Most people who have read about evolution probably know about the work of Chardin and his evolutionary views (he believed evolution was directed) do you think his ideas have any merit today?
Yes. Unlike the atheist scientists who are preoccupied with bashing the beliefs of believers, I will always leave the light on for the Creator. God is welcome in my home, in my life and in my heart.
To this day, many scientists research if strain can lead to an increase in mutations. However, the biggest problem one faces when contemplating the effect of strain on evolution is the massive time scales involved before changes occur and the extensive list of extinctions. It seems far more probable that some species happened to get the right mutation in time, in the few cases where it appears as though strain on a species resulted in changes in its genes. The short answer is "no." I know nothing about the guy you asked about, though.
That's really disrespectful and a lie. Wonder what God thinks of liars? When he comes to your house you can show him your BS degrees in physics and electrical engineering.
When I get around to it, Ill explain to you how there exists a backdoor into the physical universe. This back door can be used by God, and other powers, to create life, and influence the progression of evolution. But I have to go weed whack my yard now.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If evolution is directed by some entity, then one thing can be truly said, that entity is a very bad director. Usually an arguer for intelligent design uses examples that give a good light upon their idea of some greater power orchestrating the path of evolution, but they conveniently ignore examples that would get any designer fired on the spot for incompetence, but are completely understandable from natural causes.
Most atheist scientists couldn't care less about the beliefs of believers. The best minds in science are NOT on this board I assure you. They simply don't have time to debate silly nonsense. They got experiments to worry about.
What you said was a despicable lie about scientists and atheists. If you can't proof your claims the moderators should take this opportunity for putting a cork in your disrespectful, lying nonsense.
You are dodging my question. How am I lying about atheists? Atheists do bash the beliefs of the faithful. By the way, I have a BS in physics from Worcester Polytechnic Institute and a BS in Electronics Engineering Technology from DeVry University in Federal Way, Washington.
Chardin would not likely come up in any modern reading on evolution, which deals largely with principles and discoveries that he never contributed to. He was a Jesuit and a theoretical naturalist with little or no actual practical experience. He was grappling with his Catholic application of Aristotle's Prime Mover teleology as confronted by emerging protohuman fossil evidence such as Piltdown Man. He was not investigating the biological evidence for evolution per se but broader issues of a more philosophical nature such as the origins of consciousness. Any reading of Chardin is best done in the context of how religion trespasses against science. The Church banned him much like they did Galileo, only hundreds of years later, when they should have already learned from their past mistakes. His provides a good case for why religion is not a proper venue for evaluating the scientific accuracy of evolutionary science. Evolution is not directed any more than a rock falling off a cliff is directed downward. The forces of nature are real, tangible and measurable. There is no need for supernatural causes to complete them. They complete themselves...through human investigation and the discoveries that reveal their hidden worlds. Does "leaving the light on" include burying the sum of human knowledge under a rock? Anti-knowledge is sufficiently self-inflicted that it requires little bashing. It collapses under its own fallacy. The problem with the beliefs you are referring to is that they have invaded the classroom and done considerable damage to the public psyche. They pretend to be moral in principle or divinely inspired but in practice are as dishonest as their Judas and as deceptive as their mythical devil.
The modern synthesis is seen incomplete by most scientists, now I am not saying they are searching for metaphysical mechanisms as a replacement at all, but some researchers such as James A. Shapiro seem to be saying perhaps teleology might have a place in evolution.
Hey, I ain't afraid to answer it: Fundies. "They" are fundies that demand that so-called "alternative" education be taught, such as that the Earth is 6,000 years old. A.K.A. Young Earth Creationists. A.K.A. Nutjobs that wish to promote ignorance. Yeah, I said it.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mazuli, Aqueous Id is no fan of Christianity and he seems to bring it into most of his posts, he seems to supporting some kind of conspiracy theory that Christians are wanting to control science and replace it with metaphysics. I would point out that yes even though Chardin might of been a Catholic he produced some sound arguements, for example his concept of noosphere is fascinating but lots of what he said was scientific about the fossil record etc. Most Christians dismiss Chardin as being "non-Christian" and a "pantheist". I am a pantheist so I have been reading his works recently.
Well I an not a fundie. I could be described as a theosophist, but there are so many definitions that shift and change like sand in the wind, that I couldn't precisely define my spiritual nature. I'm not even sure I like wikipedia's description of it. But I do believe in comparative religion; that we should find the truth that works for us in our lives.
Yes, this is a "Conspiracy," alright... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/24/usa.schools http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-207079/Evolution-banned-US-schools.html Guess the Illuminati did a poor job with the cover-up, huh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No, from what I read last night, he did not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere Yes, quite scientific and rational. Must be an anti-conspiracy. How about just finding the truth- period. Not finding the "truth" you want.