Evolution and atheism (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 19, 2013, 20:04 (4296 days ago) @ George Jelliss

GEORGE: Have you been following 'Wonders of Life' by Brian Cox? He takes a physicist's look at the mechanisms of origin of life. It doesn't take 'faith in chance' to understand how molecules could form selfreplicating systems given sources of energy such as at the undersea vents. -I don't understand why sources of energy should enable molecules to form selfreplicating systems, let alone systems capable of adapting and innovating. If it's that simple, how come our scientists still can't fathom it out? Brian Cox is an atheist, and it suits him to oversimplify.
 
GEORGE: Even theists have to believe in chance, it is just basic mathematics.-What theists have to believe in is a self-aware, self-made, eternal, infinite being that creates universes and bacteria, keeps itself hidden, and provides no direct evidence for its existence. I'd have thought that was enough to justify scepticism! What are you referring to as basic mathematics? The origin of life? Then why can't mathematicians figure it out?-GEORGE: Not quite on the same topic, but here is a piece about the Cambrian Explosion:-http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/18/weird-youth-animal-kingdom/-that I thought might be of interest.-It is indeed. Thank you, George. -QUOTE: "The so-called Cambrian Explosion probably had many fuses. Erwin and Valentine explain how the Earth was undergoing drastic changes in the millions of years leading up to the flowering of the animal kingdom, with global ice ages and a burst of oxygen flooding the oceans. The stage was set for big, active creatures to evolve. [...] As the environment changed, new kinds of animals evolved that could occupy new niches. The animal kingdom became both physically and ecologically complex.
But the diversity of the Cambrian had another source: the DNA of the animals themselves. Animals evolved genetic programs for turning a single egg into a complex body. These programs turned out to be supremely evolvable...with relatively minor mutations, they could give rise to new forms."-Drastic changes in the environment, accompanied by drastic changes in the animal kingdom and changes in the DNA that gave rise to new forms. How and why? Yet again, a prime example of what we have been calling the "intelligent cell/genome" at work ... the new environment not only demanded adaptation (microevolution) but also offered opportunities for innovation (macroevolution). Forget random mutations and forget gradualism, and it becomes clear how evolution works. What remains is the mystery of how the intelligence got into the genome in the first place. Our panentheist David thinks he knows the answer. So, presumably, does the atheist Brian Cox.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum