Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal Mr.Intel's Journal: Evolution and the origin of man 13

Journal by Mr.Intel

I just stumbled upon the FortKnox journal entry on evolution. In it, gmhowell begins an interesting line of reasoning that I wanted to get some more information on. So gmhowell, if you read this, I would be interested in some more information.

For those who don't know me very well, I don't agree 100% with the theory of evolution per se, but am intrigued by science's attempt at explaining how man arrived on planet earth. Although I have my doubts, I would like to better understand, if at all possible, why some people so violently adhere to their beliefs in evolution or creation. I believe in the creation, but not the same way that many who call themselves Christians do. For example, I don't believe that the six days referred to in the bible are literally days. I do believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, created literally in the image of God and that man was not found on the earth prior to this event. However, I don't automatically discount evolution just because it is different than the beliefs I espouse.

It is debatable, therefore to determine what certain things regarding the origin of man mean and indeed if they are comprehensible by man. I won't jump into the ship that says evolution is all wrong, with no truth at all. By the same token, I won't say that the biblical account of the creation has all the facts or is 100% correct. So here is my question: How did man arrive on the earth? Was it divine intervention or the random chance of evolution. Someone once pointed me to a web site that gave all the odds for each event in the evolutionary process. While I don't recall the site, it was an astronomical amount for each condition for life to begin, and for each step in the ladder from single celled life to human beings. Obviously I am biased in my views and none of this addresses the (IMHO) more important issue of sentience. But that is another debate.

There are those who claim that evolution is fact and that the theory is only a monniker. Why is this true? It seems to me that the evidence at best points to evolution, but is far from proving it. Am I wrong? Why? For example, fossil records and observation of microevolutionary trends proves that the idea has merit, but does not prove that man evolved from apes. Likewise, the persistent tradition of the creation and the existense of a written record does not prove anything either. What it boils down to for me is that we have to make a choice. Believe in science (appealing to the empirically minded among us) or believe in religion (a very transcendental option). I have so far chosen religion, but am open to the ideas and knowledge others have collected.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Evolution and the origin of man More

Evolution and the origin of man

Comments Filter:
  • By definition, Evolution is a Theory. But then, so is Gravitation.

    Back to basic definitions: In science, a fact is something which has been observed. A ball falls when dropped. An animal that is unfit for its environment dies. When a fact has been observed often enough that it can be described mathematically, and the formula is generally considered to be tried and true, it can be called a law. But for it to be a law, it has to be testable and provable in experiment after experiment.

    Facts are what is. They
    • I heard any proposals to apply any theory of Evolution to practical issues.

      You haven't heard about breeding, have you?

      Species change and adapt; we can observe this in the scale of modern civilization, actually. This is a scientific fact, and we may as well enshrine it as the "Law of Evolution: (1) The species that are most fit for a given environment will be most successful; (2) the species that are not most-fit for an environment will adapt to be more fit; (3) given enough time, two divergent lines of
      • Ah, yes, directed breeding had slipped my mind... it's nothing new, animal husbandry and pedigreeing existed long before Darwin. And I suppose I ought to have remembered the other occasionally-proposed application: Eugenics. Should've remembered, it was actually a topic of discussion in one class I had regarding the relationships between science, science fiction, and cultural values.

        Religion and mankind's supposed direct kinship with apes is only one reason evolution has triggered serious controversy. Ther
      • Species change and adapt; we can observe this in the scale of modern civilization, actually. This is a scientific fact, and we may as well enshrine it as the "Law of Evolution: (1) The species that are most fit for a given environment will be most successful; (2) the species that are not most-fit for an environment will adapt to be more fit; (3) given enough time, two divergent lines of the same species in seperate environments will be different species."

        This is good. It is good because it fits in with wh

  • Moo (Score:2)

    by Chacham ( 981 ) *
    by science's attempt at explaining how man arrived on planet earth.

    Science is the study of empirical evidence. It does not explain. If you want an explanation, it is not science. Explnations may be *based* in science but they do not have to be. In a sense, to say that science has the explanation (for everything), is either stupidity or arrogance.
    • Science is the study of empirical evidence.

      I agree with you here...

      It does not explain. If you want an explanation, it is not science.

      But not here. Science can and does explain a great many things.

      Explnations may be *based* in science but they do not have to be.

      I would again agree.

      In a sense, to say that science has the explanation (for everything), is either stupidity or arrogance.

      And I am not trying to say that science has the explainations for everything. On the contrary, I am saying that on th

      • Re:Moo (Score:2)

        by Chacham ( 981 ) *
        Science can and does explain a great many things.

        How's that? Science can only study. Science cannot prove. How can it possibly explain?

        Basically, Science comes in after the fact and studies what went on. At times science can come in *during* the fact and have better standing. However, *after* the fact Science can only assume. There are those that *extrapolate* that since science saw something *during* an event, it can explain that which already happened, but that is no longer Science. It is *based* in Sc
        • How's that? Science can only study. Science cannot prove. How can it possibly explain?

          To begin, I need to point out that there are two known methods for discovering truth. Empirical and Transcendental. Empirical relies on reproducable observation. Transcendental learning requires that the individual discover truths that already exist within themselves through enlightenment.

          Science can provide certain proof within its own framework. If you are referring to absolute proof (as in absolute truth) then sci

          • there are two known methods for discovering truth. Empirical and Transcendental.

            I disagree. There are as many methods as one can dream of to discover truth. Currently, I know of three. Science, Philosophy, and Religion. Each of these three has sub-groups. Anyway, not all of these have truths, yet they provide a mechanism for the person to base truths upon them.

            Empirical relies on reproducable observation.

            I disagree. Empirical relies on observation. The discipline of Science has rules about when empiri

            • All I can say is that I have never had anyone so completely misunderstand every single thing in one of my posts before.

              There are as many methods as one can dream of to discover truth. Currently, I know of three. Science, Philosophy, and Religion.

              Philosophy and Religion use the same mechanisms for discovering truth and are therefore the same method. Socrates (or Plato if you prefer) is known as the father of philosophy. His premise was that all truth is absolute and is applied to all people at the same t

              • Philosophy and Religion use the same mechanisms for discovering truth

                No, they don't. Philosophy uses Logic as its tool. Religion uses Faith. Different tools. If anything, Philosophy is similar to Science, since Science uses Logic as its tool as well.

                Socrates (or Plato if you prefer) is known as the father of philosophy.

                Modern philosophy. Discovering truths through the Philosophical method was used thousands of years before Socrates or Plato. At least, according to the Jewish tradition, Abraham who liv
                • Philosophy uses Logic as its tool. Religion uses Faith. Different tools. If anything, Philosophy is similar to Science, since Science uses Logic as its tool as well.

                  Philosophy does use logic but it is also the "Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline." While I am not suggesting that philosophy and religion are synonymous, they achieve knowledge through similair methods. They both use transcendental learning as their tools, not logic. Transcental is defined as, "Concern

Slashdot Top Deals

Happiness is twin floppies.

Close