Darwin vs. Einstein
Christians and Jews have never objected to a theory of evolution based on common descent; in particular, there is no objection to the claim that humans and chimps had a common ancestor five million years ago. I myself have looked at the evidence, and I think the evidence for such a common ancestor is overwhelming. But Einstein was correct: the evolution of humans from one branch of this common ancestor was foreordained. The Schrödinger equation — quantum mechanics — demands it.
Christians and Jews necessarily accept what Einstein called “determinism.” We call it “God’s omniscience.” God knows what we will do before we do it. God knew what we would do before He evolved the human race, before time even began. We believe therefore that we “ … are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights” even if members of the ruling class are so opposed to this idea that they cannot even utter the words. We also believe in free will, and how our free will can be reconciled with God’s foreknowledge has been the subject of theological debate for millennia. I have written a book wherein I argue that a property of quantum mechanics provides an answer, but the answer is not relevant here.
What is relevant is that we members of the subject class are in agreement with the laws of physics. We are in agreement with Einstein. Thus we are intellectually superior to the members of the ruling class, who put their faith in chance, in Darwin – in their own willfulness, which is what “chance” means in politics.
We will win this fight. God preordained — Darwin’s word — our victory. The ruling class’ view of reality upon which its members’ pretense of intellectual superiority rests has been totally refudiated.
Sorry, Professor Tipler, but you got it exactly the wrong way around this time.
The ruling class does not believe in random mutation and natural selection: they believe in intelligent design, with them in the role of designers. The way they design the economy is proof positive that they do not believe that anything unpredicted will occur.
Without the context, it is difficult to make sense of Wilson’s quote, but I note that it might have come from Burke — not exactly a favorite author of the ruling class. Anyway, the fact that the “progressives” did not believe in Darwinism is proven by their enthusiasm for eugenics — which is clearly a form of intelligent design.
In short, all what the ruling class takes from Darwin is the idea of evolution, to which you do not object. But they don’t want to leave evolution to chance: if they did, they would no longer be the ruling class, would they?
I’ll have to agree with Snorri. The ruling class is a bunch of twits who only know the right conclusions to hold not how to arrive at them.
As evidenced by their assertion that they understand and believe in Darwinian evolution with its self organization while castigating Adam Smith and his invisible hand. They have a yen for command economies and command climates. People who exhibit a fetish for preventing extinctions and removing ‘invasive’ species really shouldn’t claim to be Darwin’s heirs.
They speak of change but then seek to freeze nature into their favorite variations. As if.
I have long had the same problem with the folks who turned Darwin’s theory of natural selection into dogma. They don’t seem to believe it themselves. If they did, of course they would embrace free market economics. And they would stop intruding into the process of extinction. Which leads me to conclude that either they are too stupid to realize the contradiction in their positions, or they have ulterior motives. Well, as someone once wrote, don’t ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I cannot understand this talk about dogma, and why do people always go back to what Darwin said and did not say. I believe Tipler quoted Feynman recently that “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”, so why harp on about what Darwin said and did not say? Go for the latest stuff instead.
Whether the universe is predetermined or not we will never know, so why bother discussing the point as if it matters?
The left most definitely does not accept Darwin. Darwinian thought sinks the Unconstrained vision faster than the Titanic. Evolutionary psychology is all about our human nature, but if we have one of any importance, social engineering is impossible. Darwinism says that the sexes are different, but the left kicked Larry Summers out of Harvard for merely timidly suggesting that.
Then, my theology 101 is not very strong, but to claim that God predetermined the universe, isn’t that a heresy, at least according to the Catholic Church? That is the reason why astrology is considered a heresy. It assumes that God’s will can be determined from where the stars and planets are, and thus assumes that he is no almighty and can change his mind.
“But Einstein was correct: the evolution of humans from one branch of this common ancestor was foreordained. The Schrödinger equation — quantum mechanics — demands it.”
1) who or what ‘ordained’ evolution of humans, and how did you manage to discover this all?
2) how does the aforementioned equation ‘demand’ foreordination of the human race? Don’t be afraid to post the proper math for us all to admire!
Please post your unabridged proof — the margin of modern e-mail is large enough to contain it
“But Einstein was correct: the evolution of humans from one branch of this common ancestor was foreordained. The Schrödinger equation — quantum mechanics — demands it.”
1) who or what ‘ordained’ evolution of humans, and how did you manage to discover this all?
2) how does the aforementioned equation ‘demand’ foreordination of the human race? Don’t be afraid to post the proper math for us all to admire!
Please post your unabridged proof — the margin of modern e-mail is large enough to contain it
Perhaps you could draw god for us? Or this, who made god? Or this, if you say there is no proof of evolution, then why can’t you take it on faith?
I think you misunderstand me
Evolution is self-evident but the idea of ‘pre-ordination of evolution’ is not.
Using mathematics to interpret or answer philosophical and religious questions has never worked and never will!
Why not? That’s why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
Your last word sir rang a bell. May it all come true.
While I agree in general with your assertions I have serious doubts about common descent and I am not the only one. It is true that there are profound similarities between family groups (i.e. mammals) but it is not clear WHY those similarities exist. One is free to believe that the similarities originate in a common ancestor but so far that seems to be impossible to prove. An inference (i.e. “they are so similar they MUST have some common ancestor”) is not proof of a gradual development of species. We lack two basic things: a) Time. We know now that we have hardly 4 billion years to get from single cell to the variety of life we observe today. It is statistically impossible to cram all the random beneficial mutations in such a short time b)As far as the studies of mutations go they have proved that fruit flies remain fruit flies, bacteria remains bacteria, etc. etc.
A good brief explanation by Dr. David Berlinski here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LraSW4w2Kv8
Dear Readers(specifically those not familiar with God’s Word): Please do not assume that Dr. Tipler’s writings are in any way consonant with The Bible.
Thanks,
ron
Christians have never objected to chimps and man evolving from the same origin?
Nonsense. Unless you are taking one branch of Christianity and concluding that they speak for everyone. Which, uh, they don’t.
All of Christianity is based on the fact that everything produces after it’s own kind. That is why the wages of sin is death, and if you attempt to break that link, you are implicitly saying that the wages of sin may evolve into life. It doesn’t fly. And it’s the reason atheists yearn for evolution to be true.
Sorry.
It seems to me that neither of them looked up at the sky often enough and neither noticed that we have been constantly visited and monitored (for thousands of years) by Extra-terrestrial crafty aliens, who may have had something to do with our engineering and creation. So, I think this argument between religion and certain aspects of anachronistic science is going to become obsolete in the near future, and we will have to revise a big chunk of our history. So save the energy, we’re all going to need it…
It doesn’t mean “God” as we call the invisible (to us) force isn’t orchestrating the whole thing, but It (God) has helpers, messengers, etc.; creatures we once perceived as angels or creatures from the heavens. It is now becoming known that they have incapacitated nuclear weapons, and who knows what else they’re getting up to or have been involved in. We don’t really understand the universe yet, and are still self-centered, egocentric and full of self-importance. When we better understand our place in the scheme of things, we may hopefully calm down and become more humble.
Incapacitation of weapons – interesting.
UFO footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3c71B9qzaI
@9 SJ – I think the meds must be wearing off. For the record, God is NOT an astronaut! Nor is he a zookeeper, nor a mad scientist, nor a kindergarten monitor. All of these mundane explanations of God are badly off the mark.
God is a Spirit. He created the universe as a testament to His majesty. He created the earth as a place for us to live our mortal lives while we learn to worship Him, love Him and become like Him. He sent His Son to be a living sacrifice for us so we could be saved from our sins and ultimately enter into His kingdom and live with Him. Every one of us is a mortal body carrying an immortal soul. Our relationship with God now determines what happens to that immortal soul.
Consider the consequences of your belief in your myths. I mean, seriously consider it!
BH-
That is one of the best one-paragraph descriptions of Christianity I have read. Thanks for your testimony.
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” —Albert Einstein
Hard to understand this hatred of Darwin. Some people seem to think he was a Lenin-like subversive who plotted for decades to take down western civilization.
Aside from the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that the universe and life itself evolves, how does the concept impact one’s faith in any way? Well, maybe if your faith is rigidly based on literal interpretations of memorable stories written thousads of years ago to establish a common morality before the days of mass communications, maybe it does. For anyone else, there is plenty of room for faith in God and evolution to coexist.
This hard edged denial of the manifest reality of evolution by some conservatives, including the estimable Ann Coulter and genius Rush Limbaugh, is not helping to spread conservative principles. The rest of us look at it as a surprising aberration in otherwise brilliant thought leaders, and an aberration that is powerful ammunition for people who literally want to control every breath we take. Well, it’s some comfort to know that Isaac Newton had his share of strange beliefs as well.
And besides, why must every disagreement about humanity’s understanding of the universe need to be turned into a black and white war of political ideologies?
Darwin was an anti-semite, determinist, and atheist and knew very well what his theory of evolution would have on social theory and thought if accepted and applied to social and political constructs. Furthermore, this theory not scientific fact has had a tremendous effect on our society in the last century leading to the political movements resulting in millions of deaths and millions of dollars of destruction and waste.
“this theory not scientific fact has had a tremendous effect on our society in the last century leading to the political movements resulting in millions of deaths and millions of dollars of destruction and waste.”
“this theory” is about as close to proven fact as it is possible to be for a science that isn’t based on mathematics, and for which it is impossible to run experiments. The evidence is overwhelming, and much of it is plainly obvious to even casual observors. The number of serious scientists who dispute it approach zero, and those that do mostly object at the fringes.
The objections are theological. Some people simply refuse to believe that God would do such a thing. They are entitled to their faith, but would be better off not to pretend that their faith is based on science. As I said, it is easy enough to reconcile faith with evolution. There need be no conflict between them. Your statement that evolution leads to political movements simply isn’t true.
I would agree that evolutionary theory has had an impact on society, but less than the level of most other major scientific discoveries. And the economic impact isn’t measurable and probably not very substantial either. It’s hard to see how knowledge of evolution is used in any way to add or subtract from the cost of food, transportation, etc. If an ordinary person thinks about evolution for 5 minutes a year, I’d be surprised. The related field of genetics is beginning to have an impact, which is sure to be positive. That field has some ethical issues that have to be sorted through. It’s hard to even see any ethical issues with evolution.
It all boils down to a person’s faith. As I said, people who argue the topic as science do themselves a disservice.
And by the way, you can read my posts here and there in PJM. I’m probably in the most conservative 1-5% of people who post here, and and don’t have any objections to religion other than the virulent sector of Islam.
And don’t bother to counter with AGW, which is a scam. Evolution and the Global Warming Hoax have nothing in common.
The evidence for evolution (of all life from a single common ancestor) is not in the least overwhelming. It consists only of story-telling and wild assumptions driven by a philosophical commitment to materialism. It lacks any mechanism for the origin of life; it lacks any mechanism for the creation of the hugely complex information systems in even the simplest cell; it ignores the fact that the only examples of evolution they can actually observe are information loss (e.g. blind cave fish) or mere variation within the existing gene pool (Darwin’s finches, which change their beak size according to conditions).
Natural selection is an observable mechanism; but it can only eliminate unfit genes. It cannot create new ones.
The origin of life an the universe is an historical question, not a scientific one. We have the record of what God says he did; it does not conflict with what we can observe.
Magical thinking.
“It consists only of story-telling and wild assumptions driven by a philosophical commitment to materialism.” No it specifically does not. Religion tells stories. Nothing wrong with that either. And what the heck does “materialism” have to do with evolution?
“It lacks any mechanism for the origin of life” what? Evolution doesn’t claim to explain how life initially came about. Religions do that. Go argue with them.
