiction? In it they imagine many things which don't actually existence (yet). If our brains functioned in the manner which you are asserting than we would still be living in caves without fire living short, cold, and ugly lives.There is the concept called imagination. People use it all the time, even to make up imaginary creatures such as gods.Yes, you don't understand how either evolution or the fossilization process works.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-08-2002]

Take it easy, Delshad. Now I know that you've been reading Harun Yahya. Now, should you swallow everything he said? If there's a wall beside you, is it real? Harun Yahya wants us to think the wall's not real, its just a figment of imagination. But if you run and crash into the wall, you'll see (and feel) that the wall is solid and real. HY's 'illusionism' is a dangerous concept IMHO.As for your choice question, Archaeopteryx, have you noticed that it has long tailbone and teeth? Try to compare it with a chicken's skeleton. See the difference?I'll get back to you later.

A question Andya.
What does IMHO mean?
And secondly, of course I didnt mean that life was an illusion, even though I know that by the way I wrote it could mean that.
But that was only a way of expressing something that was really hard to explain.
I think that I should wait ahwile before attemting to make a topic like that again, much more knowledge then I have right now is needed to succed

And Nos: Excuse me for not being clear enough in my topic , but I would think that you could tell the difference between a litterary interpretation of the sentence: "the brain isnt capable of knowing anything that it hasnt heard, touched, felt or seen" and the allegoric meaning.
Of course, by "mixing" the information absorbed, innumerable "imaginary" conceptions can be made.
But none of them capable of understanding what is beyond our comprehension.
Just an example ; try to imagine a room( not that hard) and now make the same room "limitless" in your mind. Quite hard right ,in fact impossible.
Is that so hard to grasp?
I believe you made a mistake Nos and it wasnt your intention to post such a reply.

In a sense you are right ... just because we labell
something doesn't mean that's what it is.But for scientific enquiry this subjectivism is
metred by peer review. Provide enough people with
differing backgrounds and much of the subjective becomes
filtered out ... and do this for sufficient time and
we can be sure that little unsupported subjective opinion
will remain.This is not usually the case with religous belief systems
taught almost by rote from one generation to the next
with derision brought on any who stray from the path.

Thanks for the reply Peter! You mentioned that on a scientific enquiry, through a peer review, the subjective way of looking at the issue will be filtered away and only the "real" information will after a time endure.
This is only true if the question in the first place WAS within our limits of understanding.
Just a silly example; a chimp wont be able to understand why the sky is blue or why he is sleepy, no matter how long time it takes.
Simply because, that is beyond his comprehension.
So if we already from the start have set up our parameters telling us that everything can and must be explained, and without Allah, then the answers we will receive from our scientifical efforts will be restraint to OUR human perspective.Furthermore, you state that religion doesnt encourage scientifical developement, i disagree.
Allah wasnt only aiming his message to the people living
with Muhammad (pbuh) but the Qurn is made to endure to the last Day.
Thus, each generation interprets the Text differently but the underlying message is the same and dont contradict science, but complements it.Sincerely Delshad

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
Thanks for the reply Peter!

​

You mentioned that on a scientific enquiry, through a peer review, the subjective way of looking at the issue will be filtered away and only the "real" information will after a time endure.
This is only true if the question in the first place WAS within our limits of understanding.
Just a silly example; a chimp wont be able to understand why the sky is blue or why he is sleepy, no matter how long time it takes.
Simply because, that is beyond his comprehension.
So if we already from the start have set up our parameters telling us that everything can and must be explained, and without Allah, then the answers we will receive from our scientifical efforts will be restraint to OUR human perspective.

​

Furthermore, you state that religion doesnt encourage scientifical developement, i disagree.
Allah wasnt only aiming his message to the people living
with Muhammad (pbuh) but the Qurn is made to endure to the last Day.
Thus, each generation interprets the Text differently but the underlying message is the same and dont contradict science, but complements it.

​

Sincerely Delshad

---

What you are missing here is that science is not an "explanation of everything". It has never intended to be, nor is it capable of doing so.The scientific method is the very best and most powerful tool that humans have for understanding how the natural world works, but it's usefulness ends there.It does not work for determining morals, or esthetics, for example.If there is a spiritual or supernatural aspect in existance, science is not the tool to use to explore it. Science has no opinion on such matters because it cannot make one.

IMHO - In My Humble Opinio

Originally posted by Delshad:And Nos: Excuse me for not being clear enough in my topic , but I would think that you could tell the difference between a litterary interpretation of the sentence: "the brain isnt capable of knowing anything that it hasnt heard, touched, felt or seen" and the allegoric meaning.Is that the same as when theists interpret the bible and say that the parts they don't like are allegory and the parts they like are literal?Of course, by "mixing" the information absorbed, innumerable "imaginary" conceptions can be made.
But none of them capable of understanding what is beyond our comprehension.And what would be beyond our comprehension?Just an example ; try to imagine a room( not that hard) and now make the same room "limitless" in your mind. Quite hard right ,in fact impossible.I don't have any problems with that concept, but than again I like to read SF and have written a few short stories myself.Is that so hard to grasp?No, I had no problem at all.I believe you made a mistake Nos and it wasnt your intention to post such a reply. Oh, I didn't make anything of the kind. I meant what I said and said what I meant. You see that when it comes to this sort of thing I can be a right bastard sometimes.

To Nos: Please dont just reply my topic without thinking it through.
For example, if i understood you correctly you stated that you could, in your mind, picture yourself a limitless room.
Are you kidding?!
If you have any real comment , based on sense, I`m happy to reply.Sincerely, Delshad