Thoughts on Evolution

I carry on conversations occasionally concerning evolution. I'm not a scientist -- in fact my formal science training is fairly minimal. But I've done quite a bit of reading in the area and am most interested in the intersection with theology.

I was doing some blog surfing tonight and discovered a series of videos by an Australian that shows in brief the foundation of evolution's facticity. I know there is a new film -- Expelled by Ben Stein that will "debunk" evolution. But from what I've seen of the reports Expelled is more bluster than proof.

In any case, take a look and a listen.

Thanks to Mike L. and Progression of Faith.


Comments

Anonymous said…
Nice video clip. I happened to be reading this last night which I find particularly helpful in addressing these questions as well.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Robert Cornwall said…
I am posting this from a conversation partner.

Hi Bob,

I viewed the video clip regarding evolution you put up on April Fool's Day. While I admire the illustration offered by the fact of nylon-eating bacterial, and recognize the absurdity of the "crocoduck" I must observe that dismissal by ridicule is beneath your talents, which I admire greatly. (I readily admit you are not the author of the clip.) But I don't feel this issue needs polarization, so much as it needs enlightened thinking. Yes, the creationists are a bunch of wingnuts! But they don't own this issue any more than the scientists own it. (As a point of mere balance, I note that you did not include the link to Stein's movie for your readers. But I'm glad you gave him a mention, even while it was dismissive. I hope people will visit his page and read some of the most recent buzz: http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/ .)

Until evolutionists can locate the development of consciousness on their historical chart, their entire rejoinder is laughable (to me). So, let's ponder this scalpel the author of Hebrews provided when he described the two-edged sword in 4:12. How to use this amazing tool?

While I am no scholar of the Koine, the NT Greek word for 'truth' means 'that which is not a lie.' In a way, science uses this negative definition of truth to deflate those beliefs which have been widely held by exposing them as untrue, even while not having much with which to fill the void. Indeed, it is the heart of the scientific method. By outing the lie we are disabused of false notions, and open to noticing truer ones, presumably. I believe this applies to the physical world AND the metaphysical, as well. Physics (nature!) is reality. But it must incorporate consciousness. Until it does so, merely describing it as 'meta' indicates that there is a realm beyond our senses where different tools must apply. This is the area of pure consciousness. Leaving it out of the observations, as the evolutionists are so inclined to do, is a dreadful mistake.

While the serious ID thinkers like Behe, et al, endeavor to have their say (which should be allowed, in my view) there is another approach being made by guys in physics, like Roger Penrose, et al. But the individual who is looking at the biology in a fresh and cutting way is Rupert Sheldrake. He endures the scorn of his colleagues for being on the edge. But that's where progress often finds traction. Those who are genuinely aware that the historical record compiled by science is seriously lacking, will keep their eyes on all of this, rather than merely laughing at it. They will be open-minded, and willing to ponder, and to enter into reasonable dialog. Surely, some of your readers fit this profile. And I'll even bet many of them would enjoy the movie, when it opens 4/18, for its thoughtful musings.

~eric.

ps: you may post this as a comment to your site, if you wish. I am not inclined to register, as too many lists allow email addresses to be harvested by the spammers, even if not intentionally sold.

Hey -- many blessings on your upcoming move!

Popular Posts