It actually isn’t that easy to apprehend evolution. It’s a very large and complex subject, and it doesn’t do well to be compressed into quick sayings like “descended from monkeys” or “man from ape.”
It is necessary to expand your mind in at least three ways: One, you’ve got to expand it in the dimension of space. And to understand that the medieval church could not believe that small thing, the sun, didn’t revolve around the Earth, even after it was known the Earth was round. And now what we call the Milky Way is the galaxy that we live in, edgeways to us, and some of those big bright stars out there are other galaxies bigger than it and farther away. It’s a huge panorama to think against.
And you really need to understand why we know what we know about the dimension of time—you have to be able to understand at least the rudiments of half-life (the amount of time that it takes for a radioactive element to lose half of its mass) and decay of radioactive elements and in particular radio-carbon dating, which tells us how old every campfire we ever find can be—because that carbon can be dated by the radioactive half-life.
So, it’s not a question of somebody saying, “Well, the world’s 5000 years old, and besides who the hell really knows….” It’s not like that. With the extension of intelligence of science, one can reach back past those 5000 years and read the history in the rocks that goes back millions and billions of years.
And in time and space, things have been going on long enough that there is light traveling toward us at 186,000 miles a second that’s been traveling for hundreds and thousands and millions of years, and the star that gave up that light is dead and doesn’t put out light any more and that light isn’t even here yet and by the time that light gets here, that star will be gone, and maybe us as well.
So, to understand evolution, you need to understand a little bit about space and time. You also need to be able to hang together a concept. You have to be able to hang together a matrix of facts and put things together in a reasonable way.
“Intelligent design” to me seems to be looking for it after the fact. And intelligent design is sort of a relative thing, you know.
It’s also necessary to have a proper understanding of what a theory is, and the falsehood that the theory of evolution is something that’s just not really proved if it’s a “theory.”
That’s not how “theory” is used. For instance, in atomic theory, the way that we can tell that it’s true is that atom bombs blow up when we tell them to. It’s more than theory, it’s more than what you think about something, it’s a tentative discussion and investigation into how it actually works.
The idea of evolution is deceptively simple—that which is a good survivor survives, that which is not, does not. Seems simple enough. And that things are changed by mutation of various causes and there will be differences amongst the critters.
Of the ones that have mutations—98 percent of all mutations are lethal and the organism does not survive. But of that 2 percent that does survive the mutations, some of them are not very good and some of them are better. And the ones that are better will probably procreate better and get more food and have bigger families and last more seasons and reproduce more than the ones that aren’t as fast, aren’t as swift, or didn’t come out as well. And that doesn’t take any stretch of the imagination.
And if you look back to a beginning of when this Earth cooled for millions of years before it became cool enough that anything could live on it. You can see that there is plenty of time for many things to work themselves out.
Now, the snowflake is considered almost miraculous because of all being alike (hexagonal), and different (because they all coalesce on a different particle of dust with different surface characteristics that fractally goes out into making the pattern of the snowflake). And it’s very crisp and precise and deliberate-seeming—a six-sided pattern. What is the miracle of that six-sided pattern? It’s the 60-degree angle structure of the H20 water molecule.
All of the creatures that reproduced and are here have lasted, and the heads/tail equation came up heads for them every time or they wouldn’t be here. But that’s not miraculous except from this end looking back at it, because it’s merely a description of what went down and which elements were reproduced and carried on.
I think life organizes against the entropy. It is our purpose and our function.
I would think it would be silly if science thought it had everything covered and if there were not areas that science did not quite yet understand. They have not yet put together their unified field theory.
Of course, science doesn’t have everything nailed down. But I am quite content for the part that we don’t understand yet to be called “the part we don’t understand yet.” Calling it “God” doesn’t make it be anything else. If you want to call it that and that’s what you want to do, go on right ahead, but it’s the part we don’t understand yet, whatever that is.
To me, having to fall back on a God who snaps his fingers to bring this stuff into fruition is much, much harder to believe than natural processes working themselves out over truly immense amounts of time.