“it lacks any mechanism for the creation of the hugely complex information systems in even the simplest cell” huh? Evolution doesn’t claim to create anything. You can’t just make stuff up to disagree with.
“it ignores the fact that the only examples of evolution they can actually observe are information loss (e.g. blind cave fish) or mere variation within the existing gene pool (Darwin’s finches, which change their beak size according to conditions)” huh? You just cite more evidence for evolution, since of course there are few phenomena for which there is more evidence than the evolution of species. To deny it is an act of willful blindness. The Fossil records, geological record, the genone, the development of embryos, genetic diseases, species on isolated islands, species that have gone extinct before our very eyes, the evolution of cultures, the evolution of modern body types that are so plainly changing in a few short decades. The amount of evidence is astonishing.
“Natural selection is an observable mechanism” Of course it is.
“but it can only eliminate unfit genes. It cannot create new ones.” what? Evolution does not claim to “eliminate” unfit genes or “create” anything. Life forms mutate. It’s undeniable. If a mutation helps the life form survive, it spreads and becomes a new norm. Occasionally, a natural event happens that changes the environment, and only life-forms that can endure in the changed environment survive. It’s that simple. Evolution does not “create” genes.
“The origin of life an the universe is an historical question, not a scientific one.” what? The origin of life is a THEOLOGICAL question, not historical or scientific. No doubt you are a good person, but it’s hard to respond to something like this without seeming to belittle it. Evolution says NOTHING about God or the origin of life. Darwin didn’t talk about how life came about from inert matter. Some scientists are trying to figure that out, but NOBODY KNOWS and it isn’t likely the answer will ever be known for certain.
As I said, I don’t have an issue with religion, but it amazes me that people deny something so plainly obvious as evolution. It’s not a theory. It’s a fact. And before challenging something, it’s wise to learn something about the topic.
We evolved….so what?
All other creatures evolved….so what?
1 billion years = 3E16 seconds
That alone is enough time to have a few
‘beneficial genetic mutations’
that were passed on.
It would take a God to be able to ‘pre-ordain’
all of this to happen. That’s okay to say, and
believe in. It would also take that God to
prove or disprove that belief. So ALL of you
arguing are a bunch of hooey-heads. Shut up.
I just recently read the first article below, and reread the second article below, both by the recently-deceased Joseph Sobran, which touch on a number of the points Prof. Tipler made in his above article. I think others here will find them interesting.
“Are You a Marxist?”, Universal Press Syndicate, April 28, 1998. http://www.sobran.com/columns/2008/080304.shtml
“The Reluctant Anarchist”, reprinted and expanded from Sobran’s, December 2002, pp. 3-6. http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml
—–
However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. [Paul, 1 Corinthians 2:6-8, NKJV.]
But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. [Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:23,24, NKJV.]
Silly sophistry.
I’ll stand with Moses.
?
Christians believe G-d made Adam from the earth, and breath life into him.
Not from some common ancester dork head five millions years ago. Also, we believe in Noah’s flood when things were, well, about how they are now in the world with false religions, murder, hate etc…
Oh they do, do they? Quite a few Christian denominations exist that don’t have a problem with evolution. Now what do we have? Chrinos? Oy.
I’m an Atheist who has no use at all for religion. That said the fact that these discussions are taking place in a political blog is part of the problem.
Worship as you choose while leaving me alone. Problem solved. The ethical standards required for self governance need not be based on religion. The liberty provided by our constitution allows each and everyone to pursue their life how they see fit, as long as they do not infringe upon the liberties of others.
Let’s make a deal. I won’t force religion from the private sector as long as you don’t force it on the public sector. Everybody wins.
Politics, and religion go hand in hand Charlie. The liberty in the Constitution we hold dear as stated is from G-d. However, the only religion that is writing submit, or die is Islam.
Now that, moon god worship, is politics, and a religious system in one.
Charlie,
Morality is part and parcel of politics. I assume you and other atheists consider your own moral systems when you vote. Why deny non-atheists the same right?
I am truly amazed that heathens exist in this country that feel they even can begin to talk about rights when they cannot even acknowledge the power of Christ and the role he had in given us these rights. Its only through Christ that I refrain from commenting more one where I think all of your atheist, muslim, hindu, gay, orgy having hippies belong. God willing, and with a Tea Party led congress and whitehouse, we will finally get those FEMA camps to put the scum like you in there. Maybe after a few months with your fellow heathens, you’ll learn how important Jesus is to you.
Moby Dickhead.
Charlie, that’s what I find depressing about political conservatism in this country. I’m a conservative and an atheist, unfortunately there aren’t too many of us. There is no logical reason why fiscal responsibility and limited government needs to be tied to any religious dogma, but the god squad has to spoil everything. When they insist that all science must be compatible with the existence of their imaginary sky buddy, it’s almost enough to make me re-register as a Democrat. Almost, but not quite.
You’re absolutely right MP. Just read Diablo’s post to see the tolerance that superstitious communities have for others. I admire Diablo for saying what so many religious people don’t have the balls to say, and can’t be honest becuse they just can’t allow their own hate to be so public.
I despise the fact that most of my fellow atheists are whiny self-absorbed lefties, and I despise the fact that most of my fellow conservatives are superstitious, and archaic in their beliefs about our origins. Let’s leave that third world mentality to Islam.
As you may have already witnessed:
Einstein.
PAJAMAS FAIL.
Like any of this is an important issue facing the country?
Give me a f’in break.
We could do a better job by replacing Tipler’s “commentary” with re-runs of Uncle Miltie Friedman from Phil Donahue.
This question IS of course of deep importance to the political issues facing this country, since, the bald assertions of atheists notwithstanding, reason is not sufficient to demonstrate principles of morality. Why be just? Why fight tyranny? These are moral questions, not questions of pure reason. If I happen to be one of the powerful, it might be very much to my advantage to support tyranny and injustice. Britain did not abandon the lucrative slave trade because of pure reason, she did so because of moral principles, based on the Bible, thundered from the pulpits, and from Wilberforce and his colleagues in Parliament.
