Started reading an interesting book today: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Thomas Nagel. Nagel takes a non-religious stance that defies the major paradigm in science that life is a result of evolution which is a result of random mutations in genetics that adapt better than other random mutations (this over-simplification). First of all, I think other people (e.g., Richard Dawkins) have dropped the idea that life is an accident or a result of random events/genetic mutations in favor of a more directed approach. For example Dawkins is now leaning more towards the idea that genes actually direct evolution by creating better equipped carriers to ensure their survival; thus, evolution is all about gene replication. Dawkins fully recognizes the problems associated with claiming that life resulted from random forces and that random mutations account for evolution. This is still a materialist approach that doesnt really solve anything because you can simply ask how do genes know that they are supposed to reproduce and how do they know what a more efficient carrier is? Do genes know or direct anything outside of protein synthesis? I think youd be hard pressed to believe that they do. Are genes intelligent? Do they plan their future? Gene replication as the driving force of evolution? It seems a bit metaphysical to me. Nagel does point out a lot of issues with materialism and reductionism that hard-core science simply ignores. Nagel leans toward a more creationist view- but with a type of benign creator or force responsible. He explains our mental life as a lengthy process of the universe becoming aware of itself. I heard that one before, and Im not sure I buy it, but it sure sounds good. However, Im sure that creationists will try to incorporate this line of thought into some religious doctrine. I also watched an episode of Cosmos where Neil deGrasse Tyson discussed evolution and his argument was so full of conjecture and holes that it really did not qualify as science using the scientific method (more philosophy than science). Im struck at the amount of conjecture that is involved in evolutionary biology and the failure of scientists to recognize this. Its like theoretical physics where scientists construct realities based on ideas than can be supported by equations that use irrational and imaginary numbers (like bubble universes- but it sure sounds good!). So the conclusion is that if I can support it with equations then it can be real. That is the same thing as saying anything that I can imagine can be real. Well I can develop an equation that supports the idea that cows COULD fly, but that does not mean that they DO fly. I can imagine that walk through brick walls and can probably theoretically demonstrate how this is possible (there is more space in my body than actual matter) and while it may sound good dont expect me to come through your bedroom door unless you pen it first. Likewise Im also struck at the length individuals will go to deny that the intelligent design even though they define the laws of physics as being important to explain the universe. If indeed there are laws to the universe, something must have created them. They certainly couldnt have come from nothing. In fact, the idea that something came from nothing is so blatantly unsupportable that those who support it believe that they do not have to explain it. The idea that something can come from nothing or that order can result from randomness is untenable. In the end a lot of these theories boil down to two things: What you are willing to believe is possible and what you have faith in regarding what is truth. Most evolutionists are not willing to believe in intelligent design no matter what and have faith that life must be the result of other forces, whereas most creationists have faith that there is a creator and are not willing to accept the idea that benign forces influence life. After that what you accept as evidence and what you reject is simply a matter of conforming to your faith and faith-based criteria. I know that I know very little, but I do know that a BLT sounds good right about now and I can develop a theoretical model as to how to obtain one. Bon appetite....
Posted on: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 01:28:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015