Is Darwinism enough to understand human origin?

[blazeofglory]

I oftentimes really feel beguiled by the scientism of Darwinism, and his inventiveness that man originated from apes. There are so many proofs to back up this notion, and his ceaseless search into this idea through a long trip in the ocean study subscribe to this idea. And a few arguments or antitheses or contrarieties raised by ensued scientists, most approve of his ideas unobjectionably in point of fact.

But man’s origin and the philosophy behind it is too complex for us to be content with Darwinism. Man is really a mysterious creature notwithstanding biological findings or the anatomical dissection of the human corpus. Man is a thinking animal and he has ideas of God, heaven, afterlives, religions. And what is truth is relative and we cannot agree with Darwinism to completely disagree with the divine nature of man or that man’ origin has to do with consciousness, something divinity or mysticism.

One thing I am dead sure of is what progresses we make scientifically or what proofs or findings we can come up thru scientific searches we will never cease to think man’ s origin or existence in terms of mysticism in truth.

This universe is to be reckonable thru scientific methods to tell the truth, and man’s existence is too much paltry and our endeavors to understand pettily or using small measurable things are of no consequence considering the expansiveness or vastness of this universe.

While I believe scientists have answers of many questions but with regard to the origin of man or the idea of Darwin that we are simply descendents of apes is not palatable to me.

[Zee.]

You think too much.

[MarkBastable]

Man is really a mysterious creature

Oh no he's not.

Man is a thinking animal and he has ideas of God, heaven, afterlives, religions.

I think we can turn here to archy the cockroach, as given voice by Don Marquis.

as i was crawling
through the holes in
a swiss cheese
the other
day it occurred to
me to wonder
what a swiss cheese
would think if
a swiss cheese
could think and after
cogitating for some
time i said to myself
if a swiss cheese
could think
it would think that
a swiss cheese
was the most important
thing in the world
just as everything that
can think at all
does think about itself

[andave_ya]

No it isn't.

[Mr Endon]

Man is really a mysterious creature

Oh no he's not.

I second that. The fish is the most baffling creature to have ever existed.

This is a film about a man and a fish.
This is a film about dramatic relationship between man and fish.
The man stands between life and death.
The man thinks.
The horse thinks.
The sheep thinks.
The cow thinks.
The dog thinks.
The fish doesn't think.
The fish is mute, expressionless.
The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
The fish knows everything

(Hope this doesn't upset the almighty Serious Cat.)

[Virgil]

I oftentimes really feel beguiled by the scientism of Darwinism, and his inventiveness that man originated from apes. There are so many proofs to back up this notion, and his ceaseless search into this idea through a long trip in the ocean study subscribe to this idea. And a few arguments or antitheses or contrarieties raised by ensued scientists, most approve of his ideas unobjectionably in point of fact.

But man’s origin and the philosophy behind it is too complex for us to be content with Darwinism. Man is really a mysterious creature notwithstanding biological findings or the anatomical dissection of the human corpus. Man is a thinking animal and he has ideas of God, heaven, afterlives, religions. And what is truth is relative and we cannot agree with Darwinism to completely disagree with the divine nature of man or that man’ origin has to do with consciousness, something divinity or mysticism.

One thing I am dead sure of is what progresses we make scientifically or what proofs or findings we can come up thru scientific searches we will never cease to think man’ s origin or existence in terms of mysticism in truth.

This universe is to be reckonable thru scientific methods to tell the truth, and man’s existence is too much paltry and our endeavors to understand pettily or using small measurable things are of no consequence considering the expansiveness or vastness of this universe.

While I believe scientists have answers of many questions but with regard to the origin of man or the idea of Darwin that we are simply descendents of apes is not palatable to me.

Darwinism is not wrong but it's not complete. If you want to expand your understanding on the subject and ponder the possibility of God working through evolution, read Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer.

http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell...6296290&sr=8-1

Here is an Amazon reviewer:

By Darwin Researcher (London)

This book contains a goldmine of information in 612 pages and almost 100 pages of notes and references. Meyer, who did his PhD in the origin of life area at Cambridge University, effectively deals with many of the critiques of Intelligent Design in a very readable but convincing way. The many diagrams included are very helpful in communicating to laypersons the complex ideas involved in the origins controversy. Meyer covers the many failed attempts to produce life in the laboratory, including the Miller-Urey experiment, and shows that the design of life leads to one conclusion, intelligence. He also covers the question "is ID science" showing that the word science is now used to distort the debate, not by proving ID erroneous, but by excluding it from the discussion. My favorite definition of science is "science is what scientists do" but the historical definition "the search for, and synthesis of, empirical knowledge" is more specific. As to predictability, Meyer also gives several examples where ID had made predictions that turned out to be correct. No doubt some of the material in this book was from Meyer's Cambridge PhD thesis rewritten in first person and in laymen's terms for this book. The opponents of ID will, no doubt, attempt to respond to this trail brazing work and all I can say is I wish them luck as they will need it.

[hampusforev]

I hope you're not serious Virgil. Do you know what kind of scumbags Discovery Institute (which Stephen Meyer is a part of) are? I would expect no less of that book, but hey, each to their own. It just disappointed me that someone who on the surface doesn't appear like the complete nutjob you have to be to accept Intelligence design, would recommend a book which such a blatant religious agenda.

