Jereel Hunter said:
I've never thought the ability of already existing organisms to evolve was really a blow to the idea of creation. If someone designed a robot, and gave it complex enough programming that it could learn, and eventually enhance itself to deal with problems that it wasn't previously built for, it wouldn't be proof that the robot came about by itself, but rather that the designer was just... amazing at what he does. People don't want to believe in God, so they claim belief in him isn't scientific, and instead turn to theories which need to disregard the scientific method to be thought of as fact.
Even if species can evolve, the idea that living organisms began from completely non-living matter doesn't have any concrete evidence backing it up, as it can't be replicated.
Even if that could happen, what if you suddenly had 1 lone, single celled organism suddenly spring to life? What do you suppose happens next? Oh right, it dies. it doesn't reproduce for generations until it becomes more advanced. How would it?
It's interesting about things that evolve. They generally evolve for the good of the planet, not the good of themselves.
Horrible BP Oil spill in the gulf of mexico? Oh look, some bacteria at some point evolved to break down and consume crude oil.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130408152733.htm
Terrible nuclear disaster at Chernobyl? Apparently some fungi evolved as some point to eat harmful radiation.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070522210932.htm
We have a world full of creatures whose apparent evolutions contribute to the sustained balance of the planet. Physical laws are the same. Liquids grow more dense as it gets colder... except water. It grows more dense to a point, but when it reaches freezing temperature, it instead expands, causeing ice to float, and thus create a protective layer at the top of bodies of water, instead of turning lakes and rivers into huge blocks of ice and killing everything in them.
Actually, how people feel reminds me of a short story Asimov wrote. 2 guys arrive at a space station, and the robotic crew is led by a robot that doesn't believe the humans tales of the outside universe. He's not interested in their lies, and doesn't believe that these crude beings could have invented something like him. In the end they let him believe what he wants because he's still doing his job. (just looked it up, it was called 'Reason') It seems like the story is showing the atheist view of the world. The Robots demanded absolute proof, right then and there, that they had been created by humans, otherwise, why should they believe it? They were logical, reasoning beings, but as far as they were concerned, the space station had been there since before they had come into existence, and always would be. They weren't entirely sure of the other details, but one thing they were sure of - that these fragile, flawed biological organisms weren't responsible for their existence. In the end, the crew left them to their ignorance (not even bothering to collect proof and send it later). It's funny, because Asimov was an athiest, and yet his story seemed like it was poking fun at their views.
|
