Evolution is ridiculous. If it is true then you are admitting that your entire life is a result of random chance. As objectivists how can you handle this? How can you think that your wonderful life is a result of chance? You degrade it and make it something common and crude. In my opinion the reason you do this is to avoid the concept of a creator. Evolution gives an explanation for creation that doesn’t involve a creator - how ridiculous.
I’m not able to resist flame bait.
Beyond the possiblities you offer, namely random chance or a made-up creator, there is another option: casuality.
I am glad that you replied because I am actually after a proper discussion. Sorry if I sounded too agressive.
Can you explain what you meant by “causality”?
Evolution does not describe a process of random chance, it describes a process whereby advancements come about because reality dictates what aspects of an organism are best suited for survival. Over time certain capabilities grow while others fade away. Evolution is caused by a species’ interaction with the world over long periods of time.
To my knoweldge evolution does leave a few questions unanswered (I haven’t brushed up on it recently) but a few unsolved questions don’t change the nature of the process and the fact that we can observe it happening (albeit on a much different scale).
There is no embarassment in this fact. It simply is.
Evolution is ridiculous. If it is true then you are admitting that your entire life is a result of random chance. As objectivists how can you handle this? How can you think that your wonderful life is a result of chance? You degrade it and make it something common and crude. In my opinion the reason you do this is to avoid the concept of a creator. Evolution gives an explanation for creation that doesn’t involve a creator - how ridiculous.
The philosophy of Objectivism does not involve scientific theories as its basis. It also dosn’t involve mystical creators.
The philosophy of Objectivism does not involve scientific theories as its basis. It also dosn’t involve mystical creators.
To piggyback on the above. Evolution is outside of Objectivism’s scope.
Evolution does not describe a process of random chance, it describes a process whereby advancements come about because reality dictates what aspects of an organism are best suited for survival.
You speak of reality as though it had a brain. Surely “reality dictating” is a completely arbitrary process and is in fact just random chance?
However, lets change the topic slightly from evolution to what was the first ever life form. I assume that non-Christian/religious scientists have an explanation along the lines of particles combining together under immense heat etc etc, forming the first gene, or something like that.
So how can you argue that this process happened not by random chance or by a creator?
I have just found a website that describes what evolutionists believe in. How can you believe in this?
I have just found a website that describes what evolutionists believe in. How can you believe in this?
I believe the concept of God is degrading to human life. Everyone I’ve ever met who believes in God no matter what religion believes life is a temporary pain and that if a rat had a soul, man’s would be even lesser than the rodent.
As for evolution, Objectivism hardly deals with it. What we know is that reality is absolute and that everything acts naturally. That’s all that’s necessary to live and prosper.
BTW: After taking a good like at that site all I have to say is that I’m still in awe that you haven’t been banned. It does a good job at being discret about being Theistic though.
Why would I be banned for posting that website? It is not as though I have offended anyone! I’m only trying to understand why you believe what you do. I think (like the article) that you believe evolution because it allows you to avoid a creator concept.
I also understand that scientific theories are not the basis of objectivism. The reason I posted here instead of a science board is as follows:
I can accept a socialist espousing a theory that reduces life to random chance, but I cannot understand how a group of people who love life can believe in evolution.
What specifically do you disagree with in the article that I posted?
This is a good book on the subject.
from the website:
“Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."
I hate how irrational people try to use science and math to prove things. Does evolution claim that all 2,000 enzymes had to be created at once? Do you have any concept of millions and millions of years? It seems like evasion is a bad habit for you, not only do you believe in god for which there is no evidence, but you deny an alternative for which there is evidence. You predecessors who followed Christian dogma had a much better excuse because there were offered no alternative answers for how life began.
…
I can accept a socialist espousing a theory that reduces life to random chance, but I cannot understand how a group of people who love life can believe in evolution.
First of all, obviously Objectivists “believe” in evolution to the extent that they think it’s true. That said, it has already been pointed out that the false alternative between life as “designed” and “random chance” is resolved by the concept of causality. Causality refers to the fact that entities (including living entities) in reality have a nature, an identity, and act (and react) accordingly. This includes the ability to mutate genetically, which is a causal property of such entities. Mutations do not happen “randomly,” they happen for specific biochemical reasons, it’s just that they are not related to any kind of grand design. The natural selection process is also causal and involves the interaction of living entities with their environment. The organisms that successfully survive and reproduce are able to pass on their genetic material to the next generation of organisms.
I really fail to see what exactly is “degrading” about this. “Degrading” to whom? Why?
