Major component of evolution theory proven wrong

[rookie]

I want to point out that there is plenty of room for intuitive thinking in science. It requires a great deal of creativity to come up with a new theory or a new experiment or experimental method.

[ralis]

Death and Science: The Existential Underpinnings of Belief in Intelligent Design and Discomfort with Evolution.

 

Perhaps belief in intelligent design is brought on by fear of death?

 

For all the conservatives here, paragraph 3 of the introduction is just for you.

 

 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017349

[torus693]

.

Edited April 9, 2011 by torus693

[ralis]

Having died I can say otherwise

 

 

Would you care to be more specific? This thread has far too many statements that are ambiguous.

 

Did you read the paper I linked to? I seriously doubt it.

[torus693]

.

Edited April 9, 2011 by torus693

[torus693]

edit

Edited March 31, 2011 by torus693

[torus693]

edit

Edited March 31, 2011 by torus693

[torus693]

Edited April 8, 2011 by torus693

[Mandrake]

Simply put, if evolution is true, then nihilistic atheism is correct. It means that when you die, your consciousness is gone, non existant, forever. No life or existence after death.

 

No it doesn't. Evolution just models how life forms are able to change and adapt to the environment. It discribes it from the genetical/biological point of view. Anything else you add, is just that, your own additions. There are christians that believe that their god created the evolutionary process, which is something I find much more grand than just poofing up everything in six days (how is that amazing?).

 

Evolution says nothing about consciousness, its survival, its influence on matter, the causation and interdependence between the two, it doesn't say anything about karma, reincarnation etc. - see may earlier post about being too blockheaded.

If we single out a scientist who happens to be nihilist, it is his or her personal choice and addition.

 

 

Mandrake

[Immortal4life]

Evolution rules out free will. A huge amount of the things you do, if you believe evolution, are genetically programmed into you by evolution. You do what you do because your genes make you. Control of your thoughts and programming becomes simply an illusion or delusion. It also means that consiousness is an offshoot of matter and is completely gone when you die.

 

You may claim I am singleing scientists out, but the video showed 3, and not just any 3, but well known and high ranking evolutionists.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Mandrake]

I don't understand why everything would have meaning if a divinity would have created all.

Your mother and father in a sense created you, where does meaning enter? There is intent, alright, but that is something else. Meaning is something flexible, and something that we have the ability to impart.

That we, each personally, can give meaning to parts of the enormous, and beautiful flow of life, is something I find much more encouraging, than a dictator that already determined everything - all our own attempts to personally connect with different flows of life would in the latter case just be a violation toward divine will.

 

A divinity, out of a whim, could have created something entirely different, maybe it does, ad infinitum, we are just a speck out of infinitely many created worlds - how is that special and meaningful? It is like a painting resulting from a child throwing paint in a paper factory.

 

And what is the meaning of the divine creator then? Who created the divinity and gave it meaning? If the existence of a divine creator is meaningless, then everything resulting from that should be equally meaningless.

 

 

Mandrake

[Mandrake]

Again, it does not. And again, if you have a creator divinity, you are left with equally nullified free will.

 

So you are not born as a tabula rasa, do I want to blind myself from that or accept the fact? I spoke with a genetics researcher a couple of weeks ago; she explained that a quite large percentage of some parts of our emotional traits (30%+) has been found to have genetic correlation. So what?

 

You have things such as epigenetics, plasticity of the brain and nervous system, volition.

 

The problem with discussing free will is that it is quite meaningless if you don't define what that entails; Free how? It is clear that it is bounded; I can't will myself to eat strawberries and shit out gold nuggets, I can't will myself to be the technically best guitarist in the world, starting tomorrow; I can't will that negative thoughts suddenly never will arise again.

Here again, open minded and flexible people, can reconcile evolution with a logically sound definition of free will.

 

I just don't understand why you insist in telling people what they have to add to their beliefs just because they accept evolution; I don't see anybody running around telling people "You there, you believe in Einsteins special theory of relativity? Then you have to believ XYZ, and, ABC!".

 

What you are saying does not at all appear as inevitable conclusions to evolutionists. Instead of trying to find three evolutionists that support your view of what evolutionists HAVE to believe, perhaps you can make some effort in finding evolutionists with other views, and posting them here?

