Originally posted by Prezbo369
Originally posted by Cuervo
But why? Why is the default that needs no proof the one of non-intervention evolution? It certainly doesn't follow the pattern of nature which is
cyclical and creative. Why isn't the burden of proof on the equally (arguably more) challenging notion that our ghosts in these machines we call
bodies are nothing but biological end-results?
Evolution is as close to absolute knowledge as anything we have ever known. Its considered more than fact, its considered a
Scientific Theory, which "comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of
observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between
observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as
a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."
As proof goes, its the most water tight proof we have ever discovered, and proponents of evolution have indeed met their burden of proof.
The water tight-- airtight, even! -- would be something like "length X width of a rectangle = its area." Not only can it be observed, but tested to
repeat the results and is part of the explanation for why the area of a rectangle times its height (if equal at all points = its volume.
Evolution has observable evidence, but can not be repeated by experiment.
DNA sequencing adds evidence to support the theory, but also leaves questions regarding the original concept of the theory and so the theory is
continuously adapting to support new evidence. That is scientific, and the marks of a good theory, but it is not, yet, airtight.
Evolution and the heliocentric solar system seem to be following similar cultural paths.
It was science, not religion, which first asserted that the sun and the planets revolved around the earth (and that scientific model predated
Christianity). Various cultures (and religions) then adapted their belief systems to be in agreement with the false notion
It was science and not religion which developed a new theory that the planets, including the earth, orbited the sun. Again, cultures (including
Note about the Flat Earth: Culture had a problem with a spherical world, but not so much the world's religions.
Culture (including, but not limited to,religion) find conceptual change threatening, but usually adapt once the surer concept is able to be embraced.
So now we have a major perspective shift. It upsets some (hardly all) Jews, Christians and Muslims, because they had taken part of the Creation story
to mean something other than what is intended.
Similarly, some have taken the first "day" of creation's "Let there be light..." to refer to the sun; but perhaps it refers to the release of
energy in the Big Bang? But then again, perhaps it refers to the spiritual Reality, and not at all to the material creation.
It is our presumptions which are hard to admit to be in error-- true of science, true of religion, true of culture-- true of all mankind.
For over a thousand years, one culture would enslave another culture, certain that their own culture was superior and the only "true humans" (and,
for example, at least one American Indian tribe's name means just that). But before science could show us that we are all related back to about
60,000 years ago, culture had already begun to adapt to the concept that all races are equally human-- equally deserving of respect.
Need I point out that religion, and religious people, had very much to do with bringing about that true cultural concept-shift, before science entered