The author is, of course, deeply mistaken, both in his assertion that Christians have not objected to the idea of evolution (in its generally understood form of macro-evolution, or the ‘molecules to man’ hypothesis), and that the evidence that we can actually observe in any significant way supports such a hypothesis. It doesn’t. Some ‘conservatives’ are disturbed that fellow conservatives don’t buy into evolution because it damages our credibility. Don’t worry. It only damages our credibility with liberals, and they’re actually a dying breed. Think about it: the religiously conservative tend to reproduce at rates far higher than liberals. I have 4 children. My 3 older brothers, atheists all, have only 2 amongst them, and those 2, both atheist, both grown and out of college, show no signs of having children. My oldest, all ready out of college, says he intends to have 6. All my children are even more conservative than I am. I all ready have the rest of my family outvoted. Just think of it as evolution in action. Survival of the fittest. Last man standing.
I do not believe in your deity, yet I hold all those same moral sentements. How is that possible?
Here’s a puzzle: The ancient greeks had all the moral arguments we have. Will you claim they just didn’t have morals?
Otherwise, am I to deduce that they derived those morals from worshiping Zeus et.al.? Was it because Zeus was a true diety and thus source of their morals? Or was it despite Zeus being imaginary? Or perhaps you’ll claim they had morals derived from your diety? But doesn’t that suggest such morality is innate, a position indistinguishable from Darwinians.
Outside of starting from the assumption that morality MUST come from a God, what exactly is your argument?
Zues, and all other pagan deities certainly do exist, though they are not gods and one would be hard pressed to derive any good morals by worshiping them. No, all of the good morals of the Greeks were derived from their love of wisdom, which leads one to seek truth. This is why the Greeks were so receptive to Christianity, and even earlier, many Greeks converted to Judaism, because their love of wisdom led them to the Truth. Certainly, not all of the Greeks followed this path, and as a result many limited themselves to the partial wisdom that is available to mankind simply by observing nature. This, in turn, leads to an imperfect morality (that is, an imperfect belief about what is good and what is evil).
I’d be happy to see you prove Zeus does not exist.
Otherwise this is the typical circular gack that the ‘morals come from God’ meme usually devolves into.
Any Greek evidencing laudatory morals MUST be doing so because of their love of the TRUTH. God’s TRUTH. Because all TRUTH comes from God. Right?
You assume much and demonstrate little.
Patrick Henry said: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” Now why should I believe someone who says that religion is irrelevant to politics/government/etc, rather than Patrick Henry, hm?
Me thinks both Darwin and Einstein would likely fart in your general direction.
Best of the thread!
And then there’s Madison: “Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. Religion is the basis and foundation of government.” Sounds like he thought religion was at least a little bit pertinent to politics, eh?
You know what’s embarassing to conservatives; it’s not the acknowledgment that all living beings have been specially created by our Creator, rather than being the accidental byproducts of a cosmic burp some umpty-billion years ago, it’s the ignorant assertion of soi-disant conservative atheists that Christianity was not the primary source that the Founders drew upon when they formed this nation. I presume they base this assertion on some dimly remembered history taught by equally atheist historians. And why exactly should I trust their interpretations, rather than the numerous testimonies of the Founders themselves?
You seem to be compounding multiple ideas here. That the founders were for the most part Christians of one sort or another seems to me to be uncontroversial. But to say Christianity was a large let alone their primary influence for designing a political structure is just wacky.
From which part of Christian history did the idea of Federalism originate? Where in the bible are the rights of man laid out? What did Jesus have to say about the proper role of government in interstate commerce?
Or could it be that the greater influence on our founding fathers political education came from prior POLITICAL institutions and the political thinking of the great philosophers of the age of reason?
Just askin.
Darwin was certainly influential (and Karl Marx thanked him for it), but to compare him, as a scientist, with Einstein is pure nonsense.
I disagree. Two different kinds of scientists, but both are extremely influential today.
Actually, both Darwin and Einstein, having had the veil across their vision ripped off upon the deaths of their earthly bodies, are now deeply acquainted with the true nature of the Creator.
Can we please, please, please not use belief in evolution as a litmus test for “true” conservatives?
Many millions of Americans agree on the core principles of individual rights and consent of the governed as the source of government power, and on the need for smaller, less intrusive government that taxes and spends only reluctantly, since wealth confiscated by the government cannot become fodder for the only known wealth multiplier, the human mind. But these millions arrive at their beliefs from different directions, and a claim by some that they alone hold a philosophical basis that supports the commonly held principles will produce a severe divide that is not easily repaired.
Let us find common ground in the political aspects of our beliefs and not insist that they can be reached only from a favored metaphysical platform. We can be THE dominant political power in the United States if we unite around our beliefs on the role of government. But if we are divided (as the Left will surely try to do) into the Hairy Thunder, Cosmic Muffin, and Empty Void factions, we will be powerless against the statist minions who are tightly bound by their common belief in subjugation of the masses.
Perfectly said, Dan. We have always been more organized than the left, and they would love to see a wave of divisiveness amongst ourselves.
“the ruling class, who put their faith in chance, in Darwin”
Their faith is not in chance but in the Survival of the Fittest. With each re-election, they are fitter to survive. Only the little people pay taxes, the fitter ones, such as the politicians in our Congress, the Secretary of the Treasury don’t pay taxes. For those who have better connections, thus fittest to survive, could even write their own tickets. For instance: Create two tax payers finance entities affectionately called Fannie and Freddie by chairman Frank and be paid millions to sit on the Boards, or earmark millions to friends and families. The opportunities are endless for the Fittest to Survive.
The whole idea of asserting the existence of other universes, which by definition cannot be observed, is an even greater leap of faith than the claims of evolutionists, or of any religion.
Depends on your point of view…
If you take the brain-in-a-vat thought exercises and take relativity to it’s furthest ends i would say the existence of a multiverse is at least 50-50.