 

You say:

"It also means that consiousness is an offshoot of matter and is completely gone when you die."

This is completely wrong. The area of consiousness is one of the most exciting areas of research that is emerging, and it is out of the domain of evolution. It's physics, with support of chemistry, biology. There are central UNSOLVED questions here, which scientists do admit. There is also much amazing thought about the nature of consciousness and its role in the universe.

To ask an evolutionist about authoritative statements about consciousness is as if asking a vet about surgical procedures in humans - its just not their field of operation.

 

 

Mandrake

 

 

 

[qote name=Immortal4life' date='30 March 2011 - 10:59 PM' timestamp='1301554792' post='252209]

Evolution rules out free will. A huge amount of the things you do, if you believe evolution, are genetically programmed into you by evolution. You do what you do because your genes make you. Control of your thoughts and programming becomes simply an illusion or delusion. It also means that consiousness is an offshoot of matter and is completely gone when you die.

 

You may claim I am singleing scientists out, but the video showed 3, and not just any 3, but well known and high ranking evolutionists.

[Marblehead]

Having died I can say otherwise

 

fear of death is a motivator to action

this site is for cultivators/cultivation.

What are they cultivating? why??

 

Will you be able to say what is on the other side

of the void till you have passed on?

 

There is also comfort to be found in believing that nothing lasts beyond the body. It takes away responsibility for learning how to cross.

 

Is anything in you eternal?

 

Now see, I have no real problem with a post like this. I do not personally believe in life after death but in my mind it really is an unknown because I haven't died yet. I would be lying if I said "I know" there is no life after death.

 

But you see, Torus did not try to negate anyone else's beliefs in the process of presenting his.

 

The only thing I could say to the post is that the reason I do not hold to this belief is because I have never seen any evidence that proves that this is so. But what does that mean to Torus? Nothing.

 

However, to belittle another's belief for the purpose of trying to make yours appear more valid is just so very wrong.

 

And to try negating the observable facts of the universe is so very lame indeed.

[Marblehead]

Evolution rules out free will. A huge amount of the things you do, if you believe evolution, are genetically programmed into you by evolution. You do what you do because your genes make you. Control of your thoughts and programming becomes simply an illusion or delusion. It also means that consiousness is an offshoot of matter and is completely gone when you die.

 

You may claim I am singleing scientists out, but the video showed 3, and not just any 3, but well known and high ranking evolutionists.

 

That is not true either. I am one of the strongest believers here of free will, choices, and taking responsibility for our actions.

 

You cannot, as you did with your 700 out of 5.8 million, take two or three people who do not believe in something and say that it is only they who hold the truth when there are 3 million who do not agree with those two or three.

 

It are the religious who have given up their free will by accepting the dogma of their religion. These fundamentalist believers have closed their mind to any other possible alternative. It is their way or no way.

 

That is why you now and then hear about a woman being stoned to death in various parts of the world because she was guilty of being raped. How much logic is there in that? None, but it is their religion.

[Marblehead]

I don't understand why everything would have meaning if a divinity would have created all.

 

All I can say is that if some supreme being created everything he/she did a pretty piss poor job when he/she got to creating the human species.

[Apech]

All I can say is that if some supreme being created everything he/she did a pretty piss poor job when he/she got to creating the human species.

 

Marblehead,

 

Are you saying this with yourself in mind??

 

 

 

In my view the idea that living organisms evolve is indisputable given the fossil record and so on. But I think probably there is a way to go in deciding the exact mechanism by which this happens. I don't think that modern biologists stick resolutely to the 'nature red in tooth and claw' idea which gave rise to a debased versions of the survival of the fittest as seen in Nazi philosophy and social Darwinism and so on.

 

It could be argued that mankind in developing medical care and by using compassion to protect the weak is anti-evolutionary .... except if you include some kind of 'spiritual evolution' in the frame. That is the personal, intellectual and social development of the human race is in some way itself evolutionary. For instance we could say that it is a higher development (and long term more successful) to be compassionate than it is to be selfish.

 

Religionists hate evolution more than they hate other science such as quantum mechanics because it hits right at the heart of the biblical version of creation and man's relation with his creator. I can't see any problem for a Taoist though since the process of evolution can be seen as just part of the 'way' in which things come to be, develop, and return to the mystery. In other words a fundamental process which governs the cycles of nature.

