Is Evolution a Radical Idea?

Schraf says the explanations of science 'don't seem to bother the Buddhists.'That's right. They don't.And Taoism traditionally holds scholarship in high regard.
Respect for science falls right in.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

There are two thiings to consider here. Firstly there is the direct evidence which clearly accounts for the presence of your "theme" in the Big Bang and in the evolutionary history of life.Secondly there is the fact that ordered complexity does cry out for explanation, and any answer that doesn't ultimately lead to an infinite regress or question-begging is going to begin with simplicity - or at least a relatively unordered state (and I'd put the early universe more in the latter category than the former). So this "theme" is at least partly the result of our success in finding explanations.

A common use of the pursuit of knowledge is the pursuit of God of the fewer gaps. The aim is to exclude God. Now a tower of Babel is hardly a revoltionary idea. Every era needs an apple, the consumption of which is promised to make us like God.The unmistakable theme is that random accident and chance lead to greater complexity. Greater potential. Like what would happen were water to run uphill.Life has been thought to arrive from non-life for a long time. That it has in the past been shown not to be the case by the onward march of knowledge might be something that is shown again in the future. Whether it will or won't be is not the point: until then the possibility that it can remains an apple in its adherants eye.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

A common use of the pursuit of knowledge is the pursuit of God of the fewer gaps. The aim is to exclude God. Now a tower of Babel is hardly a revoltionary idea. Every era needs an apple, the consumption of which is promised to make us like God.

---

So you think that it was wrong to discover the role of germs in causing disease because it excluded God ? Do you think that we should rely on prayer instead of antibiotics or vaccinations ?Aren't you the slightest bit worried that you are arguing for ignorance ?

quote:

---

The unmistakable theme is that random accident and chance lead to greater complexity. Greater potential. Like what would happen were water to run uphill.

---

No, that is not the theme at all. You really need to consider what you are delaying with accurately.

quote:

---

Life has been thought to arrive from non-life for a long time. That it has in the past been shown not to be the case by the onward march of knowledge might be something that is shown again in the future. Whether it will or won't be is not the point: until then the possibility that it can remains an apple in its adherants eye.

---

Of course the same people who beleived in the old ideas of spontaneous generation beleived in God - It is even likely that many of them may beleived that Genesis was literally true. And it is only the pursuit of knowledge that you attack that lead to the falsification of those beliefs. It seems that you would be far happier with the old false ideas, than with the newer more promising ideas.

Robins theme was 'evolutionism': the use of evolution to deny Gods existance. This is not necessary to do as many evolution-believing Christians would testify. I said a common use - not exclusive use. Robin was under the impression that this was the theme. I agree with him that assembly of complexity from lower orders of complexity is the theme in the universe/lifes origin/evolution that the 'evidence' is presented as indicating. Don't you? Like I said - a common use of the knowledge. Not exclusive.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Why is it wrong to pursue knowledge of evolution if it happens to deny God's direct intervention but acceptable to pursue knowledge of disease which happens to deny God's direct intervention ?

quote:

---

Robin was under the impression that this was the theme.

---

He hasn't said so in so many words. He didn't address how complexity arose from simplicity. And if he had, he would have been wrong, because it is not proposed that order being discussed arises solely from "random accident and chance".

quote:

---

Like I said - a common use of the knowledge. Not exclusive.

---

Perhaps you can support the idea that it was "common" to cite the old ideas of spontaneous generation as evidence against the existence of God. I'm not aware of any examples.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

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.

It's too big to take up in this thread (look what happened to me yesterday) but this idea of such a progression is incorrect. (see Gould "Full House")

What's the gist of Gould's idea?

Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin - Wikipedia

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

That is a misreading of the article. "Progress" is simply a stand-in for "increasing complexity".If you read the last of the wiki article you see that one of Goulds assertions is that there is no increase in complexity anyway. It is a mispreception from a biased point of view.The other point he makes is that the amount of increase we see in maximum complexity (without much change in average complexity is not because there is any direction but the result of a random walk away from a wall of minimum complexity on one side.

What one makes no effort to understand can often seem vague.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.