Would it shock Jesus/Jehovah (if they exist) to find out that they we’re only almighty in their universe??? Perhaps Allah rules the next universe over????
Homo sapiens means, depending on the translation, intelligent man, wise man or knowing man. This is, I believe, the essence of this debate. While evolutionary changes may explain the changes in physical appearance, there is no evolutionary explanation for the intelligence and self-awareness of “knowing” man. No other creature can pass information, knowledge, or philosophical insight to a distant generation through the written word, none can create even the most rudimentary written music or musical instrument,no other species can create art for the sake of art, much less appreciate the work of others, no other life form on this earth conducts scholarly studies of the other inhabitants of this planet, even at the most basic level, no other species is known to contemplate the meaning of life, no other living thing that we are aware of tries to make sense of the universe with mathematical formulas, and we certainly know of no efforts by any other species to explore the cosmos. The list could go on.
Knowing Man is in a class by himself when it comes to, well, knowing. He has no relatives, close or otherwise. There is nothing in evolution theory to explain this quantum leap. Could it be that only Knowing Man has a soul?
One of the classic anti-natural selection memes is the, how could nature possible come up with ‘X’ question. The most famous being the Eye which it was assumed contained so many complex design requirements that either it was created overnight or the multiple mutations required by evolution would burden the intervening species with a useless organ.
This is like finding a species with a fully functional pocket watch in its innards and having to explain how such a precision instrument could ever be evolved when only the final version offers any benefit.
Except there are several intermittent organs found in various species that range from just light sensitive clumps of cells to fully formed, but independently of vertebrates, eyes. Each different organ offers value to its species just to a different degree.
As to the mind. It should be obvious that the organ we use for thinking exists in other species and provides varying performance levels. As to how evolution could provide the final product we benefit from we’ll have to wait until Science has a better grasp on just what does differ between the species before claiming that difference is inevolveable.
I was not trying to make an anti-natural selection argument. Clearly natural selection has occurred at some level. What I was doing was trying to expand the discussion beyond either creation as finished product or pure natural selection. I don’t have the skill to run the run the numbers on time, mutations and the number of species, but,considering that most mutations are negative in their effect and therefore a dead end, the number of randomly occurring mutations required to create the amount of bio-diversity that now exists would need to have occurred at a rate that is truly astronomical. Your reasoning clearly starts with a conclusion and tries to fill in the blanks to justify it. I, on the other hand, am looking at the world as it appears to be and concluding that we don’t, as yet, have a satisfactory scientific explanation. I have heard the discussion about the development of the eye before. The eye exists at many different levels and discussing its development is irrelevant to the discussion of human intelligence.
I was not in any way trying to to downplay the role or importance of science. What I was pointing out is the that the human mind – not the human brain – has an intangible dimension that is not known to be present in any form whatsoever in any creature known to exist. In fact I was acknowledging the importance of science but at the same time conceding that there are some things that science may never know.
The view that “natural selection could never come up with X!” is as old as the hills. It is quite incorrect.
First of all, chimpanzees for example are almost certainly self-conscious and do reason, use signs, invent tools, etc.
Second, it is a fluke that only homo sapiens is now alive. Had other “missing links” (yes, I know they’re not literally that) such as Australipitecus Africanus or Homo habilis or Neanderthal man survived to the present we would surely see even clearer they too had tools, or language, or religion (or philosophy), etc., only on a lower level. Indeed we DO see just that from archeological evidence. There is simply no need to assume any “magical jump”.
Third, in any rate, the same argument could be used by Tyranosaurus Rex to claim that, perhaps OTHER dinosaurs are due to natural selection, but only IT has a skull that is THAT big or teeth that are so strong, ergo, it is “impossible” for natural selection to have created it. The first species that evolved wings (probably some insect) or feathers or lungs would be just as justified, probably more, to see itself as unique and therefore God’s special creation than we do. And just think what the first multicellular animal, or the first cell with a nucleus, could have boasted of in terms of being special and therefore God’s special creation.
Fourth, it’s the same argument used for the wing, eye, etc. — doesn’t work for the reasons the poster before me noted.
Ya know, I had originally posted the first post on this page and it was taken down. Methinks there is a bias here.
I find it strange that when someone disagrees with the old-Earth theory of evolution in favor of creationism or intelligent design the response is always so violent. The simple fact of the matter is that Prof. Tipler made an incredibly stupid mistake in asserting that Christians and Jews do not object to the theory of evolution. When someone points out this mistake, the whole board disintegrates. This hind-minded mentality that creationists are closed-minded is the same mentality the liberals use against conservatives. Thank you Mr. Obama-wannabe but I really don’t care how self-evident it seems to you, it just doesn’t work for me. I may prefer Coke to Pepsi but I don’t raise hell every time I see a Pepsi drinker.
Now, as for the article (that is what this board is for, isn’t it?) what is most offensive is just how uninformed the writer is despite attempting to tackle the subject. Christianity is not some umbrella faith for those with no true religious affiliation nor is Judaism simply a term to loosely describe one’s raising. An analogy: it’s not enough for someone to call himself a pilot; he has to go to flight school, earn his license, and keep that license up-to-date. Prof. Tipler, how many practicing Christians and Jews do you actually know? Judging your generalizations, not many.
Einstein and Darwin are pathetic choices for a comparison on faith as you are comparing a man with self-admittedly little faith to a man with none at all. It’s like Obama calling McCain the typical conservative. Don’t patronize your audience by critiquing from the outside in – get your hands dirty and try to figure out what people actually believe. To compare it the typical liberal approach once more, I’ll use this old story:
When a Nixon won his reelection campaign, a reporter from one of the major networks was dumbfounded. She stuttered out that she was shocked as she had not known a single person who voted for him. Well that certainly showed just how out of touch she was now didn’t it?
as a design engineer working in medical instrumentation (and by professional necessity conversant in biology, physics, and mathematics, and btw a devout believer in god), i find the entire contents of this piece laughable. infinite parallel universes implying determinism? no serious physicist accepts this notion as proved or even evidenced. and the existence of *freewill,* which is self-evident, is logically opposed and incompatible with *determinism.*
i find the entire contents of this piece laughable.