 

Buddhists on the other hand would have a problem with ascribing some kind of developmental improvement through samsaric existence ... since they seek liberation from any kind of cyclical process ....

[Gauss]

[Jetsun]

 

Buddhists on the other hand would have a problem with ascribing some kind of developmental improvement through samsaric existence ... since they seek liberation from any kind of cyclical process ....

 

That's an interesting thought, perhaps Buddhists also believe in de-evolution in the spiritual spheres, for example we are supposed to be in the dark ages or the Kali yuga which means things have devolved. Also there were periods like the European "dark ages" where things got worse.

 

In Fourth Way philosophy this is explained by the law of octaves where things evolve upwards until you reach a specific crucial point where things can begin to devolve towards destruction unless there is an extra input of energy to keep things evolving upwards. Apparently the earth is at this critical juncture in the evolution of the universe and human beings are at this juncture at the evolution of the earth, so it is our responsibility to add that extra impetus to help the earth to progress to a higher octave and keep the upward movement of evolution. Which is why we have developed consciousness to provide the extra energy and momentum from our own will at a critical point in evolution.

[Creation]

In my view the idea that living organisms evolve is indisputable given the fossil record and so on. But I think probably there is a way to go in deciding the exact mechanism by which this happens. I don't think that modern biologists stick resolutely to the 'nature red in tooth and claw' idea which gave rise to a debased versions of the survival of the fittest as seen in Nazi philosophy and social Darwinism and so on.

 

It could be argued that mankind in developing medical care and by using compassion to protect the weak is anti-evolutionary .... except if you include some kind of 'spiritual evolution' in the frame. That is the personal, intellectual and social development of the human race is in some way itself evolutionary. For instance we could say that it is a higher development (and long term more successful) to be compassionate than it is to be selfish.

 

Religionists hate evolution more than they hate other science such as quantum mechanics because it hits right at the heart of the biblical version of creation and man's relation with his creator. I can't see any problem for a Taoist though since the process of evolution can be seen as just part of the 'way' in which things come to be, develop, and return to the mystery. In other words a fundamental process which governs the cycles of nature.

 

Buddhists on the other hand would have a problem with ascribing some kind of developmental improvement through samsaric existence ... since they seek liberation from any kind of cyclical process ....

A very sensible post, sir!

 

A couple of things.

 

1. What is indisputable from the fossil record is that there has been life on Earth has progressed over billions of years, species coming and going, and that to some extent there was a trend from simple to complex (through really, not many things around today are "more complex" than dinosaurs). I would not say the idea that the inference from this that everything, plant, animal, bacteria, etc. descends from a single common ancestor is indisputable, though it is certainly possible and I admit is a pretty neat idea.

 

I really like to have a precise idea of what is indisputable and what is still an open question. A lot of confusion is prevented in that way.

 

2. You are right about the issue of the creator-creation relationship being an issue in religious people accepting evoltuiom, and ralis' article about the various emotional factors in play looks intersting as well (important work that, although I'd like to see someone study the emotional facors that cause people to freak out when I suggest that maybe some aspects of evolution are not true...)

 

I have no problem with most of evolutionary theory myself, but I feel like there is a shackling of the mind in place that says "Thou shalt accept Neo-Darwinism", or perhaps "You will be assimilated" that really raises my ire.

 

However, there is one aspect of Neo-Darwinism that I do have a hang-up about. In fact, what seems to be the whole point about Neo-Darwinism versus all the other evolutionary theories that exist: random mutation and natural selection are a sufficient causal mechanism for evolution. Which is to say that ultimately, the development of life on this planet was random collisions of atoms, with no need for any non-physical mechanism. I think this might come from the false dichotomy that exists in the Western mind that it is either the Judeo-Christan way the materialist/atheist way. But the consequence is that it considerations of consciousness/spirit are kicked out the door, nevermind anyone's religious beliefs about such. I cannot believe that conscious/spirit did not have a major role in the development of life on this planet. After all, the whole point about life on this planet is spirits getting to incarnate in bodies! This is fully compatible with evolution in general, but not with the Neo-Darwinian idea that random mutations and natural selection were the sole causal agent in driving said evolution. That leaves no room for spirit, except as an emergent property of matter.

