11-05-2022, 08:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-05-2022, 08:17 PM by Eric the Green.)
This forum among the fourth turning/generational theory forums does not mention science, and there isn't one about science, but it seems today we can't really talk about religion, spirituality and astrology without comparing it to science and what science says too. To some extent, all four are about the quest for ultimate answers to the basic questions: where did we come from, what or who are we, and where are we going?
This was a good talk about Darwinism by three authors. One of them mentions that Darwinism remains too much of a dogma held on to today as if it were a religion. All three recognize Darwin as seminal in contributing to the history and development of science, especially about that question of where did we come from. But the three of them say that the theory has failed to explain the big picture. It explained small local changes like the size of wings or the color of fur, but how life or species emerge or what consciousness is remains unanswered. The main point is made early in the video, which is called Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. What Darwin didn't know is how complicated the cell is, and how astronomical the chances (1/10 to the 77th power) are of a mutation getting it right in the development of a new form of life. In fact, a mutation is very likely to be fatal. One author compares what science and mathematics seem to say about the Darwinian notion that life evolved from the bottom up through chance arrangements of genes, as being just like monkeys assigned to type randomly for a million years and come up with the works of Shakespeare-- the same illustration that critics of Darwin like me have been saying for decades.
The three authors differ in their overall view of the world, as in how good it is, how important consciousness is, and how much mind is a factor and a useful explanation. The implication seems clear that life has done amazingly better, astronomically better, than one would expect given the chances mentioned here for the changes in life forms to work out well. The portly, bearded author on the right seems to forget this in his pessimistic view, even granting that there's so much that doesn't work out well in the world. And today, my goodness, it's hard to be as optimistic as I was in years past.
This is from the Hoover Institution, and I trust that it's understood that if I critique a scientific theory so dearly held as Darwinism, it is not that I am aligning with Christian nationalists, fundamentalist creationists and other conservatives; still less with other science deniers in this age of covid vaccines, MAGA, climate change, conspiracy theory, etc. I am feeling much more pro-science in my anger with these harmful delusions these days. But my fundamental prejudice and orientation, about which I need to reduce my passion, remains toward an idealistic, spiritual view that recognizes soul, mind, consciousness, and even God-- in a deep and wide sense, and not in the sense of outdated myths and stories.
This was a good talk about Darwinism by three authors. One of them mentions that Darwinism remains too much of a dogma held on to today as if it were a religion. All three recognize Darwin as seminal in contributing to the history and development of science, especially about that question of where did we come from. But the three of them say that the theory has failed to explain the big picture. It explained small local changes like the size of wings or the color of fur, but how life or species emerge or what consciousness is remains unanswered. The main point is made early in the video, which is called Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. What Darwin didn't know is how complicated the cell is, and how astronomical the chances (1/10 to the 77th power) are of a mutation getting it right in the development of a new form of life. In fact, a mutation is very likely to be fatal. One author compares what science and mathematics seem to say about the Darwinian notion that life evolved from the bottom up through chance arrangements of genes, as being just like monkeys assigned to type randomly for a million years and come up with the works of Shakespeare-- the same illustration that critics of Darwin like me have been saying for decades.
The three authors differ in their overall view of the world, as in how good it is, how important consciousness is, and how much mind is a factor and a useful explanation. The implication seems clear that life has done amazingly better, astronomically better, than one would expect given the chances mentioned here for the changes in life forms to work out well. The portly, bearded author on the right seems to forget this in his pessimistic view, even granting that there's so much that doesn't work out well in the world. And today, my goodness, it's hard to be as optimistic as I was in years past.
This is from the Hoover Institution, and I trust that it's understood that if I critique a scientific theory so dearly held as Darwinism, it is not that I am aligning with Christian nationalists, fundamentalist creationists and other conservatives; still less with other science deniers in this age of covid vaccines, MAGA, climate change, conspiracy theory, etc. I am feeling much more pro-science in my anger with these harmful delusions these days. But my fundamental prejudice and orientation, about which I need to reduce my passion, remains toward an idealistic, spiritual view that recognizes soul, mind, consciousness, and even God-- in a deep and wide sense, and not in the sense of outdated myths and stories.