Here is my problem with evolution.
First of all, if one generally takes an argument against evolution, it is generally automatically assumed that the person is supporting a pro-creation position. The person might also be assumed to be a hard-core fundamentalist which just isn't true. I'm trying to approach it from a neutral perspective that looks at the available evidence and goes forward from there.
I think ever since Sir Thomas Bacon and the scientific model, science has totally excluded "purposeful" design from any model for whatever reason. It just doesn't make sense.
In the lower level biology books, the beginning of life is suggested to have developed in a "pool of chemicals" that existed in an electrically charged environment that eventually spit out a primitive one cell organism. The problem with this is that there is no such thing as a "primitive" one cell organism.
Even in the most "primitive" one celled organism, you have long DNA ladders that encode for enzymes. You have RNA, t-RNA (which is a connector between the DNA and each of the amino acids, s-RNA, editese enzymes that check that information is split and reformed correctly, etc ... None of these things can pop up alone and support life. You need the storage systems, encoding / decoding systems, translation systems all working simultaneously for just one cell to be able to reproduce. Not even upper level biology books have a clue how this could have taken place -- so in an absence of actual data, holes are filled with "basic Darwinian concepts."
The problem is that evolution is currently the "En Vogue" theory in science. What happens when a scientist goes against the science fashion of the day? He or she gets ridiculed and loses support for his or her work from absence of grants, etc. So it is almost like this "very well fabricated story" is perpetuated today because the theory of evolution is so ubiquitous in the scientific community.
We can find 500 million year old fossils all over the place yet we can't find any half-million old bridge fossils for man -- or any other animal for that matter? Bullshit! The theory has serious problems, yet it is still taught as fact in highschools. I wish they'd emphasize "theory" more, because evolution seems to be dished out as if it were nothing but pure fact today.
This is the same problem as the theory of the big bang. Everything around us -- from the atoms in your body to the buildings in Manhattan and every star in the universe was once in a space the size of the head of a pin? Come on! I understand there is some evidence suggesting an explosion, but isn't that a bit simplistic?
Everything rolled up into a mathematical point and suddenly it explodes into a universe? Sounds like something from nothing to me, and that violates thermodynamics.
Why can't science just accept the fact that it is ill-equiped to answer questions like this? The scientific model was designed to in such a way to accept the most basic hypothesis that something can be "proven," when it actuality nothing can be proven in the absolute. There is no way that we can say that even the laws of physics or the C constant isn't slowly changing as the universe ages.
The premise of science is great, because we understand more about how the world works around us, but I doubt that any process, including the scientific one, will enable us to say with absolute authority that, "this is indeed how such and such works due to these processes that follow laws that are never changing and eternal."
I know from my own experience that most information received a posteriori is sufficient for me to function in my environment. Although I may be proven wrong at some point, the human mind is designed to be flexible and adaptive, yet still have the ability to be rigid enough to allow for experience to accumulate in such a way as to allow for a greater understanding of the world.
There lies the problem between a posteriori and a priori modes of knowledge. One assumes a basis of discovery from induction that works well in an environment absent of intangible processes within the universe while the other accepts a sort of "fuzziness" to knowledge due to the ultimate realization that we live in a world that can be put under a microscope, but cannot ever be known in the "absolute" sense since the basic initial constituents of all things are most definitely held within a system greater than the one which we are seeking to understand and test within.
First of all, if one generally takes an argument against evolution, it is generally automatically assumed that the person is supporting a pro-creation position. The person might also be assumed to be a hard-core fundamentalist which just isn't true. I'm trying to approach it from a neutral perspective that looks at the available evidence and goes forward from there.
I think ever since Sir Thomas Bacon and the scientific model, science has totally excluded "purposeful" design from any model for whatever reason. It just doesn't make sense.
In the lower level biology books, the beginning of life is suggested to have developed in a "pool of chemicals" that existed in an electrically charged environment that eventually spit out a primitive one cell organism. The problem with this is that there is no such thing as a "primitive" one cell organism.
Even in the most "primitive" one celled organism, you have long DNA ladders that encode for enzymes. You have RNA, t-RNA (which is a connector between the DNA and each of the amino acids, s-RNA, editese enzymes that check that information is split and reformed correctly, etc ... None of these things can pop up alone and support life. You need the storage systems, encoding / decoding systems, translation systems all working simultaneously for just one cell to be able to reproduce. Not even upper level biology books have a clue how this could have taken place -- so in an absence of actual data, holes are filled with "basic Darwinian concepts."
The problem is that evolution is currently the "En Vogue" theory in science. What happens when a scientist goes against the science fashion of the day? He or she gets ridiculed and loses support for his or her work from absence of grants, etc. So it is almost like this "very well fabricated story" is perpetuated today because the theory of evolution is so ubiquitous in the scientific community.
We can find 500 million year old fossils all over the place yet we can't find any half-million old bridge fossils for man -- or any other animal for that matter? Bullshit! The theory has serious problems, yet it is still taught as fact in highschools. I wish they'd emphasize "theory" more, because evolution seems to be dished out as if it were nothing but pure fact today.
This is the same problem as the theory of the big bang. Everything around us -- from the atoms in your body to the buildings in Manhattan and every star in the universe was once in a space the size of the head of a pin? Come on! I understand there is some evidence suggesting an explosion, but isn't that a bit simplistic?
Everything rolled up into a mathematical point and suddenly it explodes into a universe? Sounds like something from nothing to me, and that violates thermodynamics.
Why can't science just accept the fact that it is ill-equiped to answer questions like this? The scientific model was designed to in such a way to accept the most basic hypothesis that something can be "proven," when it actuality nothing can be proven in the absolute. There is no way that we can say that even the laws of physics or the C constant isn't slowly changing as the universe ages.
The premise of science is great, because we understand more about how the world works around us, but I doubt that any process, including the scientific one, will enable us to say with absolute authority that, "this is indeed how such and such works due to these processes that follow laws that are never changing and eternal."
I know from my own experience that most information received a posteriori is sufficient for me to function in my environment. Although I may be proven wrong at some point, the human mind is designed to be flexible and adaptive, yet still have the ability to be rigid enough to allow for experience to accumulate in such a way as to allow for a greater understanding of the world.
There lies the problem between a posteriori and a priori modes of knowledge. One assumes a basis of discovery from induction that works well in an environment absent of intangible processes within the universe while the other accepts a sort of "fuzziness" to knowledge due to the ultimate realization that we live in a world that can be put under a microscope, but cannot ever be known in the "absolute" sense since the basic initial constituents of all things are most definitely held within a system greater than the one which we are seeking to understand and test within.