[Marblehead]

Marblehead,

 

Are you saying this with yourself in mind??

 

Absolutely YES I am. For the better part of my life I was not at peace with my Self. I am content now. But it took a hell of a lot of work for me to get to where I am and remove all the flaws that have existed in my totality from the day I was born. But I also include a whole lot of other people in this category as well. (But I'm not supposed to judge. Hehehe.)

 

In my view the idea that living organisms evolve is indisputable given the fossil record and so on. But I think probably there is a way to go in deciding the exact mechanism by which this happens. I don't think that modern biologists stick resolutely to the 'nature red in tooth and claw' idea which gave rise to a debased versions of the survival of the fittest as seen in Nazi philosophy and social Darwinism and so on.

 

Oh, I agree. The Nazis and Social Darwinism went to the extreme. That should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a minimal amount of time reading up on the periods.

 

And yes, science is still learning new particulars of how evolution works. Genetic mutations and all that stuff.

 

It could be argued that mankind in developing medical care and by using compassion to protect the weak is anti-evolutionary .... except if you include some kind of 'spiritual evolution' in the frame. That is the personal, intellectual and social development of the human race is in some way itself evolutionary. For instance we could say that it is a higher development (and long term more successful) to be compassionate than it is to be selfish.

 

No, I would argue against this because I find Taoist Philosophy very, very compatible with evolution and we all know that compassion for all other living creatures is a key concept of Taoist philosophy. True, spirituality would take this to even greater heights.

 

But, I am going to be crude here and suggest that being selfish is important because if we do not put ourself first and create a good life so that we can accumulate an excess how can we ever give our excess to others?

 

Religionists hate evolution more than they hate other science such as quantum mechanics because it hits right at the heart of the biblical version of creation and man's relation with his creator. I can't see any problem for a Taoist though since the process of evolution can be seen as just part of the 'way' in which things come to be, develop, and return to the mystery. In other words a fundamental process which governs the cycles of nature.

 

Yes, I understand that evolution is considered the opposite of creationism. And I can understand why many feel this way. But it doesn't HAVE to be this way. There can still be a creator. They only have to modify their understanding of the role of the creator. The creator did not create everything exactly as it is now - the creator created the beginning and the processes and allowed the processes to take life in whatever direction they were tended to go. And this does not necessarily include 'survival of the fittest'. Shit happens and wipes out entire species.

 

Buddhists on the other hand would have a problem with ascribing some kind of developmental improvement through samsaric existence ... since they seek liberation from any kind of cyclical process ....

 

Interesting thought. Buddhism does seem to negate evolution, doesn't it?

[Marblehead]

However, there is one aspect of Neo-Darwinism that I do have a hang-up about. In fact, what seems to be the whole point about Neo-Darwinism versus all the other evolutionary theories that exist: random mutation and natural selection are a sufficient causal mechanism for evolution. Which is to say that ultimately, the development of life on this planet was random collisions of atoms, with no need for any non-physical mechanism. I think this might come from the false dichotomy that exists in the Western mind that it is either the Judeo-Christan way the materialist/atheist way. But the consequence is that it considerations of consciousness/spirit are kicked out the door, nevermind anyone's religious beliefs about such. I cannot believe that conscious/spirit did not have a major role in the development of life on this planet. After all, the whole point about life on this planet is spirits getting to incarnate in bodies! This is fully compatible with evolution in general, but not with the Neo-Darwinian idea that random mutations and natural selection were the sole causal agent in driving said evolution. That leaves no room for spirit, except as an emergent property of matter.

 

I can understand your feelings on this subject but let me just say that it is really not that bad with most of us Atheists. I, for example, hold to a lot of the Native American spirituality because it is very consistent with Taoism. Other Atheists have there own way of being a part of the totality.

[Encephalon]

Creation, on 31 March 2011 - 11:32 AM, said:

 

“I cannot believe that conscious/spirit did not have a major role in the development of life on this planet.”

