I believe we are the product of evolution, I think it rediculous to doubt science in this matter.
But what will the evolution of energy and matter finally end up as????
Abbadon brought up an essay about, "Teilhard de Chardin and the Noosphere", and posted it in another thread,, it is very interesting here the link for the essay:
Teilhard de Chardin and the Noosphere
by Rev. Phillip J. Cunningham, C.S.P.
Link:www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/mar/cunning.html
After reading that article I did a search and found this and I thought I would post it, here's a snipet(cut and paste and link) that is about this Jesuit and his theories:
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955): Jesuit priest, geologist, paleontologist, WW II stretcher-bearer, teacher, and philosopher, ordained in 1911, later exiled to China by church authorities who disapproved of his evolutionary leanings and unorthodox thought. His major work, The Phenomenon of Man, finished in 1940, wasn't published until after his death. His highly intuitive writings portrayed evolution as unfinished, erased the theoretically sharp line between living and nonliving matter, and sought to synthesize religion, philosophy and science, recognizing that each needs the other for them to remain fruitful. His concept of the noosphere anticipated the global supersymbolic network-layer that flourishes today.
My comments appear in italics.Like the meridians as they approach the poles, science, philosophy, and religion are bound to converge as they draw nearer to the whole.
Union increases only through an increase in consciousness, that is to say in vision. And that, doubtless, is why the history of the living world can be summarised as the elaboration of ever more perfect eyes within a cosmos in which there is always something more to be seen.
Man, the centre of perspective, is at the same time the centre of construction of the universe. And by expediency no less than by necessity, all science must be referred back to him. If to see is really to become more, if vision is really fuller being, then we should look closely at man in order to increase our capacity to live
Kant--and, more recently, many psychologists--would agree that to some degree anyway we construct the world we perceive.
To push anything back into the past is equivalent to reducing it to its simplest elements.
All around us, as far as the eye can see, the universe holds together, and only one way of considering it is really possible, that is , to take it as a whole, in one piece.
First we have a vague circle of electrons and other inferior units; then a better-defined circle of simple bodies in which the elements are distributed as periodic functions of the atom of hydrogen; farther on another circle, of inexhaustible molecular combinations; and lastly, jumping or recoiling from the infinitesimal to the infinite, a circle of stars and galaxies. These multiple zones of the cosmos envelop without imitating each other in such a way that we cannot pass from one to another by a simple change of coefficients. Here is no repetition of the same theme on a different scale. The order and the design do not appear except in the whole. The mesh of the universe is the universe itself.
It is impossible to deny that, deep within ourselves, an "interior" appears at the heart of beings, as it were seen through a rent. This is enough to ensure that, in one degree or another, this "interior" should obtrude itself as existing everywhere in nature from all time. Since the stuff of the universe has an inner aspect at one point of itself, there is necessarily a double aspect to its structure, that is to say in every region of space and time--in the same way, for instance, as it is granular: co-extensive with their Without, there is a Within to things.
We know that every living being perceives subjectively, from within its own skin, but Teilhard de Chardin pushes this further: the "withinness" is a quality of reality itself with a complexity that parallels the perceiver's: the better the brain, the richer the withinness.
In a coherent perspective of the world: life inevitably assumes a "pre-life" for as far back before it as the eye can see...Spiritual perfection (or conscious "centreity") and material synthesis (or complexity) are but the two aspects or connected parts of one and the same phenomenon.
Without the slightest doubt there is something through which material and spiritual energy hold together and are complementary. In last analysis, somehow or other, there must be a single energy operating in the world.
This recalls the alchemical Third Thing and Jung's (and Gerhard Dorn's) unus mundus, the psychoid layer at the back of reality. On one "side" it expresses itself as inwardness, thought, consciousness; on the other, as matter, motion, quantum operations. Jung and physicist Wolfgang Pauli speculated that the subatomic world and the "collective unconscious," meaning the ultimate substructure of the mind, might be roughly synonymous. Teilhard de Chardin also spoke of radial (inner) and tangential (outer) energy; the two types interacted upon one another, though just how he couldn't say, but he believed they shared a common source.
Thus, wherever we look on earth, the growth of the "within" only takes place thanks to a double related involution, the coiling up of the molecule upon itself and the coiling up of the planet upon itself.
No concentration of matter, no development of it into more complex forms.
For a long time we have known how impossible it is to draw a clear line between animal and plant on the unicellular level. Nor can we draw one (as we shall see later) between "living" protoplasm and "dead" proteins on the level of the very big molecular accumulations. We still use the word "dead" for these latter unclassified substances, but have we not already come to the conclusion that they would be incomprehensible if they did not possess already, deep down in themselves, some sort of rudimentary psyche?
If life is an emergent property of physically composed systems, then life isn't in the "stuff" of matter itself (or in some higher world) but in the relations of its components, just as the wetness of water isn't in hydrogen or oxygen particles but in how they join.
In every domain, when anything exceeds a certain measurement, it suddenly changes its aspect, condition, or nature. The curve doubles back, the surface contracts to a point, the solid disintegrates, the liquid boils, the germ cell divides, intuition suddenly bursts on the piled up facts...
However tenuous it was, the first veil of organized matter spread over the earth could neither have established nor maintained itself without some network of influences and exchanges which made it a biologically cohesive whole. From its origin, the cell nebula necessarily represented, despite its internal multiplicity, a sort of diffuse super-organism. Not merely a foam of lives but, to a certain extent, itself a living film. http://www.tearsofllorona.com/chardin.html
