Because after all, the millennia of human history during which everybody believed we were created by God was an unblemished record of social health and wellness. /sarcasm
Thanks for this. I'm no expert, and I'm willing to learn from someone who is, but I'm pretty sure evolution is not Darwinian. It's an anti-entropic process that's directed toward increasing energy-flux density and consciousness. Amphibians of the Paleozoic required less food and oxygen to sustain their metabolic activity than the reptiles of the Mesozoic. Mammals of the Cenozoic require more food and oxygen to sustain their activity than reptiles. However, amphibians are closely bounded to water. Reptiles are bounded by temperature requirements. Mammals are relatively free from environmental restrictions. The higher energy throughput, and higher metabolic rate of mammals, though apparently less efficient than amphibians or reptiles, actually supports greater brain activity in the space age. Since the metabolic energy of an individual organism reflects the biogeochemical energy of it's total environment, the evolution of invertebrates from amphibian to reptile to mammal was closely bounded to the evolution of the entire biosphere. For example, the base of the dinosur food chain was gymnosperms, which had a low energy content relative to the later angiosperms at the base of the mammalian food chain. Dinosurs had to invest much more energy to digest their food, leaving less energy available for brain activity. That's why they had no chance of stopping that asteroid. So when were talking about evolution we can't talk about it simply as a contest between the survival of the fittest mutants in the arena. The entire biosphere is evolving. Earth is evolving. Therefore, evolution cannot be separated from the solar system. It cannot be separated from the galaxy surrounding the solar system. Hence, I believe we cannot understand evolution unless we take into account solar and galactic variables. This approach is supported by the Hubble deep space field, in which it is seen that older galaxies are less organized than newer ones. This suggests that the universe as a whole is evolving. There is much to learn.
I have on my reading list "The Emerald Planet" which apparently is a discussion about how influential plants have been in shaping the evolution of animal life on the planet
I've been suspicious of the second law of thermodynamics almost as long as I was aware of its legislation. To me, it's represents a science that cannot account for the existence of the scientist. We seem to be breaking that law with increasing frequency, and environmentalists want to put us in jail for it. I hope we get a new law very soon. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2135779.stm
This strikes me as somewhat garbled. Yes, biology itself (not just evolution) involves localized anti-entropic phenomena, but only at the expense of a great deal of entropy to draw on. The sun, you know. I'm not sure what this is intended to mean. Metabolisms come in a wide range of activity, but organic molecules (of which life is made) can tolerate a fairly narrow range of temperatures. Again, what does this mean? The evolution of all living organisms, taken all together, could be regarded as the evolution of the biosphere, but only by mangling the language. Biospheres do not evolve biologically, since biospheres do not reproduce with variations. Now, it has been true that the physical environment has changed in the past. Initially, it had no free oxygen. And for a while, the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere was several percent higher than it is now. And of course organisms evolved within each era. This seems very unlikely. For one thing, mammals did much of their evolution concurrently with the dinosaurs, eating the same plants. For another thing, many mammals today digest relatively little. Consider the giant panda, which actually metabolizes almost none of its diet. Again, this is meaningless equivocation. Biological evolution is concerned strictly with the mechanisms of change from one generation to the next. If something does not reproduce, it does not evolve biologically. Certainly that includes planets. Be careful not to overload word definitions. Cars have transmissions, and diseases have transmission, but that doesn't mean diseases have cars. This is now hopeless babble, I'm afraid. Evolution is a feedback process, where life and the environment modify one another iteratively, in a never-ending process that can happen anywhere. It is NOT a process limited to any particular region, locale, biosphere, or other environment, anymore than math is limited to Arabic numerals. None of this has anything to do with biological evolution. That is, reproduction with variation. - - - Updated - - - We have never broken that law even once. Now granted, scientists would not be possible within a closed system. The second law refers only to closed systems. And even within closed systems, there are distinct regions which are not closed with respect to the rest of the system.
Human life has never had any more "intrinsic value" than the life of a peanut or the existence of a rock. The only real distinction is that humans can FIND meaning in their lifes if they choose to do so. No two people need find the same meaning for this to be true, but within a society there must be a core of shared values, and those values (which need NOT be shared by other societies) give value to those living in that society.
