Evolution; is it considered as a proven fact?

[metal68]

Or is it just science's best attempt to explain why we are here??

I can't believe the genesis story as literal truth but does evolution provide all the answers. Just been reading The Secret History Of The World by Johnathan Black who describes Genesis in a totally different perspective, that days were not what we call days, that Adam & Eve were a form of vegetable matter that reproduced asexually, that there were several gods involved in the creation and that mind came before matter! It's crazy but apparently these beliefs have been suppressed by the church as much as science. He says that there was a time when the material world was not as solid as today and gods & monsters were a part of early man's every day lives.It sounds insane really!

I guess I'm asking are there genuine holes in the evolution angle as presented by Darwin??

[Howla Dark]

I believe some of Darwin's theories such as survival of the fittest and how some types of animals evolved to grow bigger or smaller. I'm sceptical about different species evolving into another new species, such as mammales from lizards. I really don't know the truth of it, or how. I guess that there's more to discover. It's likely that some animals just spring up from the ground formed from the earth.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by metal68

Or is it just science's best attempt to explain why we are here??

It is an explanation of how lifeforms transform in conjunction with their changing environments.

I can't believe the genesis story as literal truth but does evolution provide all the answers.

Crareationism is a mythical parable. Evolution explains many things, but not everything.

Just been reading The Secret History Of The World by Johnathan Black who describes Genesis in a totally different perspective, that days were not what we call days, that Adam & Eve were a form of vegetable matter that reproduced asexually, that there were several gods involved in the creation and that mind came before matter! It's crazy but apparently these beliefs have been suppressed by the church as much as science. He says that there was a time when the material world was not as solid as today and gods & monsters were a part of early man's every day lives.It sounds insane really!

Well, people say all sorts of things.

I guess I'm asking are there genuine holes in the evolution angle as presented by Darwin??

Darwin basically compiled data, but didn't really form and conclusions. "survival of the fittest" was coined by philosopher, Hurbert Spencer; not Darwin. Darwin explained that 'natural selection' meant that variations in a species means that some individuals were better equipped to survive than others, and thus more likely to breed. Their offspring would inherit those favorable traits. Over thousands of generations, the passing on of these favourable traits would produce quite a lot of change, and also diversity of species. There is no doubt that this is the case, it does happen just as described, however, that doesn't mean it explains everything.

I have talked about this to some degree with people in the past.

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by "empirical data"* (*otherwise know as facts!). People within the scientific community will NOT all agree with what I say - some scientists will call evolution a fact (which I consider irrational... but we all have differing views, right?).

Evolution itself cannot be a fact - it is too complicated. It is more a collection of varying perspectives that are collectively referred to as evolution. I personally would suggest that a sensible scientist will not call it a "fact" even though it is considered "factual" in nature. The reason why I say this is because I can see that you cannot unequivocally prove it to be true - evidence is used to support it!

If you look at the dictionary definition of "fact" you will find that the empirical data itself is what is referred to as the "facts". Those (so called) facts are used to corroborate the theory (it is not possible to personally see them all so it also involves trust/ faith (did I just swear?)). Biological scientists (or any scientists for that matter) will suggest that evolution is a theory that is well supported by empirical data. You can call it factual but it would be semantically incorrect to call it a fact.

I also concur that it does not really explain why - it is simply an observation that is given a name. Look no further than "scientism" (of which I am opposed to) for the people who think that it explains why things exist. Just observing and naming something does not explain the why - but it can lead people to think that they know (scientism).

[metal68]

What do you make of the ideas that DNA came to earth from space and seeded it for life. Ive read that DNA has similiar coding to human language, implies design and intelligence and may be the physical embodiment of this universal consciousness as we seem to hear much of now??

Originally Posted by metal68

What do you make of the ideas that DNA came to earth from space and seeded it for life. Ive read that DNA has similiar coding to human language, implies design and intelligence and may be the physical embodiment of this universal consciousness as we seem to hear much of now??

This would highly depend on who you are asking. This is the science and spirituality forum so there are 2 or possibly 3 types of response (the third being from the philosophically idealistic scientist). I am only speculating so this is only my point of view based on experience.

The scientist:

If you are asking from a scientific point of view then you would get a unanimous response: they would say it is nonsense. I scientist would require some form of practical evidence (or rather a test) for it to be considered a hypothesis in the first place. If you look at wiki it is actually said in the first few sentences (wiki is not always the best source of accurate info but is usually useful). I doubt many scientists would take time to research it. You will also almost certainly hear mention of Occam's razor.

Just because it is proper science does not make it "correct" though. It is subjective and circular to say that "because it is scientific it must be correct".

The spiritual person:

I would guess that they would suggest that you are being overly imaginative - they would maybe suggest that you meditate to understand the nature of existence. On the other hand it could be suggested that in an existence of infinite possibility, the only thing required for it to become or to be true would be for it to be believed. Maybe if you change your state of consciousness then you change your reality.

Sometimes I do not know what to believe any more. I am at a bit of a junction. Do YOU honestly consider it to be a possibility?

[Keri Ford]

Originally Posted by metal68

Or is it just science's best attempt to explain why we are here??

I can't believe the genesis story as literal truth but does evolution provide all the answers. Just been reading The Secret History Of The World by Johnathan Black who describes Genesis in a totally different perspective...

I guess I'm asking are there genuine holes in the evolution angle as presented by Darwin??

Modern evolution theory is Neo Darwinism, I'm not fully conversant with it, but it is materialistic and believes that life evolved over an extended period of time through random mutation and Natural selection or survival of the fittest.

Is it fact? No, it is a theory, but it is very strongly believed by people many many think it absolutely true. I think it is extremely likely the findings that show various species developing over very different time frames, but random mutation seems to me be pretty unlikely, I prefer Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance or collective memory. Actually I tend to like the group soul idea, maybe Sheldrake isn't far from it. The trouble with any materialist paradigm like Neo Darwinism is that in them Mind, with it's unitary consciousness, logical thought structures, volition (or intention) shouldn't really emerge from a random mindless universe and yet these things are the things that we actually have the most direct experience of and can be surer of than the idea of mindless matter.

As for a literal reading of the Bible, I think that's pretty much a modern tendency and to me has a lot in common with materialism.

[LadyMay]

I don't think evolution is completely correct. I don't know what actually happened but logically it doesn't fit and it doesn't feel intuitively correct either.

I grew up being taught creationism from christian parents, that doesn't make much sense either.

The closest I got is that most of earth life is seeded from other ET races in the first place.

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by Cheesus Toast

I also concur that it does not really explain why - it is simply an observation that is given a name. Look no further than "scientism" (of which I am opposed to) for the people who think that it explains why things exist. Just observing and naming something does not explain the why - but it can lead people to think that they know (scientism).

I like what Stan (or Kyle, possibly) said in South Park - 'evolution explains the how but not the why.' Many religious people seem to be hostile to the notion of evolution, because they believe it flies in the face of their beliefs, but I don't think God (I prefer the term 'universal intelligence') and evolution are mutually exclusive notions - for me, evolution is universal intelligence in action, if that makes sense.

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by ScarlettHayden

I don't think evolution is completely correct. I don't know what actually happened but logically it doesn't fit and it doesn't feel intuitively correct either.

I grew up being taught creationism from christian parents, that doesn't make much sense either.

The closest I got is that most of earth life is seeded from other ET races in the first place.

I'm a believer in evolutionary theory, though I'm by no means an expert on the subject; could you elaborate on why you think it logically doesn't fit?