Directly from my brain and onto the internet.
Published on May 4, 2005 By PJ_ In Philosophy
Okay, I have homework I should be doing, but I'm making a short post anyway.

We just had a little discussion on intelligent design creationism vs. evolution in philosophy class. A passing mention, really. But I started thinking: why is it that I assumed evolution was the more plausible answer, even though it couldn't be reproduced in a laboratory any more than creationism? One reason, I'm sure, is that creationism depends on intervention from something outside the system, whereas evolution allows the world to exist the way it is more or less independently of outside intervention. That seems to parallel my unwillingness to ask for help in anything, which I already decided was a mistake on my part. I wonder if this means I should re-evaluate my ideas about the origins of our world.

That's something to think about for latter. Right now I need to think about how to refactor some badly designed software. Which, by the way, I haven't even looked at yet.

Comments
on May 04, 2005
"evolution allows the world to exist the way it is more or less independently of outside intervention."

The theory of evolution doesn't explain everything. It says the Earth was created when two meteors or asteroids (whichever) collided and a piece that broke off became the Earth. Ok, fine, but where did those two that collided come from?
on May 04, 2005

very deep thought!  And very good.  Perhaps when you have some time, we can discuss it.  That would be a great topic of discussion.

And you get a very interesting cookie too!

on May 04, 2005
"Why is there something, instead of nothing?"

A good question. I first heard it on The Daily Show, but they probably got it from somewhere else. It's Iconoclastâ„¢'s question followed to its logical limit. It seems to me that eventually you have to throw up your hands and say either "(An all-powerful) God did it," or "That's just the way it is," depending on your personal disposition. The idea of randomness in the universe seems counter-intuitive to me, but a lot of modern physics is counter-intuitive. I googled for Einstein's famous phrase "God does not play dice with the universe," and found this lecture by Stephen Hawking which, although my physics-fu isn't quite up to the challenge of understanding all of it, does indicate that there is an element of randomness in the universe. So I'm willing to suppose that "nothing" is an unnatural state for the universe to be in, and because of the nature of the "things" that do exist they tend to clump together into firey balls of gass and rocks of various sizes. And the "conditions for supporting life," as far as I know, boil down to having one of those rocks be stable in a certain temperature range, with the right mix of chemicals thrown in. Atypical, but not so unlikely that you would be shocked that it exists somewhere.

Life itself is different, though. I don't envision something as complex as a living cell coming together randomly. The little pieces inside it are very intricate, and if they're not all working together just right then the cell can't reproduce. And if it can't reproduce with minor variations then it can't evolve. Same for the systems of organs in more complex lifeforms. A lot of stuff has to have happened at the same time in just the right way for it to have all come together. I have no problem with the idea of something ape-like evolving into something human-like, but from vat of chemicals to single cell to mammal, one step at a time? It seems prohibitively unlikely. "Strange but true" seems to be the theme in modern day science, but it's generally followed up with a theoretical explaination and a proof by experiment. I understand that this isn't the kind of thing that can be reproduced in a laboratory, but at least someone could try to come up with a series of believably likely changes that would take you from single cell to at least a jelly fish or something, with a viable organism at every step along the way.

Of course, if you say that the changes were made deliberately then you're left with the question "Where did the designer(s) come from?" I don't think it ever ends.
on May 04, 2005

Of course, if you say that the changes were made deliberately then you're left with the question "Where did the designer(s) come from?" I don't think it ever ends.

I quote this as your whole response is excellant.  And as a Christian (and supposed adam and eve freak), I find it fascinating.  And thought provoking.  I have the same questions and actually believe (I think) as you do.

But then I can as I am Catholic and dont have to accept the bible as God's word, just as his teachings and I do believe as you do.  Or so I gather. Intelligent design.  The theory of a million monkeys and Shakespeare just does not cut it with me.

Sorry I cannot give you more than one insightful.  But this one deserves it.

on May 12, 2005
I might have to change my mind about the theory of evolution.

This is from wikipedia
Link

The Solar System is believed to have formed from the Solar Nebula, the collapsing cloud of gas and dust which gave birth to the Sun. As it underwent gravitational collapse, the Solar Nebula would have collapsed into a disk, with the protosun accreting at the centre. As the protosun heated up, volatile substances were driven away from the central regions of the nebula - hence the formation of rocky planets closer to the sun and gas giants further out.

Now the same sort of question could apply here that I asked before. Where did the Solar Nebula and the protosun come from?
Well, wouldn't you agree that just because science doesn't know the answer now, isn't it possible that it will know sometime in fhe future?