I respect and enjoy your perspective, which you express very clearly, but I disagree. For example, I don't believe "Biological evolution is concerned strictly with the mechanisms of change from one generation to the next." That's reductionism. I think it's bigger. I'm not an expert, but perhaps that allows me to see that experts are trapped in their own expertise. Conclusions require investments. I have less invested. Experts are all in. Experts too often study inside a box, never caring what's outside. All I'm doing is telling you that your box is contained.
Why would human life no longer have any intrinsic value? That is exactly what I believe and I greatly value life.
Sorry I have to disagree with strongly here http://www.montana.edu/paleoecology/GEOG302/Dave_Lectures/Lecture1_April_2nd.pdf
and there are a handful of scientists that dispute climate change...but that's not the norm...my experience is the creationists are generally lacking in a comprehensive education...
The scientific concensus is that our existence is the result of a spontaneous self-sustaining autocatalytic chemical reaction needing energy and food molecules. The variation of species and origin of mankind is the result of a competing chemical reaction vying for a finite supply of energy and food molecules...evolution itself can therefore be reduced to it's chemical constituent parts. The resultant social pathology of such an assertion are self evident as if there is nothing beyond the sum of our parts...there is no extrinsic difference between a life sustaining planet and a dead one. No objective argument can be made why organic life has greater value than non-organic as "value" itself can be reduced to it's constituent bio-chemical parts. The Earth is warming? The oceans are dying? The poor have no access to clean water or food? No objective argment can be made why say for example a lifeless entity like Jupiter, with it's helium and hydrogen atmosphere and perpetual storms is therefore of less instrinsic value than Earth, a planet which is conducive to autocatalytic chemical reactions. Empathy, concern for our fellow man, concern for our environment, altruism...would be purely subjective entities...non-existent outside of the bio-chemical constituents within the brain which conceives the subjective value. It's self evident....objectively, nothing would merit consideration. Civilization itself would be reduced to a collective attempt at continuing the self sustaining autocatalytic reaction of it's constituent chemical parts...and whether it is sustained or ceases...cannot be valued outside of a purely internalized subjective analysis. Externally, there is no difference. All life on Earth is comparable to the perpetual storms in Jupiter's atmosphere. Chemical reactions.
Nonetheless, the theory of evolution is concerned strictly with the mechanisms though which biological change occurs from generation to generation. If you wish to expand the definition of evolution to include anything that changes, you're no longer addressing the same topic. The box is deliberately and carefully contained, and for a good reason. Lumping in unrelated phenomena that work according to different principles entirely, doesn't make the idea more complete or comprehensive, only more incoherent and confusing.
I'm sure you're right about that, but I still maintain that it's important to draw a distinction between ideology and simple ignorance. My point about Wise and Wells is that education cannot cure creationism. Another study I read said that of all college graduates in biology who began as creationists, 80% graduate as creationists. Education does not cure creationism, which is a doctrine and not a conclusion from evidence or knowledge. As for climate change. the returns are currently somewhat ambiguous. Certainly there is an ideological element. But there is also a financial element (scientists paid by certain industries to be spokesman, as happened with the tobacco industry), and there is also some scientific uncertainty about which models might make the best predictions. Linear extrapolations are almost always wrong, because of feedback - higher CO2 levels might lead to chemical changes which in turn act to lower CO2 levels, etc.
We may be talking about different things, since your link fails to address the point I thought I was making. Indeed, I can't find any relevance to it at all, except possibly as an illustration of my point, that evolution can happen anywhere a feedback process can happen. Islands facilitate allopathic evolution, but sympatric evolution is also common. And earth's habitats vary wildly, both geographically and over geological time, and evolution has occurred in all of them.
And still my question goes unanswered. Why would human life no longer have any intrinsic value? That is exactly what I believe and I greatly value life. Let me put it another way. It appears to me that your argument is that we must choose to believe in God, rather than accept science, because if the science is correct, humans have no reason to respect human life. I would argue just the opposite. Given that what evolution postulates is that all life is the result of billions and billions of natural experiments and that humans were the fortunate result, that humans developed and that we have thrived is a tribute to evolution and humankind.