[NikolaiI]

Why is it not palatable, Blaze?

[blazeofglory]

Why is it not palatable, Blaze?

I simply cannot reason it. Man is so complex a creature and defining man in terms Darwinism or evolutionary theory seems to me A very incomplete understanding of man. I have yet to discover for myself what truth is in point of fact, but the truth of man's origin linked up with what Darwin theorized and his followers backed is too narrow a subject.

Man is really a mystery. Science is nowhere close to understanding the real nature of man. Spirituality is something I take to but I cannot see it convincing.
Yet I am more into spirituality than into science in so far as the understanding of man is concerned.

Nikolai, honestly speaking I cannot say exactly why it is not palatable to me.

[Dark Lady]

How strange. I have no problem with accepting the Theory of Evoloution through Natural Selection. If you read up about it I think it is perfectly logical and almost seems obvious once you understand it.

I do find many things hard to understand. Most other theories of man's existance and origin seems so very very far-fetched to me that I honestly struggle with the idea that people believe them. This is not meant as any kind of attack. I know there are people out there who struggle with the idea that people believe what I believe.

[JBI]

Personally, I cannot understand why so many people bother trying to figure out the exact origin of the species - the only thing that really matters in life is that you form lasting relationships in your life with those around you - everything else is just commentary.

[TheFifthElement]

While I believe scientists have answers of many questions but with regard to the origin of man or the idea of Darwin that we are simply descendents of apes is not palatable to me.

Maybe you're just not thinking about it the right way blaze? Maybe you're thinking that the theory of evolution means that man is the same as the apes you see in the zoo, but that's not entirely the case. Of course there is always the possibility that you think apes are lesser creatures than man, as was thought in the Victorian era when evolution was first proposed, but that in itself is more indicitive of the arrogance of man than the status of the ape. Which is implied in your comment here:

Man is so complex a creature

How do you know apes are not equally complex? How much can we really say we know about our fellow creatures? All we can say is what we perceive, but perceiving a human being from the outside does not give you an insight into the inner workings of their 'soul'.

Think about it this way. Here you have a number of objects.

A table:


some paper:


a work of art:


these things are not the same things. You would not say that a table is paper, or the work of art a table. But all these things have a common ancestor, being a tree:



but again, you would not say that the paper is the same thing as a tree, or the table or the work of art.

This is the same as evolution. Humans are humans, apes are apes. The theory of evolution postulates that we share a common ancestry and classifies humans as part of the Hominid genera but we are no more the same than modern humans would be compared to Homo habilis, an early ancestor of man.

Going back to our paper, table, artwork and tree. Would you say that the paper or the table is more important or complex or more valuable? Is the artwork worthless? You would probably say it depends on your perspective. So it is with human and ape. By saying humans are complex and therefore cannot be 'explained' by the theory of evolution by definition devalues the ape. And it seems that your query or discomfort with evolution arises because it does not address the question of consciousness, but neither does it seek to. Consciousness is a question for neuroscientists and philosophers. Evolutionary theory does not enter into this in the same way that knowing that paper comes from a tree doesn't tell you what paper is. It only tells you part of the story.

Maybe you feel that the theory of evolution precludes God, if you believe in God? That is something you would have to reconcile in your own mind but, to my mind, one does not preclude the other. Breaking evolution down there are aspects of it which are apparent and easily evidenced, such as the anatomical similarities between horse and zebra, for example, and there are other parts which are more speculative and which are, currently, beyond proof. If, however, one day scientists create a biological life form in the lab then the more speculative aspects will become proven, I guess. Of course, if you accept the theory of evolution this does call into question the validity of some religious writings, such as the bible. Again, how you feel about this may depend on whether you see such writings as the literal truth or as a parable. If you see religious writings as a parable then the two theories, a creationist God and evolution, can exist together; if you see the religious writings as the literal truth then I guess you would not, and you would have to decide which theory made most sense to you. Of course in order to do that you would have to study both with equal depth, commitment and open-mindedness which many people are simply not willing to do.

JBI:

Personally, I cannot understand why so many people bother trying to figure out the exact origin of the species - the only thing that really matters in life is that you form lasting relationships in your life with those around you - everything else is just commentary.

I completely agree. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in trying to figure out the whys that we forget about being here and before you know it life is over and its gone and been wasted. Whether we're here because of God or because our ancestors crawled out of the primordial soup we are here and its amazing. Nuff said

[The Atheist]

I completely agree. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in trying to figure out the whys that we forget about being here and before you know it life is over and its gone and been wasted. Whether we're here because of God or because our ancestors crawled out of the primordial soup we are here and its amazing. Nuff said

Yep, and it's been said many, many times.

I always think Douglas Adams got it right. There's enough without the fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Are the theists missing out on the garden for the fairies? Often seems that way to me.

[1n50mn14]

Fifth, I completely agree with your post, particularly the paper-tree analogy. It makes so much sense.

I see NO reason to disagree with Darwinism. I like... proof... of things. Evolution is prove-able, and while I'm a spiritual person, I am not religious, and can not accept that everything was miraculously 'created'. I've got two options to go with. Evolution makes the most sense. It seems logical, palatable, and completely undeniable to ME, personally. Buuuut. To each their own...