j*******7
发帖数: 6300 | 1 http://www.existence-of-god.com/evolution-origins.html
Atheists often characterise arguments for God’s existence as “God-of-the-
gaps” arguments. By this they mean that God is invoked to explain the
otherwise inexplicable, to bridge the gap between what we can understand
about the world and what we in fact see around us.
As a counter to such arguments, atheists tend to invoke modern science.
Science, they say, can now explain all those things that were previously
taken to support belief in God. We no longer need to invoke God as an
explanation of them; the explanatory gap has been closed.
One example of this concerns the question of our origins. The argument from
design argues that the only adequate explanation of how we got here is that
there is a God that created us. Some forms of the argument support this
suggestion by looking at human biology.
Consider the complexity of the human eye, for example. Some have thought
that the eye is no less clearly a product of intelligent design than a
machine like a watch. Its complex parts work together in harmony to some
purpose; it must, therefore, have been created for that purpose by God.
Atheists often respond to such arguments as this by citing evolution theory.
Evolution theory, they say, can fully explain the appearance of design in
the world around us. There is no longer any need to look to religion for an
answer to the question of our origins. | j*******7
发帖数: 6300 | 2 Evolution Theory
The explanation of the origin of life offered by evolution theory is roughly
this:
Once upon a time, there was no life. By chance, there came to be simple
organisms capable of replicating themselves. Random mutations introduced
variety into the population of these organisms, with the result that some of
them were better able to survive and replicate themselves than others. A
scarcity of the resources necessary for these organisms to survive and
reproduce introduced competition between them. Those least fit for
competition were unable to secure the resources that they needed, and so
died without reproducing.
Those best able to compete multiplied, with random mutations again
introducing further variety. As this process was repeated, the organisms
developed on an upward curve: each round of mutations introduced better
organisms, and each round of competition killed off the weaker organisms. We
are the result of the repetition of this process over millions of years. | j*******7
发帖数: 6300 | 3 Irreducible Complexity
Perhaps the most important Creationist response to this has been to appeal
to irreducible complexity. An organism is irreducibly complex if taking away
some of its parts doesn’t just make it work a little worse, but makes it
not work at all.
An illustration of irreducible complexity is a mouse trap. A mouse trap
consists of several elements: a flat platform, a spring, a trigger, an arm,
and some cheese. A mouse trap with all of these elements will work well. A
mouse trap that lacks any one of these elements, though, won’t just not
work well, it won’t work at all.
If there is no platform to which the other elements can be attached, then
the mouse can grab the cheese from the unassembled mouse trap with impunity.
If there is no spring, then the mouse will set off the trap, but the arm
won’t snap down on it. If there is no trigger, then the mouse can grab the
cheese without setting off the trap. If there is no arm, then it doesn’t
matter that the mouse sets off the trap. If there is no cheese, then the
mouse won’t go anywhere near the trap. To have a mouse trap that functions
at all, then, you need every one of these elements; if you’re missing any
of them then it just won’t work.
Evolution theory holds that we have evolved incrementally over time,
gradually changing from one state that works to another state that works
better. If evolution theory is true, therefore, then there must be a
succession of states, each of which allows us to survive, through which we
have evolved on an upward curve.
This, though, doesn’t seem to be the case; we seem to be irreducibly
complex. To illustrate (actual examples are a bit more complex than this):
think of the organs that make human beings work, our hearts, lungs, stomachs
, brains, etc. A human being that lacks any of these won’t just have less
survival value than one with all of them; it won’t have any survival value
at all. A human being without a heart is a dead human being, as is one
without either lungs, or a stomach, or a brain. We therefore can’t have
incrementally acquired these things, first getting one, then another, and so
on; we must have acquired them all at once. That, though, isn’t evolution.
Evolution is a gradual process.
Evolution, then, cannot explain the origin of irreducibly complex biological
organisms. If (and that's a big "if") we are such organisms, then there
must be more to how we got here than evolution. | j*******7
发帖数: 6300 | 4 Evolution and Consciousness
A second problem for evolution theory is that of explaining the origin of
consciousness. Human beings are not just physical systems; we have rich
mental lives. There is more to this mentality than electrical events in the
brain. For any mental state, there is a physical event (what is going on in
the brain) and a mental event (what that feels like for us). The two are, at
least in principle separable; there’s no logical contradiction in having
one without the other.
The process of natural selection selects organisms for survival based only
on their behaviour, on what they do. An organism that behaves as we behave
but which does not have the attendant mental states that we have will have
just as much survival value as we do. Mentality is not necessary for
behaviour, and nothing more than behaviour is necessary for survival, so
there is no survival value to having mental states.
Evolution theory, though, can only explain the origin of traits that have
survival value. For example, we have two eyes rather than one, according to
evolution theory, because that makes it possible to judge distances more
accurately, increasing our chances of survival. Consciousness, though, does
not increase our chances of survival; we are no more likely to survive than
we would be if physical events in our brain did not give rise to conscious
experiences, if our decisions just happened automatically as in a computer.
