posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:32 PM
reply to post by Sweetmystery
Darwin never describes how Something came to be. But it is now popular, even required to believe in this illogic of nothing sponsoring it. When
something as miraculous and infinitely complex as the universe (in its inescapably lawful nature) is described as coming from an accident – one just
Again, it seems as though the author of the book – and therefore by extension you – are having trouble separating evolution from abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is a study of how life began, evolution is the study of how that life changes once it already exists. They are related, but they are not
the same thing.
Further, the concept of life resulting from an “accident” is typical of creationists. It’s an emotionally charged word. Is it really an accident
when the chemical reactions that govern the formation of amino acids, RNA, DNA, etc. occur readily in the presence of the basic molecules that were
present 4 By ago here on Earth?
This was a first. That one man could audaciously claim against the lead of all amazing minds of history – whose shoulders he stood on that
Nothingness (in a dumb explosion of miraculous Lawful detail) could be the reason All things exist – was a height of intellectual
What’s the greater hubris? Saying that we don’t know exactly how it happened but we’re going to keep investigating it or saying that, because we
don’t know exactly how it happened, God must have created it all just for us?
Sometimes certain ones desire to be an iconoclast-’truth giver’ or just the ‘first one’ to say something. What we find, as with any new
Idea, Fad, Religion, Philosophy or Discipline is, the followers make it into a ‘sacred’ sacrosanct object, or into a zealous ‘belonging’.
Darwin wasn’t the first to espouse the idea that species can change over time and that traits can be passed down through generations, so he was
hardly an iconoclast.
I absorbed Darwin’s self proclaimed theory and its principles, anecdotal indicators its ideation and its supposed “certainty” because the
public school system in America and many others now teach the theory as a FACT. But near the end of his life Darwin offered up a fearful unease that
what he wrote could create a debilitating effect.
The best part of the theory of evolution is that you don’t have to “believe” it just because it was part of your education. It’s that it’s
science – you can view all of the recorded evidence for it yourself.
He never got to see its full flowered worldwide acceptance and dogmatically pressured promulgation. It’s truly pressured now almost
everywhere. Many are fired from institutions of higher learning for not believing it, Or in pointing to ideas such as intelligent design (ID) in their
class rooms. (See the movie: "Expelled").
The reason for evolution being taught in classrooms while intelligent design creationism is not is simple, and it has nothing to do with dogma –
science operates on a tyranny of evidence, not a democracy of belief. You either have the evidence to support your claims or you don’t. Evolution
does. Creationism doesn’t. It’s really that simple.
The rest of your quoted material from the book is more of the same. Based on what you’re presenting here, it seems like the author has a
metaphysical issue with the theory of evolution, not a scientific one.