Austiran Cardinal talks about evolution

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, science can say how something happens, but struggles with the question of why. Nothing to do with abiogenesis, Boris, but about ascribing the purpose of evolution to blind chance.

"Cause" != "why," so you might want to use your terms more carefully.

But how could a "purpose" be ascribed to "blind chance," anyway? Studying evolution--or any scientific theory--doesn't deal with "purposes." But if a process in science appears to be unguided by any intelligent mechanism, which is the case for evolution, then how is it outside the realm of science to note this observation?

Would you claim that meteorologists are stepping outside the realm of science to describe the "why" of tornados and hurricanes? I'm sure a few folks might believe an invisible being like Thor is guiding each storm across the earth...but their objections to such storms being "random" are hardly of any concern to science.

[Kuciwalker]

There is more evidence on hand for common descent than there is for heliocentrism.

Now that is false.

[Ecthy]

Care to elaborate on your evidence for heliocentrism? Epicyclical models don't count

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

There is more evidence on hand for common descent than there is for heliocentrism.

Now that is false.

In terms of physical, concrete evidence, yes there is. We have mountains of physical evidence, plus molecular evidence, DNA evidence, morphological evidence, etc. Heliocentric evidence is limited to implications from observations--and not direct ones, since no one has even observed the earth actually going around the sun. We've observed evolution through common descent, albeit in very small test cases.

Now, the observations that lead to the conclusion of heliocentricity are very solid, but they certainly are much fewer in number.

But really, I only mentioned it so I could cite this page:

http://www.geocentricbible.com/id21.htm

The evidence for heliocentrism is even weaker than the evidence for evolution:
Dr. Jim Paulson, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh

[Kuciwalker]

In terms of physical, concrete evidence, yes there is. We have mountains of physical evidence, plus molecular evidence, DNA evidence, morphological evidence, etc. Heliocentric evidence is limited to implications from observations--and not direct ones, since no one has even observed the earth actually going around the sun.

Yes they have. We have mountains of astronomical evidence (going back much further).

And of course a bioechemist would say that.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then they would have had to burn all the manuscripts of the ancient Greeks who established the shape of the Earth.

Not to mention all ships.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The Origins of the Species is an old book. Is it no longer credible because it is old?

Yes, actually. Many of the points in Origin have been replaced with more up to date explanations following more recent discoveries in genetics. This is called science. It is good.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


For the same reason people look for a purpose to the universe as a whole. There seems to be more going on than can be explained away as nothing.

IOW, because we tend to anthropomorphize everything.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And of course a bioechemist would say that.

That "WHOOSH" sound is something going very much over your head.

[Kuciwalker]

: tongue :

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
For the same reason people look for a purpose to the universe as a whole. There seems to be more going on than can be explained away as nothing.

I cannot come to the same conclusion. Why does there be the necesity for a purpose?
Have you ever looked at chaotic systems? There seems to be more going on as well and yet it isn't. It comes down to some simple laws that create complex behavior.
I also recommend you to take a look at Braitenberg Vehicle's: http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~wiseman/vehicles/
Simple rules creating complex behavior and the observer asks himself what is going on and tries to deduct a meaning.

There is really absolute NO evidence of any kind that the universe has a purpose.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Atahualpa

There is really absolute NO evidence of any kind that the universe has a purpose.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Bill3000


If he said something like god guided evolution I'd think it would be slightly more acceptable, but whatever.

there is no way that that is incompatible with the theory of evolution

as such, while that idea is not scientific, neither is it against science...

Jon Miller

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, but let Ochams razor just slice through it

[Jon Miller]

Ochams razor is not science...

Jon Miller