I often hear from theists that atheist lack a greater “meaning” or “purpose” in life but I think any so-called “purpose” or “meaning” that is in fact divorced from life and based on mystic fantasies can only lead to disaster as history has in fact shown. Purpose is a crucial value but it must be established in the context of life and the facts surrounding it.
However, lets change the topic slightly from evolution to what was the first ever life form.
Everybody knows that I was the first life form. One day I woke up and there I was in the great Void. After floating around aimlessly for what seemed like an eternity, I got the bright idea of creating the Universe. Then I created Earth and Mankind. It was great. I could do anything. I just thought about what I wanted to do, and BAM! it happened.
… I cannot understand how a group of people who love life can believe in evolution.
Why don’t you ask God to help you understand? Did he stop talking to you or something?
1 Like
ChildofGod
“Evolution gives an explanation for creation that doesn’t involve a creator - how ridiculous.”
Theory of Evolution
Process of change over time to life forms starting from the first living organism, the evolution of eukaryotes cell from prokaryotes cell.
Abiogenesis
“hypothetical generation of life from non-living matter” - wikipedia
“The modern definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals.” - wikipedia
I.E how the first cell came about, the origin of life, Miller’s experiment simulating condition of primeval planet demonstrating that building blocks of life can be produced from mixture of water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen. Electrical discharges (such as lightning) pass through the mixture, sealed off from the atmosphere, that yield a number of more complicated organic substances such as aldehydes, carboxylic cids and basic components of protein: amino acids.
- Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, Introduction by Richard E. Leakey.
The Big Bang Theory tries to give an explanation for creation, Evolution does not, and Abiogenesis gives theory for origin of life, which is different from Evolutionary Theory and is not an explanation for creation either, but origin of life.
The link below mentions the distinction between Evolution and Abiogenesis
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_abio.htm
If someone was to believe in Evolution and in Creationism, they would not hold a contradiction as they are not theories of the same thing, Evolution does not care how life was created, it begins with premise that life exists and goes on to say how it evolved.
Creationism gives an explanation of creation that rests with the fact that something was created out of nothing - how ridiculous.
Just to make this clear.
Theory - Of what?
Big Bang - Creation of Existence
Abiogenesis - Creation of Life
Evolution - Evolution of Life
These theories do not depend upon each other, Evolution starts with life not needing or wanting an explanation for how it was created, I think Abiogenesis starts with matter not needing or wanting an explanation of how it was created, Big Bang theory starts with nothing and and believes existence is created from nothing.
Objectivism says only this, existence exists, and dismisses Big Bang Theory as absurd, there is no official view of abiogenesis or evolution in Objectivism as these are scientific matters and not a metaphysical matters as is Big Bang Theory.
Only the Big Bang Theory deals with existence and tries to explain creation of it from non-existence, essentially it’s the same as Creationism in the fact that both believe in existence arising from non-existence.
From what you have posted, here is the situation as I see it:
Creation of Universe
Either something was created out of nothing (the explanation being that God created it), or think that the universe has always been here for an infinite amount of time.
Abiogenesis
Either God created life, or large amounts of time and chance sparked the first life form.
Evolution
Things evolve by mutation and natural selection weeding out the bad mutations. So in large amounts of time, helpful mutations will have by chance occured, and will propagate.
In each case we are talking about the same thing. Created things (either the universe, the first life form, or a helpful mutation) are either caused by large amounts of time and chance or by God.
You say that causality means that things do not happen by chance. If I roll a dice and it is a six, then this was caused by laws of physics and is a result of cause and effect, yet the event of a six being rolled was still a one in six chance.
You say that the chance of any two molecules forming into life is very very small but given enough time it will happen. You seem to be saying that given enough time anything and everything will happen. Even an event with the lowest probability of happening will happen eventually given enough time.
So is this a clear representation of what you and I believe?
PS Please be patient if I have completely misunderstood what you have been saying.
PPS I think I may have been using the word random in previous posts when I should have used the word chance. (Hopefully that will help in understanding what I have been saying.)
Childofgod: I suggest you do some reading about what evolution really is. Try the book referenced earlier, or any introductory college biology textbook. Don’t bother with creationist material like that website you quoted; they are full of distortions and misrepresentations of evolution.
Only the Big Bang Theory deals with existence and tries to explain creation of it from non-existence, essentially it’s the same as Creationism in the fact that both believe in existence arising from non-existence.
Not exactly; that’s only one version. Another version says just that we cannot know what happened before the big bang because there is no way to get observations from that time. That should not pose a problem for Objectivism.