 

It is with this sentence that you seem to set aside rationality and join the ranks of the nonrational – not the irrational – and seek out the emotional comfort of a teleological/theological explanation. There are millions of people, probably in the minority, who can and do believe that conscious/spirit did not have a major role in the development of life on this planet who still have rich and vibrant spiritual lives. Typically, they are people who have powerful imaginations and a sense of unitive consciousness that perceives awe and wonder in the midst of ambiguity but without the need to annihilate that ambiguity, since there is a high degree of probability that human beings in their present state of consciousness lack the imaginative ability to conceive ultimate explanations anyway.. Many people say they adore the mystery of the universe but they go to great links to replace mystery with religious fantasies.

 

 

I spent many years as a “theistic evolutionist” taking comfort in what seemed like a sensible reconciliation between my spiritual ideas and my humanist convictions. But at a critical juncture some of us give up our emotional need to have everything spelled out for us and simply open up to life. My moment began when a philosophy professor challenged me to examine whether my strong intuitive convictions about the role of divinity in the universe might be better accounted for by my strong emotional prejudicies than an internally compelling but illusory inner narrative. Years later I learned that detecting the difference between intuition and prejudice is notoriously difficult for most people. (Hopefully, my usage of the word 'prejudice' is not interpreted in the context of 'racial' prejudice.)

 

Presenting your sentence “After all, the whole point about life on this planet is spirits getting to incarnate in bodies!” as a foregone conclusion is evidence enough that the demarcation line between what we can know and what we cannot know – critical thinking in other words – is not something you take seriously at this time. (This sounds like a point taken straight out of the Book of Mormon, but that's another story.)

 

The irony for me is that I do not categorically reject the possibility of a teleological explanation with some similarity to your model. I just don’t cling to it, and I don't need it for my spiritual integrity, and as fledgling Buddhists we are regularly counseled on the pitfalls of attachment, including attachment to ideas like these.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Blasto

[Creation]

[Creation]

I should also add that my particular beliefs about spirit at this time are mostly irrelevant. I fully acknowledge that they are probably mostly wrong, limited, etc. But that is not the point. The point is that if you have any belief, or better, genuine realization that human beings are more than just bodies, that there is some part of a human that survives death, etc. than I would expect that you would take issue with the idea that life developed through purely physical processes.

 

And if indeed you have genuine realization of this (many here claim to), then it most certainly is not just an emotional comfort mechanism.

 

For me, it might be. (Probably is?) I hope to get to the point where it is not.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Creation

[Encephalon]

Blasto,

 

I essentially knew how you would respond to my post, and actually my intention in posting it was to be completely honest about my own thought process, perhaps even to set a precedent for others to do the same.

 

Wow. That's deep. I'm glad to hear that you intend to be honest when you post. That legitimates the very purpose of posting. Well done.

 

I think you are mostly correct in your evaluation, but I can't help but think that you are committing the pre/trans fallacy in saying that stepping outside the rational is ipso facto an emotional comfort mechanism. So you had a satori experience about your need for emotional comfort. There will probably come a day when I will have such an experience as well. I just hope I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater as a consequence.

 

I think you're capable of better writing than that paragraph would indicate. And this wasn't satori moment, but I appreciate your feeble attempt at patronizing; I indulge in the same style of sarcasm when I'm on the Dark Side.

 

What I described was a realization that my lifelong relationship with a personal god, based loosely on the western model, emanated in large part from the need to feel connected to and cared for by the traditional Cosmic Father. I've always felt connected to the world at large along the lines of deep ecology and Indra's Net, but I didn't reject these connections simply because my era of religious fantasy had ended, so, I did not throw out the bath water, as you say. It is true, however, that people who jettison their religious lives or "lose their faith" often require a gestation period characterized by a reevaluation of what spirituality really means for them. I didn't even use the word "spiritual" for 7 or 8 years while trying to reimagine spirituality within a humanist model.

 

At any rate, doesn't it really stack the deck in favor of naturalism?

 

Yes, I think it does. BFD. This seems to be The Great Horror that you and I4L and a few others are referring to, the terrifying notion (for some) that consciousness is an emergent property of matter, an idea that, for others, is so incomprehensibly elegant that it truly comes close to approximating God's imaginitive power. Again, humanists and many Buddhists and agnostics ask the question - What kind of emotional state questions the validity of the experience of Life, on its own terms, without religious fairy tales to detail its significance? In my opinion, this is a failure of imagination.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Blasto