This assault of “intelligent design” against science is a great sin in itself as far as I’m concerned—an effort to put untrue things into the collective mind of humankind, to make us all a little bit dumber, a little bit slower, and a little bit less able to cope as human beings and as nations.
It is an evil thing to bring down the level of intelligence that we have worked at for all these thousands of years.
Thing is, before Darwin, nobody really knew how we got here, which is why every religion you might care to mention had taken pains to develop its own creation story — from Adam and Eve to Turtle Island and all the way back again. So naturally fundamentalists of any persuasion were going to see evolution as an assault on their own personal creationist agenda.
What’s so wrong-headed about the “intelligent design” idea is that in reality it pertains not to religious belief, but rather to Darwin’s theory. Evolution is based on scientific explanation, which in turn is founded on the causality principle, and if there is anything more characteristic of intelligent design than the causality principle, I can’t imagine what it would be. I suppose you might even say that it was God’s big gift to mankind.
Many Creationists acknowledge scientific findings. But they do not always take Darwinism as the end all be all. God, who created everything, also created what we have discovered through science. Aside from theories, we only know what we observe. Subscribing to one man’s theory, and being stuck there brings it’s own limitations to human thought, even when you don’t believe God created our world. You might find also that if you who seem to be someone who would buck being labeled and marginalized, would get to know people outside of your own sphere of thought, might acknowledge that people who believe in God do not all fit into one category or margin.
The real question is why do you so badly not believe in a God? So badly want others to subscribe to life as you see it; is if to convince yourself that your beliefs are true by convincing others? Why try to stop others from free thought and choice because it doesn’t fall in line with your own beliefs? I find your views on the matter limiting; that which you say others views are.
I think life organizes against the entropy. It is our purpose and our function.
In the parlance of our times, word.
So pleased to discover that you have a blog.
no one here, and definitely not Stephen, who’s been issuing “commercials for God” for a good forty years in one way or another, said anything about not “believing in God.” I hear that one from some of our more conventionally religious high school kids sometimes. there is also no real secular belief system called “darwinsm” that is opposed, or in competition with, Christian religion. Darwin articulated an explanation of how the diverse plant and animal species on the planet changed over the course of generations due to environmental pressures that favored one set of characteristics over another. Darwin never said there was no God, nor did he say “humans came from monkeys.” he posited and articulated common ancestry. that’s different. One can be religious and do well in modern evolutionary biology classes; I had a wonderful class in human anatomy/physiology last eyar taughts by a medical doctor who is devoted to his Christan church and to teaching modern science. and he s also an excellent doctor.
you may have heard this before, but “theory” as used in science, as in the theory of natural selection, does not mean “hypothesis” or “belief” or “conjecture.’ it is indeed based on observation.
it means the best job that scientists can do of explaining how some phenomenon in nature works, based on the available evidence. it’s just short of a “law” in the scientific sense, and there are very few laws in biological science. most of the scientific laws are in physics, which is sort of the science behind all science.
tell the kids have no problem imagining a God who could be the guidng power of a universe in which evolution could happen. they look at me like I’m another wiggy school teacher, which is okay with me. this may sound wacky to “hard atheists” as well as to fundamentalists, but for many of us, there is no contradiction between being astonished by the diversity of the natural world and the evolutionary forces that have shaped it (and continue to do so) and letting “praise to the Creator rise” as the old hymn puts it. it;s a spiritual experience to walk n the forest or by the tidepools and marvel at the ways that mitochrondria function similarly in redwood trees, mushrooms, badgers, one-celled yeasts, birds, grasses, you and me. that’s my church, and you are welcome to worship there.
Great article,it really cuts through the rhetoric of creationism, which always turns out to be political not scientific in nature when you see through the rhetorical smoke.
(I came across your story and your blog in my search for information about intentional communities. I ended up finding some interesting reading…)
Humans are not generally very capable of thinking in massive quantities of anything. Our brains seem tuned to deal with time and space at only a level that is immediately relevant for survival. A long time to us is 10 years. A long journey is 5000 miles (and that is only because we have airplanes – 10 miles was once a long journey!)
