Yale Scientist abanding Darwin's Evolution

[Phaelyn]

Looks like some modern scientists may support intelligent design, not Darwin's evolution.

Gelernter argues that intelligent design, the notion that life on earth was designed by a higher power, is an “absolutely serious argument.” Gelernter cautions his peers in academia against using anti-religious bigotry to justify their dismissals of the theory of intelligent design.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/...ons-darwinism/

I'm no scientist, but I think basically too many missing links exist to justify evolution. New versions of species just appear a lot, and don't evolve from something else. Sudden major changes in species appear which seems to point to an "intelligent inventor(s)" creating.

[inavalan]

intelligent design = the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
"proponents of intelligent design say that theories other than evolution must be considered"

Intelligent design doesn't imply a God in the theological sense. It just says that humans aren't a result of natural evolution from ape, but an intelligent intervention happened somewhere along the way.

It isn't about a "higher power", but about entities that are intelligent enough to be able to intentionally make such an intervention.

For example: genetically modified ape embryos.

[BigJohn]

Gelernter does not have the background to make such a statement. He claims his Jewish background has no influence on his opinion.
Stephen Meyer’s book "Darwin’s Doubt" seems to be his most important factor in rejecting evolution.

[iamthat]

Does it really matter what scientists think? Why do we look to them as some kind of authority?

At the end of the day they are just people with lots of opinions but no real understanding of the deeper questions of life and death and what it means to be a human being.

Peace.

Originally Posted by iamthat

Does it really matter what scientists think? Why do we look to them as some kind of authority?

At the end of the day they are just people with lots of opinions but no real understanding of the deeper questions of life and death and what it means to be a human being.

Peace.

Seriously?

It's because of scientists that you're able to read this post, it's because of a Scottish engineer that you can keep dry in the rain, you have pneumatic tyres for your car and nice tarmac roads to drive it on, all of it invented by Scottish scientists. Need I say more? And when you're under anaesthetic, say thank you to the guys from Edinburgh University.

And if they are "just people" then........ Then the deeper questions you would be pondering is how to scratch an existence from the wilderness around you and today's Spirituality would still be at the level of hunter-gatherers.

"What I see in you is mine, what you see in me is yours." I guess "deeper" is also relative to one's own agenda.

[Gem]

I understand natural selection and it explains a lot, whereas 'God did it' dunt spaln nuthen

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Seriously?

It's because of scientists that you're able to read this post, it's because of a Scottish engineer that you can keep dry in the rain, you have pneumatic tyres for your car and nice tarmac roads to drive it on, all of it invented by Scottish scientists. Need I say more? And when you're under anaesthetic, say thank you to the guys from Edinburgh University.

And if they are "just people" then........ Then the deeper questions you would be pondering is how to scratch an existence from the wilderness around you and today's Spirituality would still be at the level of hunter-gatherers.

"What I see in you is mine, what you see in me is yours." I guess "deeper" is also relative to one's own agenda.

I agree that science has provided many material benefits, but in terms of the bigger questions of life and death then I would not look to a scientist for his or her opinion.

Peace

Originally Posted by iamthat

I agree that science has provided many material benefits, but in terms of the bigger questions of life and death then I would not look to a scientist for his or her opinion.

Peace

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Einstein


Einstein had an IQ of 160 and many of the great scientists were religious/Spiritual, as many are today, and I can't help but wonder how many Spiritual people embrace science. For all you know there may be a raft of scientific people who are more Spiritual than you are. Carl Jung, the psychologist, had studied Eastern religions and sometimes mentioned them in his works. His model of the self, the ego and the contents of the ego is a translation of Sanskrit Ankhara. Talking of which.... A scientist called Nassim Harramein has come up with a scientific theory that explains the relationship with God, and it makes far more sense than anything I've seen on these boards. There are a few on these boards, I've noticed. Dismissiveness doesn't make wisdom, it only makes more ignorance.

I wouldn't ask a Spiritual person because they have a propensity for providing opinions as contradictory Universal Truths without having first formulated a question that genuinely seeks wisdom. Like the so-called "bigger questions". I'd go to Douglas Adams and the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy. You should read it because it explains all about the answer to Life, the Universe, Everything. You see, for some matter is emergent of consciousness while those that think consciousness is emergent of matter - those that read books and pack their noggins with knowledge - have it backwards. Tolle also agrees, he calls it "object consciousness." "Bigger" is relative to one's own egoic agenda.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Einstein


Einstein had an IQ of 160 and many of the great scientists were religious/Spiritual, as many are today, and I can't help but wonder how many Spiritual people embrace science. For all you know there may be a raft of scientific people who are more Spiritual than you are. Carl Jung, the psychologist, had studied Eastern religions and sometimes mentioned them in his works. His model of the self, the ego and the contents of the ego is a translation of Sanskrit Ankhara. Talking of which.... A scientist called Nassim Harramein has come up with a scientific theory that explains the relationship with God, and it makes far more sense than anything I've seen on these boards. There are a few on these boards, I've noticed.

I try...I really do try my friend...but nobody WANTS to know! They believe that if they close their eyes, it will all just go away...but oh wait...maybe it DOES.

Nassim Haramein is brilliant by the way.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I wouldn't ask a Spiritual person because they have a propensity for providing opinions as contradictory Universal Truths without having first formulated a question that genuinely seeks wisdom.

Talk about a propensity to negatively stereotype 'Spiritual' folks (that is, whoever he decides to hang that label on)! It strikes me that's a button he never gets tired of pushing (for some 'reason' which presently escapes me, undoubtedly!).