Is Evolution a Radical Idea?

Well, anybody can believe anything. I just meant their ideas have logical holes.

Well, my point is that evolution is not like heliocentrism. It's much more radical. Well, yes, that would be wrong.

Eastern religions are vague: vagueness can accomodate anything.

Well, yes by way of finding out about the physics.But there's a theme running though all these developments--cosmological formations, abiogenesis and finally biological evolution.The theme is development from the simple to the more complex, leading eventually to (perhaps) the most complex thing in the universe: the human body.

I don't know about "how": I'm just noting that this progression from simplicity to complexity is how nature works. In regard to abiogenesis, for which the knowledge is meager (as far as I know), evolutionism plausibly assumes that nature also works in this same way in the creation of life--the movement from simple to complex chemicals--amino acids, perhaps--and finally to the beginnings of life.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

What's the gist of Gould's idea?

OK, Gould seems to be linking the idea of "progress" with the idea of "complexity." I did not intend that.

Well, the ideas of evolutionism are very plausible, so it's not a very good straw man. It's just a matter of looking at the way nature works as a whole.

If you compare the universe 10 billion years ago to the universe today, you see a lot more complexity.ABE: might we also add that there are more discreet objects?Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

What am I making up? There might be some difficulties, as Nosyned has observed, about the simplicity-to-complexity idea, but the rest of it is based on what the scientists say about biological evolution, cosmology, and so forth.

I don't know what everyone believes. I'm just saying that the ideas of evolutionism are extremely plausible.

Well, Schraf, if the ideas are vague enough, it could mean most anything we like, and so it means nothing at all.

I meant it was logically devastating to religion. People might not have any "problem" with it, but these people are wrong.The liberal Christians don't have any "problem," but they are wrong.

I see a lot.Come to find out, there was no Fall. And if no Fall, no need for the Passion. That's Christianity in a nutshell.Why was there no Fall? Because there was evolution. Evolution and the Fall don't mix.Evolution tells us that things change gradually over time into other things. What things? All things.No need for God.

In that case, maybe you should start a thread on Eastern religions, or at least one of them, and explain to me what these non-simplistic beliefs are. And then perhaps we can determine if they fit with the findings of science.