Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:35:32 -0400 From: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020909213532.3a804946.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <3D7CE784.BAD01B19@mindspring.com> References: <20020909092446.O9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D7CE784.BAD01B19@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 11:25:08 -0700 Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> wrote: > "God is the sum total of all physical laws" -- Albert Einstein Like I said, I admire Einstein's writings - even when I disagree with them. :-) I think Einstein was going a bit beyond his turf as a physicist by venturing into theological territory; though if you examine his writings what he means by this phrase is probably Spinozan (Einstein's philosophical musings as a whole were influenced by Spinoza), which is a bit more religious (in a deep way) than this short quote seems to suggest at first glance. > The selection criteria in nature -- which you claim doesn't exist -- > is the ability to breathe Oxygen in a 21%/78%/1% mix with Nitrogen > and other trace gasses. > > Such a mutation is selected against by the organism dying. Actually, Oxygen, as an oxident, was quite poisonous to early forms of life. It was mostly in the atmosphere as a byproduct of non-oxygen breathing life, which was threatening to perish in it's own waste gas. (Even today plants exhale oxygen, and inhale carbon dioxide; though of course most forms we observe aren't anaerobic anymore.) > > whole question is as to the ultimate source of the worldly or > > temporal concerns. Evolution is an attempt to give an account of > > that, and as such has crossed over into the realm of religion and Evolution doesn't have anything to do with "worldly or temporal concerns" and their source. Telihard De Chardin and, to a lesser extent, Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook managed to be both evolutionists and "Judeo-christian" theists without much of a contradiction. Of course, Neal Westfall claims that De Chardin, Catholic Church approvals of his writings to the contrary, is "not a xtian" because he doesn't match Mr. Westfall's version of orthodoxy. > Because evolution ignores the need for God. Which is what really > annoys you about it. Science doesn't need to pay attention to the need for G-d with every theory; I don't view this as much of a threat - any more than addition having a lack of pointing to the need for G-d. I don't personaly view *Darwinian* evolution to be yet another penultimite scientific model for other reasons: irreducable complexity. > It doesn't take a position on whether or not there is a God or there > isn't a God. It's not an athiestic world view, nor is it a theistic > world view. It's orthogonal to the consideration of the issue of > whether or not there is God. Neal Westfall claims of course that evolution is a religion. Then he goes and claims that without xtianity one cannot properly reason. ;-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020909213532.3a804946.yid>