I thought I'd post a bit in response to The Madhatter, having read Bernie's post.
Originally posted by The Madhatter
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the responses to my post, and am extremely impressed with the civility of this thread. I did intend the math comment as a joke, but love the responses it got.
There are just a few points I would like to bring up. I am not sure whether or not this has been discussed, but I got the feeling from previous posts that people have been convinced there is overwhelming, solid evidence to support evolution as a fact . Now, granted, I am not exactly sure what I believe happened, other than that God set the world into motion by some method, but from what I have researched, there seems to be evidence both in support of traditional creationism and evolution. Assuming this is true, how can one be absolutely sure of either? The scientific method consists of observance, which was impossible for any human at the beginning of time. So any hypothesis proposed is just that, an educated guess. Evolution has never been proved, neither has creation, so I think we should stop referring to our beliefs as having been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Regardless, believing in one God or being a Christian makes no requirement as to beliefs of the origin of the universe.
The "fact" that 1+1=2 has never been proven. The "facts" about geologic activity on this Earth have never been proven like the fact that there was an original supercontinent. I could go on.
I'm not trying to be a smart aleck here, but I'm trying to illustrate a point. Many things we will probably never be able to prove unless we have a time machine. We can gather data in the present and extrapolate the most reasonable explanation of what happened in the past, but we will never "prove" it. Evolution is a "theory", not a "fact", but I believe it's probably the most reliable, most reasonable, and most probable explanation of how human beings came to be. I, at this point, can't conceive of any other more reasonable way of explaining our existence from a scientific point of view. This is how science works we create the most compelling explanation for something based upon the data that we have gathered in the present. Then when we find something that goes contrary to our theories, we modify them slightly to accommodate, or we completely trash the old theory and come up with a new one that makes more sense. It's what science is all about I know we're probably going to know for a fact only one billionth of the things out there, and even that is a major exaggeration.
Something I have always held against the theory of evolution (without divine interevention) is this: We (humans) have never witnessed the creation of something out of absolutely nothing. I find it hard to swallow that chance (absolute randomness) brought about a universe so ordered as this one. In previous posts, many were ranting about the beauty of mathematics, and I too think it is equally wonderful. But knowing the power and universality of math, I don't see how chance could create such a wonderful thing. It seems to me that this whole concept completely violates Newton's (First, I think) Law which says that everything tends toward a state of greater disorder. In chemistry, it is taught that without work being put into a system, the system will tend towards randomness. How could an ultimately disordered universe have turned out so perfectly without guidance, some kind of intervention? As I previously stated, evolution may very well have happened, but without a God to direct it, it seems completely infeasible. I would love to hear your comments.
Of course, the seeming completely infeasible is an opinion. I, for one, think that it possibly could have happened. But I would like to point one thing out how can you say that the creation of life violates Newton's Law which says that everything tends toward a state of greater disorder? In my opinion, the universe before the big bang would be perfectly orderly (whatever it was, and assuming that the big bang theory is correct). Then everything exploded and you get planets and supernovas and all sorts of star clusters, and you get Earth. Earth is geologically active, but nothing too interesting except for geologic formations. Then somehow, "life" comes to be. It branches into different forms and different species and different genuses ad infinitum. Then, somehow, human beings come to be, and they have the ability to create tools, and create novel ways of doing things, advancing technology little by little, until things like the steam engine, railroads, the printing press, computers, etc. were created.
Is this really MORE orderly than before? I should think not. If anything, this is obeying Newton's Law, if it is even applicable in this case. The randomness that created the first form of life is just increasing the entropy on Earth, as I see it. So I think it's entirely possible, on this point. Furthermore, there is evidence that organic substances like amino acids could be created from pools of liquid with electricity applied to it (this is a very oversimplified statement of the experiment). Even though we don't have evidence of LIFE arising from inert materials, I think the fact that amino acids came to be is pretty significant.
My opinion, about humans, is that we have a soul, something extra, that no other animal does. If one day scientists could put together an exact replica of a living human, with every atom in place, there would be something missing. In other words, if I put together a model in my backyard, made of mostly carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, in exactly the same composition as a normal homo sapien, the "thing" would not be a person, a living, breathing being. There would be something, lets call it the breath of life, that would be nonexistent. It would have no soul, no life. I will not argue that we are in many, many ways like animals (even down to the molecular level), but there is something intangible that we have that no other being does. And what we have was put into us by a divine being
I would tend to disagree. I think that our "soul" is simply consciousness, that has somehow evolved into ourselves. I think that if you cloned me, my clone would be conscious, and would be able to exhibit the exact same feelings as me. He would be capable of sadness, of happiness, of love, of anger, and of all the other emotions. To me, this is all that is needed for a person to have a "soul", but I only think the consciousness that we have separates us from animals. I think that it's possible that some animals could have a limited consciousness, even if it's simply in the form of self-awareness.
Personally, I think it's kind of arrogant to think that we are above animals and plants in some way. I prefer to think of it as something that's evolved in us, and that could easily evolve in some other form of life if it ever happened.
Christianity, I believe, is a thinking man's religion.
I believe that Bernie handled this quote well.
Now let me be clear it is not the religion we believe in, or that a simple belief in one God is the same thing as Christianity. The main tenant of our faith is that there was a man (Jesus) who was the Son of God, and that man by nature is sinful (because he chose to be so), and only a perfect sacrifice could save us (another topic completely). Reason, I think, warrants faith. It is by reasoning and experience that I believe in one God and His Son. Often times Christians are construed as being blind, ignorant, and stupid, but what I propose is the opposite. Faith is a product of reason. I will expound another time.
I agree that faith is a product of reason. But in my case it manifests itself as a faith in science and as a faith in observation and the tangible. I would go so far as to say that science is a religion of sorts, although I know there are probably many, like Ed, who would disagree.
What I don't understand is how you can put faith in something that leaves no trace of itself, and has no evidence of existing besides the feeling inside a person. For me, anyway, I
need to have some evidence or something tangible that could point to the existence of something, before I believe in it. That's why it's so hard for me to believe that there is a God out there. There may very well be, but I just haven't seen any true of evidence of there. As always, though, science can neither prove nor disprove, so I can't say that because of the lack of evidence, there is no God. I usually regard myself as an atheist, because I don't believe in God. In truth, though, I probably would more closely be an agnostic.
I don't agree with one who says that religion, or faith in general, is just a way of explaining the unexplainable, which is exactly what I was taught in Anthropology. Isn't that exactly what science, math, and all other objective studies aim to do? But the difference is this: An atheists faith is grounded in things he can see and touch, while our (a Christians) faith is based on something greater than ourselves, something beyond what we see and touch. We can easily believe in what we understand, but that doesn't make it necessarily true, just easier to swallow. But the great thing is is that our faith is rewarded, because we can have an real experience, perhaps not physical (although it may be), with the God in which we believe. It is a personal and universal thing all in one. Reason and thinking are very much an integral part of faith, that is what I am trying to say, and I hope it is clear.
Reason and thinking ARE very much an integral part of faith, which is why I put MY faith in science.
We're moving, and I am at the end of a school year as well.
