Seasons

But the only things that make lions and tigers both cats are similarities we observe and the fact that we draw the line somewhere and call it "felis". Lions and bears are also in a same classification, just not genus. Bears share a great many things in common with lions, nearly as many as tigers do.

I would understand if you believed that idea of creation as a religious tenet (i.e. on faith) but not if you said it had more explanatory power than the theories of evolution.

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Seriously though, I think I've mentioned before that some scientists these days take a kind of middle ground stance. On the one hand they don't dismiss evolution, on the other they suggest that it must in some way be guided to produce the kinds of results it does. Whether by God or something else, it's hard to see how an animal can get from having one skin cell which is sensitive to light evolve that into an eye unless someone had the notion that the end result would be useful, because the beginning cell would not have been.

Right, but once you introduce the concept of an omnipotent God, evolution is no longer necessary. It might still be true of course, but God could just as easily have done things in a different way. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence for evolution, and I do believe that God has revealed His actual method.

In answer to Mr. Crab, on a biological level evolution, if true, would have sufficient explanatory power. It fails when you come to questions of morality, consciousness, and so forth.

In a related but separate question, I have yet to hear a non-theistic system with a sound philosophy of ultimate origins.

That may be because "ultimate origins" is a fallacy. Without faith, the notion of an omnipotent God does no better a job of explaining ultimate origins (where did God come from?).

I understand your perspective, but it does nothing for my understanding of the universe, since it has no explanatory power unless you accept the premise of an omnipotent God on faith. If I were prepared to accept an explanation for things that happen in the world entirely on faith, though, then I'd have no need of an omnipotent God -- I could, on faith, just as well accept the notion that the world and turns of events in it are actually generated by my own subconscious mind.

But I don't imagine you disagree with me about all that. What's interesting to me is, are you saying you think any theory explaining life or the emergence of our species biologically must also explain the emergence of morality?

To a certain extent, morality and consciousness are explained by evolution. Consciousness is a little harder because we have a hard time understanding just what it is. But the bases of morality are surely to be found in those societal behaviors that lent themselves to tribal survival -- which explains the various moral systems in evidence around the world, both their commonalities and interesting localities. As for consciousness, without getting into just what consciousness is, we at least have some evolutionary clues as to why we have such enlarged cerebral cortexes (enabling higher-brain function) and a limbic system (enabling emotions).

Am I missing your point?

There is an ultimate being-ness, the beginning and end of all, at the sime time changeless and the source of all change. It flows out from an unchanging moment into a nearly unchanging moment, and so on into the vast reality of form you see around you. It is completely-self giving, for giving of itself does not take away from itself. Its center is in every point in space, every moment in time. You are as close to it as you could possibly be. Without it, you could not be. It is the sustainer of all that is. It flows out into time and space. It is light, love, the superstring, god. It is nothing, and at the same time it is everything.

To understand evolution, you must not trace time backwards, but inwards. The guiding hand is that singularity, for it is self aware of all that it is, everywhere, everywhen, and it flows out into the many forms, it does so with that knowledge, with the knowledge of what it needs to be, how it needs to work, and when it needs to come into being.

Professor...That is the most poetic description of pantheism I've ever seen. I'm impressed, even if I disagree.

Crab...Point taken; something has to be eternal. But matter is not a very good candidate.
"I understand your perspective, but it does nothing for my understanding of the universe, since it has no explanatory power unless you accept the premise of an omnipotent God on faith. If I were prepared to accept an explanation for things that happen in the world entirely on faith, though, then I'd have no need of an omnipotent God -- I could, on faith, just as well accept the notion that the world and turns of events in it are actually generated by my own subconscious mind."

Indeed, but you seem to be assuming that faith precludes the possibility of evidence. It does not.
"What's interesting to me is, are you saying you think any theory explaining life or the emergence of our species biologically must also explain the emergence of morality?"

If you deny the supernatural, yes.

Some see time as beads on a string, others as beads in a basket. How about if time is beads of sweat on God's brow and He or She just isn't very good at divinity yet?

I'm listening to Britney Spears!

Eugene... no, faith doesn't preclude the possibility of evidence, it just pre-empts it. If I wanted to take something on faith, I would define a doctrine of evolution and believe in it... then I would certainly find plenty of evidence... but I'd have to reject all evidence that would cause me to refine a scientific theory, because it would be out of keeping with the doctrine I place my faith in. Anyway, if my method were faith, it would be quite silly to even discuss anything that's already spelled out in my doctrine, since I've decided my position is a priori correct, yet can't prove it (unless I can prove it -- but then I've no need of faith...)

As for the other, I do deny the supernatural, but I'm still confused about why morality needs to be explained by biological evolution (not yet getting into whether it *does* or not). Why could it not be something we ourselves are responsible for? Although it has just occured to me we may have different definitions of morality...

Prof, I know you so I know that's more than poetry -- you mean something by each of those phrases. I'm surprised you have such a robust view of this uber-entity as revealed in your second paragraph, on evolution and knowledge -- in that you almost seem to be saying that processes through time are an act of will of this being, rather than only the shape of the being itself.

Also Eugene, I don't think I was saying something has to be eternal at all -- I was saying if you start with the (I say, cognitive fallacy) that something has to be eternal, then you're going to run into the same problems no matter what. As seductive as the notion is, I think we can understand the universe without relying on an ultimate originator.

If you deny the supernatural then everything has to be explained in reductionistic terms.

But how do you get away from eternity? The universe either had a beginning or it didn't.

ok here's my point of view .. The universe is ever-expanding, right? well it had to start somewhere. It hasn't ALWAYS been around.. right?

I don't know how strong the evidence is for the expanding part. But if the universe is a closed system, it must have started at some time, or by the Second Law of Thermodynamics it would have run down to maximum entropy by now.