I would not put it so strongly: I’d say that there are some interesting ideas, irresponsibly presented as scientific consensus; but there is also nonsense when it comes to politics. (Though it’s partly Codevilla’s fault.)
the existence of *freewill,* which is self-evident, is logically opposed and incompatible with *determinism.*
Here I must disagree with you. Free will is not a random number generator, or else radioactive atoms would have more free will than we do. Free will means acting in accordance with values and beliefs, and therefore it leads to largely predictable behavior.
For instance, I believe that free will is compatible with determinism and I like to argue, so it was predictable that, of my own free will, I would argue with you about free will. Likewise, it was predictable that people with strong Christian beliefs, including a literal belief in the Bible, would, of their own free will, dispute whether there is proof for evolution.
OTOH here again I must disagree with Prof. Tipler, who seems to believe that he was the first to formulate a theory of compatibilism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
you’re caught in you’re own skinner box, *predictably* hammering on the lever to get a reward jolt. and sadly you think that all of us are like you. although freewill certainly exists, it’s clear that not all people exercise it. i sincerely pray that someday god (or yourself) liberates you. you’ll be amazed at what you can accomplish.
let us construct a simple proof to test what you have said: you say that folks can exercise freewill by choosing or not choosing to believe the Bible as the word of God. if they believe, then you say that it is predictable or pre-determined that they will reject evolution. conversely, if they don’t accept the Bible then they are free to believe in evolution. but i myself believe that the Bible is the word of God and also believe that evolution exists as a fact! that would *falsify* your claim of determinism. but, if then you then say with some other sophistry that you were mistaken and my belief in evolution was actually still pre-determined. then your defintion of freewill is reduced to absurdity since believing in the Bible amounts to the same as believing in evolution or not believing in it and therefore i had no freewill to begin with. QED.
you say that folks can exercise freewill by choosing or not choosing to believe the Bible as the word of God.
I said nothing of the sort; in fact what I said is at odds with this proposition. (Not strictly incompatible with it, but at odds nonetheless.)
Sorry, but I don’t see the point of your writing a totally predictable reply.
The existense of infinite ‘parallel’ universes does, in fact, demand ‘determinism’–though, in this case, it is a ‘determinism’ that few would recognise as such.
An infinite multiverse demands that everything that can happen happen, thus everything must happen for said infinite multiverse simply to exist. Thus, everything that happens, since it must happen for existense to continue, can be said to be pre-determined to happen.
The limit of prediction given by [the] Uncertainty Principle has been known for decades to be due to interference from universes that are parallel to ours, not from God playing dice. The existence of these other universes is a necessary mathematical consequence of the Schrödinger equation itself, or more generally, of Newton’s own mechanics in its most general form.
This is metaphysical speculation. There is no scientific sense in which we “know” that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true. There is no experiment yet conceived which can distinguish MWI from the Copenhagen interpretation.
We will never know if God exists. That last sentence, of course, depends a great deal on the meaning of “We”. I’m perfectly comfortable allowing God to handle all of this. “We” simply are not going to make a difference.
The main problem with the author’s thesis is that nobody actually believes in Darwinism. Lots of people believe in the self-serving aspects of Darwinism, but only a very few believe the whole of Darwin & additions. Those who claim to believe that everything is random and based entirely on lucky chances only believe just enough to justify their rejection of whatever it is that otherwise might make them ashamed, whether religion or morality or even just agnosticism. This is demonstrated by the inconsistency of their behavior. The most perfect atheist in history was Mao Zedong, and most supposed atheists who supposedly believe in random evolution aren’t following in his footsteps. All the arguments that atheists can be moral, or more often are morally superior to any religious person, is in itself evidence that the person making the argument doesn’t believe it himself, as there is no morality if everything in existence is derived from lucky accidents. Which of course is a contradiction too; the existence even of false moralities is evidence that there’s something more to the universe than chance, unless we first posit that what we consider consciousness is a delusion, in which case argument, indeed all science, is pointless, as there is no truth, moral or factual, to discover, and evangelical atheists are simply singing off-key for the fun of it. If we have actual consciousness and are in fact able to learn truths about the universe, the assumption that the only truth we can learn is that everything is random becomes ridiculous. Those who are so anxious to force everybody to believe the most outdated version of evolution possible have another agenda; they certainly aren’t trying to preach any truth that they believe.
Rather than pit Darwin against Einstein, it would be better to pit Darwin against science. Einstein had a healthy scientific skepticism, leaving the question of deity open rather than attempting to explain everything with the tiny amount of data available. Darwin had a stroke of genius, and then deteriorated into genius disease–the rest of the world MUST be interpreted according to that stroke of genius. If scientists today demonstrated the appropriate skepticism, the ability to leave unanswered questions unanswered, rather than trying to stretch the infinitesimal extent of human knowledge to judge everything in the universe, they would not be losing respect as they have over the past century. Most scientists don’t even realize that it is Darwin who has damaged science, and the reflexive and dogmatic defense of a 150-year-old jumped conclusion does nothing to increase the admiration of those who do not imbibe the same Kool-aid. It seems impossible to believe that scientists ever thought they could replace priests without becoming priests, and now that they are priests, that their disinterestedness would come into question by those who are not co-religionists. Anyone who does not believe that the universe is a random collection of accidents is subject to instant derision from the priest of chaos, whether natural selection is questioned or not, which is not exactly the reaction of a disinterested, cerebral, skeptical scientist. Darwin does not deserve to be defended by any true scientist, despite those few of his ideas which remain plausible. He was the original Hierophant of Chaos, and those ‘new atheists’ coveting the title today are following the same road away from pure science into the slough of prejudice.