Certain experiences can help the brain get a better sense of scale. Like taking a very long flight while looking out the window. Or having a science teacher who emphasizes how the size of the atom contrasts with that of the sun.
Even with such experiences, perhaps the most important thing to learn is how limited we are in conceptualizing vastness. It’s truly a leap for all of us to believe that a process that is not discernible in their daily lives can be the very basis for their own existence. And yet we make the same kind of leap when we come to understand the spherical shape of the Earth.
If you will follow this link and read about Theistic Evolution, you will see my take on the subject. I grew up attending churches of Christ in Nashville, TN but now just consider myself a Christian.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_over.htm
He’s the take. First there was a body, then God infused a soul. Monkeys just had to get smart enough to get one. Genesis 2:7. Perfect intelligent design.
I wouldn’t say it is evil, but that is is human ignorance, to berate the level of intelligence we have arrived at, in the sciences thus far.
I used to belong to a forum where psysics was the main topic of discussion, and when I spoke about the metaphysical I was often scoffed at (though sometimes applauded) there. What irks me is that when people who, should be most open to hypothesis, about anything in the natural world, are so quick to scoff…at ideas around what Godhead could be, and when they tend to poo poo, most anything having to do with a theory that a form of intelligent reasoning has had something to do with the evolution of universes, is wrong, to me also.
I believe that we have an EXTREMELY LIMITED imagination as humans at times,(as you said) and that, had I not been raised around people such as yourself Stephen, who were interested in varying hypothesis about broader subject matter such as evolution over godhead, then I too, might be trapped into believeing just about anything. Narrow minded thinking appears to be status quo in many parts of this country. Even after the cultural revolution that was the sixties, iconically.
So with a hint of compassion for these narrow minded thinkers, many good decent “folks”, I yet recognise the ignorance bandied about in these (hopefully) evolving, two “camps” or schools of thought. That of EVOLUTION vs. CREATION)
Sorry to say, but I personally, find much fault in both camps.
Creationists are a rough bunch when confronted with the facts of existance, while at the same time, those who profess a higher minded intelligence, with science backing them, can be equally hard~headed.
Both Creationist and Skeptics/Athiests can be completely arrogent, and closed off. Closed to a possibly higher mind. I would like to see more fair, perhaps just agnostic, wait and see attitudes, where this is concerned.
Truth is, with all the facts we have, there is no scientific measure and no major research being sone into the field of paranormal research with recognized scientists, today. All are afraid it seems they would be lauded as fools if they looked into paranormal structures.
Therefore, things like spirit, are not being thouroughly investigated, NDE’s are neglected, and things such as ghosts, and aliens/ETs still scoffed at. What are crop circles? No one knows and science is too intelligent, to rational, to investigate it.
What of these lay lines in our earth, and vortexes? Who knows? For science is trained to laugh at such things, and especially at paranormal believers…who know and have evidence, that something interesting, is going on magnetically and perhaps with our “spiritual DNA”.
So~ I ask…Where is the happy medium?
If you spend nearly three years ’round Physorg.com…you too may be disgusted with both ways of thinking. I believe that what we believe affects our lives, our *souls* our ultimate evolution, and “The Collective Consciousness”.
Having lost the ability to care what outcome is TRUE at lifes end, frees the mind also. I would like to believe that, the Gods, we humans have created to keep us happy, have been manifested in a sense, by our very belief and faith expended, if God(s) were not in fact more spiritually sensed by our mental DNA, so to speak…”honed” onto by the human mind, sensed in a sort of parallel dimensioal shift, to a higher mind set.
Whatever happens, I wont profess to know!
But at the souls taking leave, the *spirit* catipulting from this bodily vessel, I feel that WE do not die. Most will agree from mere instinct alone.
I’d like to believe that perhaps, The Christs, the Gandis, The Buddhas, EXIST and INTERACT, than not. That our greatest Earthly teachers (every single one a part of this WHOLE) are out there, perhaps wrestling still? with how and why LIFE will continue to evolve, and that they have a part in eternal decisions.
Id like to believe that, given some direction, that we humans may be able to, or do play a part in how things evolve, (by our very attempts to evolve) with every aware decision…and that our souls EXPAND, as the Universe EXPANDS.
