Ssenkahdavic said:
GameOver22 said:
Ssenkahdavic said:
Ive always found these types of debates fascinating.
I do not think the question of evolution is does it exist, but in what form does it exist?
The reason we call it the "Theory of Evolution" is Darwin had a hypothesis that Natural Selection was occurring, and went to do research on his idea. (Granted it is much more in depth than this). Out of his research into Natural Selection, the scientific community began researching into his ideas further, and into other areas of Evolution (random mutations and the like).
For someone who believes in GOD or any other GODLIKE deity, is the above out of Gods reach? How do the two HAVE to be seperate and not of the same origin? People believe that GOD created everything (from Matter, to Energy to even all Idea's) so couldnt this GOD have created the "Theory of Evolution" and the application of such?
And I would also like to put in on the Proven/Unproven debate. There is a reason the Scientific Community stopped using the term Law (Proven) to describe Scientific concepts. Newton came up with very specific laws of motion. At the time, these laws were seen as irrefutable. After many a year, we have determined that these laws are NOT absolutes but very good approximations that work great for the macroscopic scale but do not work on the quantum scale. Just because we can or cannot try to take these ideas to the level of truth, does not mean that it has to always be true. If it works here, maybe it does not work elsewhere? This is why the term Theory should always be used.
Just remember: Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.
|
That is possible. The reason why people generally avoid making that argument is that it violates Ockham's razor (the idea that the simplest explanation is the best explanation). If evolution completely explains the origin of life, there is no reason to bring God into the picture as well. It just makes the explanation more complicated than it needs to be.
|
Ahh there is the Rub. Glad you brought that up! William (of Ockham or Occam) used the principle to justify many conclusions, including the statement that "God's existence cannot be deduced by reason alone." That one didn't make him very popular with the Pope. Also, using the prinicple of "the idea that the simplest explanation is the best explanation" is not all together accurate. The Razor is more of a guideline (hence being a principle) that says ""when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." Better, not best. Ockham fully admitted his theories could be wrong or that they could be the only explanation.
Sir Isaac Newton said it the best I think "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
|
Very true. The problem I've always had with Ockham's razor is that the simpler explanation is not necessarily the better explanation. The only place where Ockham's razor makes sense is in a system that appears as if it was designed (a system that is highly ordered with no extraneous parts). If there are extraneous parts, Ockham's razor can't be used because these parts might attach onto the simpler explanation and make it more complex.
Ockham's razor itself makes some fundamental assumptions, but the assumptions are not necessarily true. For that reason, I would say Ockham's razor is useful, but hardly foolproof. It should be used carefully, but I usually have a hard time understanding when it is actually applicable.