Though I am happy to entertain the thought that most people who say they believe the Darwinian model of evolution really have no clue and are just taking a social position rather than an intellectual one, I think it is going to far to say nobody actually believe it.
For example, I must be deluding myself into thinking I believe it. Kinda refutes the nobody gambit. But you can ignore my referenced assertion as I am obviously suffering under a need to reject something…erm or other.
Those who claim to believe that everything is random and based entirely on lucky chances only believe just enough to justify their rejection of whatever it is that otherwise might make them ashamed, whether religion or morality or even just agnosticism.
In other words, you’re making a buttload of breathtakingkly stupid assumptions about a subject that you know absolutely nothing about. How surprising. Nobody claims, nor have they, that everything is random. The rest of your idiotic rant goes downhill from your ridiculous opening assertion. Fail.
Evolution has very little in the way of “proof” of anything on a cellular basis. Yet, some much is written as if this is a done deal, very similar to Global Warming. Now can anyone tell me the significane of how we tell time? Why is the year 2010 and 4 billion after gook our evolutionary ancestor???
Evolution has very little in the way of “proof” of anything on a cellular basis. Yet, some much is written as if this is a done deal, very similar to Global Warming. Now can anyone tell me the significane of how we tell time? Why is the year 2010 and (not) 4 billion after gook our evolutionary ancestor???
Christianity has very little in the way of “proof” on any basis. Nor of course is there proof that it is wrong either.
But I would have to say arguments about the level of Scientific evidence for evolution, cellular, genetic, or otherwise, are stronger than for God.
And as for the tangent about dates, are you seriously asking why social/cultural convention trumps Science in naming schemes? In any event, I would assume a Scientific dating scheme wouldn’t be so small minded as to date all time from a speculative biological event on a backwoods planet billions of years into the known universe. How about dating from the big bang?
Evolution has very little in the way of “proof” of anything on a cellular basis.
Nonsense. Merely because you can barely read and wholly unable to comprehend doesn’t imply that the rest of us are likewise afflicted. Seemingly, in your world “we don’t know *every* possible detail” equates to “we know nothing at all.” That’s astonishingly stupid.
The alternative to evolution of course is that some malevolent prick of a deity does the fossil record thing just to f**k with our heads. There really isn’t a wide variety of choices here: it’s natural, or it’s not. I’m thinking, wow, which one makes more sense — evolution, the natural explanation, or the supernatural malevolent prick? Those of you who pick the malevolent prick are lucky to live in a society where the rest of us create the magic boxes you use to spew your silly nonsense (i.e. show me the evolution denying scientists and engineers responsible for inveting and creating the stuff of modern society. This is a rhetorical device — there aren’t any. The only deeply religious, evolution-denying science or engineering types out there are the junior level people entrusted only with things that a relatively inquisitive chimp couldn’t f**k up. The bright folks do the inventing. The deniers get to build the web site or assemble paperwork or do some other flunky two bit job.)
BTW, in case some trolling Kosboy or DemoUnderground trog wants to try and paint PJMedia as full of just Frank Tiplers, I am a frequent and early adopter of PJMedia. A Tea Party supporter, non doctrinaire Republican on occasion libertarian on others, an-theist ( can’t prove one way or the other ), and firm supporter of Darwin and Einstien, though both are getting battered around by the young upstarts, and doubter of AGW, oh I’m sorry, Anthropogenic ‘Climate Change’ from C02 increases. These brands change so quickly.
Obviously I also like long sentences.
Please, can we get a grip on reality here.
I know, Creationists are the only true conservatives, but there are an awful lot of atheists that are conservatives as well.
This nonsense about natural selection is a load of manure, sorry, the “ruling Class” believe in control, they are ID’rs, they wish to design the society to fit their wishes.
This is a blatant, Evolution bashing screed, in which it is obvious the author doesn’t have a clue about science and what it’s really all about.
Science doesn’t care about your religion, it doesn’t care about your politics, it cares about scientifically verifiable evidence, what your bible says, really doesn’t matter, what your politics are, really doesn’t matter.
Science doesn’t care, if it is verifiable, as evolution is, if it is repeatable, as evolution is, if it can make predicitions as to what will be found in the future, as evolution does, and continues to do, then it is SCIENCE.
The rest is belief, go ahead, have fun with your beliefs, you need God to be a moral person, well, please, for all our sakes, believe in a deity that will punish you eternally. The rest of us will look to scientifically verifiable evidence, and look at you, who try to define it in ridiculous and stupid ways, as the fallback to the dark age mythical ignoramouses that you are.
Please, oh please, do not pervert science for you political one upmanship, it makes conservatives who understand science, and the scientific process, look as foolish as you are.
If you do not understand science, as the author of this piece obviously does not, then please, be quiet, sit in a corner and figure out some other angle.
Just because science shows your silly beliefs to be just that, silly beliefs, do not blame it for all the ills of the world.
I am a Christian and object to the theory (actually more of a hypothesis) of evolution. If you are a Christian there is no way you can align evolution with Christianity, in whatever flavor evolution might be presented. To align evolution with Christianity you have to compromise your beliefs to such an extent that you might as well get rid of the Bible altogether; hence you are not a Christian. There is no way you can align evolution with the problem of evil as outlined in the Bible.
If you are a Christian you don’t need to compromise:
http://creation.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/
. . . any many others.
Ahh, yes, the same old close minded crap that I see from religionists all the time.
The same old crap, the same old lies, the same old, my mind is closed, don’t you dare give me facts, if they disagree with my beliefs….
I will just quote one of the true great thinkers of our time, Robert Heinlein…
“A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion — any religion — is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason — but one cannot have both.”
You can either understand science, or believe in your Bronze age religious nonsense, the 2 are incompatible.
Me, I understand science and all that it allows us to do, if it were up to you, we would be in the 10th century, burning witches at the stake, and expecting god to sort out the sinners, after we kill them….