No one can tear a human belief away from that human, all we have to war with these false delusions around us. Knowing that our gentle persuasions, may or may not affect the outcome with any quickness, the outcomes may come down the road. Just as a parent may not get something that a child understands inherantly, a gentle prod may not be felt immediately, but be acknowledged a bit furthur “down the road”
So that, with heart, and sound reasoning we will slowly evolve into more humane creatures with broader understandings about the variety of ways a person can live with and without ideas of God, without needing to be inhumane, to those who differ, or advance a bit more slowly into new worlds of thought.
If the counter~coulture, as I have known it, had not so descended into the status quo, (possibly because of need to expand into entity who had the means to fufill dreams such as home ownership and travel) then we would perhaps have more sway, in the world today, but we still have sway.
If we had merely had a bit more force, and had determined to get a bit more political, (playing that dirty game) perhaps evolution/expansion of mental degrees would have come sooner, but it will come, as it must, for surely we cannot become ever more ignorant.
I guess my point is mainly, that we learned we couldn’t force growth on a nation, a country, a world EXCEPT by changing our very selves, and being an example to others. This is where you have thrived…in my opinion, with The Farm, Stephen.
Your collective has been an example of greater open~mindedness, and awareness expansion…and that is a darned good thing. To be examples of good works, at times, is probably all we can do to make mental change in the world.
Now what I would like to know is WHY the scientific community so vehemantly rejects that the things of the spirit ARE as important, as other scientific explorations.
It occurs to me, that the scientific community has had taught, right out of them, an exploring spirit about us humans, in this sense. That they have been trained to be agnostic, and leaned, perhaps a bit too far, into pure skepticism. Or at the very least, they may have lost (at times) any former ability to keep an open perspective around potentials in creation/evolution. It can be very dissappointing, leading one to wonder when real advancements will come, in physics or a Unified Field Theory, so long as certain real life aspects are left under~explored.
While all the great minds seem to be busy squabbling over whether creationists will ever get it. I feel that an idea of the potential of Godhead, has been anesthethetically [sic] siezed from them, or eliminated from the Scientific arena, and while it is no longer necessary to explain all of life, it may play a part, still.
While creationist lounge in the idea that Faith is all pervading and just enough, Science may have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
The absolute sense of certainty on both fronts is disheartening to me, and an idea of Godhead need not be eliminated from all of life, for a person to be understood as…or called rational.
Rational scientists sometimes, alas, also include certain ideas of what God may be, IF for some it is a perfect mathmatical answer…for another it could be the way physics works itself. For me it is this and all the other workings that make up Lifes ENERGIES, which is my Godhead. It is all inclusive and needs no hell, as humans defiantly, adamently do, to feel good about justice, it seems.
The flux and flow of all these energies,& interconnections, in this holographic matrix we call life is God to me. No one, no matter what degree they have (humanly) earned can tear my strange glorius idea of god from me. And I would like to be seen as more than a crazy fool, for having ideas on God, grasping at an understanding the basics about physics, and meshing the two.
Please forgive me, any/all grammatic mistakes~
~peace~
the thing is, I find it;s perfectly possible to embrace the tenets of evolutionary biology AND to feel awe at what some call Creator, or Creation. in the last analysis, as least as I see it, both the “scientific” and the “:religious” worldview of how we got here and what we are doing ehre call for some humility, which I understand as a cor spiritual value regardless of what a person might consider his religion, or lack of religion.
religion has been used to answer the questions, or at least some of them,that are now seen as the proper domain of scientific inquiry.
good science, including good evolutionary biology, does not demand atheism by any means – it does however require that we understand the limitations of assuming we know the origins of what we observe.
I sometimes tell the high school kids who repeat the “oh, so you don’t believe God made us?” BS they learned from their parents when I mention human evolution –
” I don’t have problem imagining a God who could create a world in which these amazing forces of natural selection could take place.”
good science, BTW, is based on UNCERTAINTY – the scientific method revolves around testing hypotheses to see if there is a way to disprove or refine them.