Evolution& the 'Just Is' Universe

by metatron 2 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  metatron

  I've thought about this subject for a long time but have
  avoided discussing it because of its abstract nature and
  the difficulties in explaining it. However, there are always
  a lot of posts on this board arguing about evolution versus
  creation - and it is frustrating to see an aspect of the debate
  that you may be overlooking.

  What "level" of cause are you satisfied with?

  A creationist may encounter a marvel of nature and be satified
  that he has reached the last level of causes - "God did this".
  So, he's happy with this and stops the search for causes thusly.

  An evolutionist keeps looking for causes - random molecules,
  genes, survival of the fittest and so forth. He cannot claim
  to have reached the "bottom" level of causes but he acts within
  the honored tradition of looking for them. This tradition has
  benefited us with a world full of wonders - because of scientific
  inquiry into causes.

  But what if the scientific tradition of investigation into
  causes simply stops - not because we lose interest but rather
  because science hits a "brick wall" that no amount of investiagtion
  can defeat? If you think this is far fetched, you need to consider
  the debate in quantum physics that has raged for several decades.
  Einstein was repelled by the thought that the universe was founded
  on ACAUSAL phenomena - he hated the idea that the quantum world
  was the "BOTTOM" level of reality and that events in it HAD
  NO CAUSE!!( I highly recommend the book Synchronicity, Science
  and Soul-Making by Victor Mansfield - a professor of astronomy
  and physics at Colgate University).

  Thus, we are confronted with the idea that the universe,
  fundamentally, "just is". The constants it depends upon are
  arbitrary in the purest and most literal sense - they "just are".
  (see pg. 31 of above book) because "at the bottom" (quantum
  area) no further cause is locally possible.

  If you're still not satified with looking for causes (many
  scientists aren't - and still hate the "just is" idea)you can:

  Say that our world is just one of many dimensions that cause
  stuff to happen here - or --

  Say that the whole universe is one undivided reality and that
  everything is linked together in some mystical way.

  I can't prove any of these true and neither can anyone else.
  I like the multidimentional theory 'cause I think Plato was
  right but that's just me!

  Are there areas of science where this "brick wall" of causes
  might be hit? I think LIFE might be next! Lemme explain:

  When they first decoded the human genome at Celera, here's
  some headlines (Reuters Feb.11, 2001) "First Look at Human
  Genome Shows How Little There Is" ... "They said their findings
  so far made it clear that far from being a blueprint, the human
  genetic code was only a guidepost". "In fact, what has been said
  about the human genome, that it is the blueprint for humans, it's
  not true. We don't think blueprint is the right metaphor".

  or this quote from Science Frontiers May-June 2001 pg.3 "As we
  learn more and more about the gene complements of our planet's
  multudinous lifeforms, the more it seems that the vaunted genome
  may not incorporate all of the information necessary to construct
  a living organism. Despite, assurances to the contrary, we must
  ask if we really know the whole story."

  I will not be surprized if genetic programming for instinctive
  behavior is never found - and can be often proven NOT to be
  learned by observation of the parent animal, either. (cowbirds?)

  Here's another possible "brick wall" - developing artificial
  intelligence. A good article was printed in Red Herring magazine
  April 15, 2001 pg. 136 called "The Failure of AI" - "After 50
  years of effort, research based on the notion that humans produce
  intelligence using facts and rules has reached a dead end, and there
  is no reason to think that a computer using such rules will ever
  be built." Human intelligence can't be reduced to a set of rules??
  What does this suggest? more of a "just is" universe??

  There's a lot more that could be said - I think we will encounter a
  whole new explanation of reality in the next two decades, based
  on the study of minds and life. Maybe it's all a dream, I don't
  know ....

  or maybe it all "just is".

  metatron ( mysticism can be entertaining)
• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  Metatron,

  Generally, in science, theories are about "how" rather than "why." No one knows why Kepler's laws are what they are, but they do provide a theory of how the solar system operates. The same is true for evolution - scientists are always asking "how" while creationists like to ask "why" and, in the process, they may confuse that with "how." In fact, creationists don't usually even ask "why" they most often assume "why."

  LPH
• 

  Frenchy

  Interesting post, metatron.
  I'm all for scientific investigation. I think that observable facts will take us only so far,hoever. I know that some use that as license to promote fantasies but that notwithstanding, I think it important for us to remember that our objectivity is limited to a greatly by limitations. We would like to think that the imagination is boundless but suppose that it lies withing pre-defined parameters. Suppose our logic is nestled within certain parameters. That would mean that everything outside those parameters would be unattainable for us.

  Another factor is that we are in the soup that we are analyizing. Our very presence here prevents an objective observation and evaluation. We cannot get out of the equation and we really don't know our value so the solution may very well be impossible.

  I wonder what goldfish dream of as they stare out of the aquarium into that living room. For that is their universe. I wonder what's beyond our range of vision, what's outside of the room in which our aquarium sits.