Evolution and religion , a hundred years ago

[Bill3000]

It is a fallacy, and plain out wrong, that it is better for a species to be more complex, to be more successful. This is false; evolution is a matter of adaption, not complexity. Complexity just allows more windows for adaption to open, but has its own disadvantages too. Humans cannot grow their own arms, for example.


Humanity is only "superior" in the sense that we have learned to use tools to change our environment, rather than the adapt to the environmental constraints already existing. That's why we have been so successful, but that does not mean humans are the most adapted species. Indeed, the organisms that tend to be most adaptable to their environments are the more simplier organisms - bacteria and archaea. Let's not forget the humongous success of the insects - their diversity (which in reality, is a measure of evolutionary success - note that humanity has very little genetic diversity) is almost (if not, I havn't checked in awhile) second-to-none in the animal kindom. Yet humanity considers them inferior, when it is really just a matter of anthropocentrism.

There is no reason to consider humanity superior to any other life form on this planet. (Oh, and omniscience is impossible, so there goes one of the qualities of divinity.)

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Solomwi


It may just be a faulty example, but I don't think this link holds up to scrutiny. It would if one particular mollusc morphed into a man, but that's not the case. Over the many, many generations it would have taken for the mollusc to become man, our mollusc-man (here taken to mean all steps along the chain) would have tons of "input" from the environment, thus shaping the intermediary and directing the chain in ways that need not necessarily have been inherent in the original mollusc.

This is basically an altered version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument against evolution. The Swami paraphrases the first law, then twists it a little to arrive at the second law argument. The main failure of this argument is in trying to apply a law of thermo to a different realm. Just because we can't create energy doesn't mean we can't create complexity. For an example, take a look at government. Today's innumerable and complex theories of government weren't necessarily involved in the original "Grog have bigger club... Grog rule" model of government, but they have certainly evolved from that first form.

The premise is an interesting take, but the rationale seems to me to need work, at least on that point.

The idea he tries to convery is simple - that instead of denying evolution as degrading to man , accept it as something that uplifts ( maybe you find it difficult to grasp what he is saying because he is speaking with the premise that man is God ) . He is not arguing against evolution in the first place ( maybe you assumed that , being religious , he was arguing against the TOE and trying to legtimise his own creation myth ? ) .

[aneeshm]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Evolution and religion , a hundred years ago

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

How could a human become a god when it lacks the capacity for omnipotence?

You don't become - you already are - that's the guy's point .

[beingofone]

Some excellent posts in this thread.

"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith."

-Albert Einstein

[chequita guevara]

The reason why Americans are so insanely religious while other nations aren't, is that in most of the rest of the world, reoligion was tied to the government. When anti-government feelings arose, so too did anti-religious ones.

Here in the U.S., religion ws seperated from government, and so our anti-government tendencies didn't lead to anti-religious ones. As well, because of the free expression of religion, anyone could believe in anything. There has always been a lot of religious experimentation going on in America.

The U.S. was hit with a wave of religious fervor very early on. IIRC, it was known as the Great Awakening.

http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/four.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The U.S. was hit with a wave of religious fervor very early on. IIRC, it was known as the Great Awakening.

And people say Americans can't grasp 'irony' easily.


First a religious 'Great Awakening' and then electing Reagan and Baby Bush twice each !


That is some bad ass irony goin' on, sho' nuff.

[chequita guevara]

You want some irony.

We use a program at work called Subversion.

If putting me together with that program isn't enough for you, apparently I have an authority problem with Subversion.

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by beingofone
Some excellent posts in this thread.

-Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein was a pantheist; he did not believe in the existance of a personal god. He believed that nature is what we could consider to be god. His point was that spirituality can still exist by celebrating existance, roughly.

I hate when people misquote Einstein like that.

If putting me together with that program isn't enough for you, apparently I have an authority problem with Subversion.

That's not irony. That's fitting.

[beingofone]

I hate when people misquote Einstein like that.

Yup I know what you mean, that is why I quoted him hence the quote.

You know what I tire of - people who think Einstein was not bright enough to speak his own mind and have to reinterpret what he said because he was challenged when it came to communication skills.
That way he always says what you want him to say instead of what he actually said.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by beingofone


Yup I know what you mean, that is why I quoted him hence the quote.

You know what I tire of - people who think Einstein was not bright enough to speak his own mind and have to reinterpret what he said because he was challenged when it came to communication skills.
That way he always says what you want him to say instead of what he actually said.

Are you asserting that he's wrong on Einstein's belief in god? Because he isn't.

Einstein himself clarified his own beliefs:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein

If you want more examples of Einstein speaking his own mind, check out this site. I don't think you'll enjoy it, though.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The reason why Americans are so insanely religious while other nations aren't, is that in most of the rest of the world, reoligion was tied to the government. When anti-government feelings arose, so too did anti-religious ones.

Here in the U.S., religion ws seperated from government, and so our anti-government tendencies didn't lead to anti-religious ones. As well, because of the free expression of religion, anyone could believe in anything. There has always been a lot of religious experimentation going on in America.

The U.S. was hit with a wave of religious fervor very early on. IIRC, it was known as the Great Awakening.

http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/four.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening

I also agree with this

this is why church and state need to be kept seperate

JM

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Evolution and religion , a hundred years ago

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
No.

Animals don't cause large scale destruction of the environment and carry out genocides of other animals.

They sure as hell do. Where did you get this assertion from?

[RGBVideo]

Einstein was such a knee-jerk secularist, he manipulated his own theory in order to prove that the theory of an infinitely old, stable-sized universe was true. Then he was pwned by Lemaître in the 20s.

I do think that fundamentalists are non-intellectual.

no

The reason why Americans are so insanely religious while other nations aren't, is that in most of the rest of the world, reoligion was tied to the government. When anti-government feelings arose, so too did anti-religious ones.

Here in the U.S., religion ws seperated from government, and so our anti-government tendencies didn't lead to anti-religious ones. As well, because of the free expression of religion, anyone could believe in anything. There has always been a lot of religious experimentation going on in America.

That's an interesting theory, never heard of it before; thanks for bringing it up.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We use a program at work called Subversion.

If putting me together with that program isn't enough for you, apparently I have an authority problem with Subversion.

It's an omen, comrade.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by VJ
That's an interesting theory, never heard of it before; thanks for bringing it up.

Marx brought it up in his book, On The Jewish Question, (which is a critique of a book titled, The Jewish Question and is more about religion than Jews). I think he may have gotten it from de Tocqueville.