I will stick with science, at least it doesn’t murder people for disagreeing with their woo….
You “object” to the theory? ROFL….
Why, because it shows that your “creationist” nonsense, is just that, nonsense?
And there are MANY Christians that have no problem with evolution, the scientific evidence for evolution is OVERWHELMING, and to ignore the evidence is what I call CHOSEN ignorance..
You choose to be ingorant of the scientific theory, and the scientific evidence FOR the theory, because, somehow, a book put together a thousand years ago, with stories dating back to the stone age, are more factual, then the scientific evidence that has been found in fossils, in DNA, etc, etc.
If you have a problem with the theory of evolution, then you must have the same problem with the theory of gravity, go ahead, jump off a cliff, see how that “THEORY” is just a little hypothesis, or perhaps you have a problem with the Theory of electricity, go ahead, shove your hand into that 200 amp panel in your house, I mean, it’s more of a hypothesis then it is a theory, right?
Please, get a grip on reality, I know, if the bible cannot be taken literally, it must ALL be lies, right?
Little lemming, please, just follow the rest off that religious cliff…
Remember when Galileo claimed that the earth orbited the sun, and was not the center of the universe? How well did that work out for the “church” when they put him on trial for questioning their authority?
Either grow with the times, or be left behind in the bronze age, where your stories were written.
I myself, I will stick with the modern, thank you very much….
If you are a Christian you don’t need to compromise
That’s an interesting phrase you used. Sounds a lot like something called the Christian Persecution Complex:
http://politicalcartel.org/2010/03/05/christian-persecution-complex/
Out of curiosity, who asked you to compromise?
>>>>>>I am a Christian and object to the theory (actually more of a hypothesis) of evolution.
Well, that doesn’t make it any less true. The evidence for evolution is about as much as for a spherical earth, another belief the Bible disagrees with.
As for “answers in genesis”, for example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/
‘…the self-image of the ruling class rests on its belief that humans are the unforeseen outcome of chance mutations acted upon by natural selection.’
This is too funny. Louse whining Darwin-loving liberals running this country. And all those good, God-fearing Republicans being poor and doing menial jobs, subjugated by those ruling Atheistic liberals.
The irony-meters must be blowing up left, right and center.
Marxism and Islam are parasites. More precisely, they are theologies created to justify parasitic behavior on the part of their adherents.
In nature, most parasites restrain themselves to avoid killing their host. For example, however many mites infest a moth’s ear, they always leave the other ear alone, because a deaf moth is easy prey for bats.
Marxism can go one of three ways. It can acknowledge and moderate its parasitic nature (e.g. Lula da Silva), it can kill its host (e.g. Robert Mugabe), or it can provoke an lethal immune response (e.g. Salvador Allende).
This article, and others like it, are symptoms. They are the dawning realization that, while there may very well be a God or gods, the one specified in the Bible/Torah/Quran is not compatible with many simple scientific facts that are now evident to even the dimmest among us. Adherents of the faiths linked to the books in question are thrashing around trying to make sense of this. This has happened before–though never for such a protracted period. Ask Akenaten.
Hopefully, this time, after the collapse, humanity will avoid adding to the string of books dedicated to the One God.
Einstein’s quote “God does not play dice with the Universe” was in a discussion where he was eventually proven wrong by Dr. Bell. It was Einstein’s attachment to 19th century beliefs that led to this genius being unable to accept what the data was clearly saying.
Particularly ironic given the comments here.
Science has nothing to say about the question of determinism or the nature of knowledge.
Take a set of data, for example, deflection relative to applied force. Looking at this data, you see there is a linear association between the force applied the deflection of the material. How, then, do you know this association is founded in nature and is not purely accident? That is, how do you know this association simply did not hold for the first five hundred times you check, but not the five hundred and first? This is a philosophical question, not a scientific question.
In fact, for science to begin, it must be assumed, at least implicitly, that any association one finds is founded in nature and thus has predictive value.
Einstein was one of the guys in the Old Testament, right?
One needs to be very careful about believing what Prof. Tipler says about physics “proving” anything about the place of man in the universe, considering the fact that he believes (according to his two recent books) that it “proves” both immortality and the resurrection of Jesus (which was, in his view, a macroscopic “Quantum Event”). Practically no other serious scientist agrees with him on either point. Tipler is a bona fide scientist, of course, but in his popular writings, as in this article, he is speaking as a populist preacher, not as a scientist.
Darwinian Evolution is a fact, it has been observed and tested, but the theory fails to match the fossil record; that is, it fails to adequately explain the diversity of life that suddenly appeared in such a short time span — the step from single-celled organisms to multiple-celled organisms of every single phylum currently known, took place in about than 100 million years — yet single-celled organisms existed for billions of years before that step occurred.
Today we know the small discrete changes mentioned by Darwin are just those — small and discrete. It is the single molecular mutation that occurs within (or associated with) DNA.
The problem is that the number of changes (or molecular mutations) needed to go from a single-cell organism to, say, a rabbit is so large that the time-required would exceed the time span of the universe by several orders of magnitude (change every single molecule of a nucleotide every second, assume the beneficial changes are instantly selected and transmitted to the next generation immediately and without exception — you will find not enough seconds have elapsed since the creation of the universe).
Ironically, the rate of evolution is about what the first few billion years of the fossil record shows — few and small changes between single-celled organisms. At such a rate, however, we could expect, say, a rabbit in several thousands of trillions of years from now (modern Cosmology holds that the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old). It’s that pesky Cambrian Explosion that is the problem…
Maybe there is a subtle explanation that would explain why the rate of Darwinian Evolution does not match the fossil record; like some aspect of carbon bonding that is currently unknown, or perhaps some environmental factors that accelerated Darwinian Evolution.
Or maybe there is more to the story.
————————-
“Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before… He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.” — Kurt Vonnegut
Revolutionary author`s ideas of strict determinism,God,erroneous Evolution in combination with countless parallel universes(see his articles).