I agree completely. One of the anti-evolution arguments is to throw out everything from the Big Bang theory to theories on how the first life was created-but none of those things are evolution as it pertains to living things.
all one has to do is looks at antibiotics, fruit flies, ect... to see evolution is real, no one doubts it's real as it is happening, but, there is a theory behind how it life evolved over time
After fairly long exposure, I have come to a tentative speculation about this. I've long noticed that "evolution" in the mind of the creationists, is a grab-bag term encompassing everything incompatible with a specific reading of Genesis, so that includes anything requiring long periods of time, from biological evolution to the big bang to geology to paleontology to mountain-building and so on and on. My speculation is that in creationist theology, the universe and all its contents were poofed up within a brief period of time, all at once in current form, and haven't changed since. And therefore, "evolution" is a codeword referring to anything incompatible with this doctrine. A true creationist (and yes, some people actually believe that stuff!) has a mental model with which natural history in all its aspects is incompatible - it cannot be force-fit into that model in any way. Since the body of evidence on which deep time rests is so universal, comprehensive, and consiliant, the creationist has little choice but to regard all evidence as an enemy. And oddly enough, this makes the creationist approach understandable - since there's no such thing as evidence, Making Stuff Up makes it just as real as any observation. Sheer unsupported assertion is as powerful an argument as evidence, which can't exist anyway. No argument, however imaginary or inconsistent, can be dishonest since there's nothing substantive to be dishonest about EXCEPT Official Doctrine. And that's why the ICR requires applicants to sign a pledge that they will never say or do or publish anything inconsistent with scripture.
Clearly the Bible, especially Genesis, is the only basis for the actual history of how life developed on this planet....in fact for the entire formation of the solar system. As it clearly shows that God created the Sun and Moon on the Fourth Day....just as He created the plants on the Third Day. I suppose you "evil'lutionists" will claim it's crazy to propose that plants, which would depend on the Sun for not only food but warmth, would be created BEFORE the Sun was created and use your Satanic "logic".... but that's only because you haven't been annointed by the Holy Spirit and thus are able to completely ignore science and logic, as God intended us to.
"Fortunate" and "Greatly Value" in the contest of organic life are purely the by-products of a self sustaining chemical reaction...you and I are no more than on going chemical reactions...our thoughts therefore are biased towards a sustainment of said chemical reaction...you therefore place a "valuation" on organic life because it literally is a part of you.. Subjective therefore... Objectively, no argument exists why a dead planet or one teeming with life is therefore "better than" These are natual processes, no more and no less...they just are. You have NO objective argument to defend life on Earth...all of it, as having more value and worth to the Universe as a whole than the planet Jupiter and it's constant swirling atmospheric storms. Your very thoughts which defend and value life, are programmed by the same autocatalytic chemical process ...you have no objectivity as a result. The Universe does not care...does not feel...does not think...it just is. The chemical process which dictates life on Earth is no more, or less valuable than the chemical processes of a dead planet. This is the logical conclusion of Science...it essentially has boxed itself into Nihilism. It's inescapable. Value is purely an artificial construct, it does not exist independent of the organic processes which produce it, and the organic processes which produce it, do so as part of the evolved autocatalytic chemical reaction that just happened to spontaneously begin because conditons happened to be right. You win. Life evolved spontaneously from inorganic matter, self-organized and remains self sustaining as long as there is an input of energy and food molecules. Blind, unthinking processes, with no goal or aim, they just are.... If at the same time Science asserts the troposphere is warming, the glaciers are melting, the oceans are becoming acidic and life itself is being threatened... I would propose... and? Why should I care..exactly? What so special about life in the first place? Science's answer is of course....nothing.
As you conveniently ignore everything presented to you in this type of thread, dodge actual data when it is provided at your request, and seem to lack the intellectual prowess to grasp it in the first place......why would anyone decide to type at the wall?
BTW, have you ever noticed how Creationists NEVER make a case for THEIR theory of how life developed....merely try to poke holes in Evolution. Wanna guess why that is???
It starts right off with a really big whopper. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). I wonder just what this creationtard thinks "evidence" actually is? If he didn't have his head so far up his religious arse, he might be able to see the obvious. And then there's you... Go look up the evidence for evolution. Quit hiding from the truth and expecting others to do your critical thinking for you.
If you're inside a deliberately and carefully contained box that's incoherent and confusing, how can you be certain that stepping outside will make it more so?