Evolution theory, therefore, cannot explain the origin of consciousness. | j*******7
发帖数: 6300 | 5 Evolution and Chance
Let’s set those problems aside for a moment, though, and suppose that
evolution theory can explain how complex biological organisms could arise on
this planet. Does this solve the mystery of how we in fact did come to be
here? Arguably not. It is sometimes argued that even given the coherence of
evolution theory, it is still highly unlikely that unguided natural
processes would give rise to life in the time-frame that evolution theorists
say that this has happened.
Life on Earth is phenomenally complex. Given the degree of complexity that
it exhibits, it is claimed, there simply hasn’t been enough time for it to
be likely to arise through evolutionary processes. Even if it were possible
for life to come from non-life via a process of evolution, according to this
view we would not expect it to have done so yet. If life evolved, then it
is therefore likely that its evolution was not random, but rather was guided
by God’s hand.
It is thus argued that unless we introduce God evolution theory is
inadequate as an explanation of our origins, that natural selection won’t
work as an explanation on its own. | j*******7
发帖数: 6300 | 6 Prerequisites for Evolution
The main reason, however, that evolution theory cannot provide a full
explanation of our origins, is that it can’t take us right back to the
beginning of the story. In order for evolutionary processes to get going, a
lot of things must already be the case. For example: there must be
biological organisms; there must be an environment capable of supporting
them; they must be capable of reproduction; random mutations must introduce
variety.
How did these things come to be the case? Where did these simple organisms
capable of reproduction come from? Why do we have an environment capable of
supporting life? Evolution theory cannot provide an answer to these
questions, because evolutionary processes cannot occur until these
conditions are met. Evolution theory therefore cannot provide a full
explanation of the origins of life.
This makes it possible to reformulate the argument from design in a way that
renders it immune to evolutionary critiques, making the question of whether
evolution theory is plausible irrelevant to the question as to whether
design arguments are successful. Modern design arguments begin not with
biology and the marks as design in biological organisms, but with physics
and the way in which the laws of nature are fine-tuned to make life possible.
The are many marks of intelligent design in the laws of nature. The various
physical constants such as the weak force and the strong force must have
very specific values in order for life to be possible; they do. The Big Bang
, if that is how the universe began, had to involve a very specific amount
of energy in order for life to be possible; if it happened, then it did
involve that amount of energy. These and other features of the universe make
it appear that it was designed with life in mind.
Evolution theory simply cannot explain why we have a universe that is fine-
tuned to support life, because the laws of nature have not evolved. The
argument from design therefore survives the evolutionary critique; evolution
cannot explain our origins. | s**i
发帖数: 4448 | | j*******7
发帖数: 6300 | 8 有关于盘古的经书吗？他说了什么、做了什么？有见证人吗？
【在 s**i 的大作中提到】
: 想象一个神就解决了。
: 我提名盘古。
| l*****a
发帖数: 38403 | 9 很多很多，非常多
【在 j*******7 的大作中提到】
: 有关于盘古的经书吗？他说了什么、做了什么？有见证人吗？
| w*********r
发帖数: 3382 | 10 origin of life根本就不是进化论的重点，进化论关心origin of life，但是进化论解
释的是origin of species，你连进化论讲什么都没搞清楚，反什么反？
臭名昭著的michael behe和他的irreducible complexity，他靠着宗教的力量勉强在
lehigh大学继续任职，也不得不在学校的网页上发出如下声明：
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html
“My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely
my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh
University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular
. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with
them.”
在整个生物学界你还能找到第二个人支持他的观点？他这个观点可曾发表任何有影响力
的文章？厚着脸皮混到了这个地步，真是他自己也是基督教的悲哀！ | l*****a
发帖数: 38403 | 11 进化论不需要搞清楚，信神就行了
entirely
particular
【在 w*********r 的大作中提到】
: origin of life根本就不是进化论的重点，进化论关心origin of life，但是进化论解
: 释的是origin of species，你连进化论讲什么都没搞清楚，反什么反？
: 臭名昭著的michael behe和他的irreducible complexity，他靠着宗教的力量勉强在
: lehigh大学继续任职，也不得不在学校的网页上发出如下声明：
: http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html
: “My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely
: my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh
: University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular
: . In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with
: them.”
| z********o
发帖数: 18304 | 12 我不懂进化论。只是请你注意：我对基督教的批判，和进化论没有任何关系。
就算进化论是错误的，我对基督教的批判依然成立。所以，就算进化论是错误的，基督
教还是一个邪教。 | E*****m
发帖数: 25615 | 13 即使是 Behe 也承認 common descendent (人與其他動物同祖先）。
entirely
particular
【在 w*********r 的大作中提到】
: origin of life根本就不是进化论的重点，进化论关心origin of life，但是进化论解
: 释的是origin of species，你连进化论讲什么都没搞清楚，反什么反？
: 臭名昭著的michael behe和他的irreducible complexity，他靠着宗教的力量勉强在
: lehigh大学继续任职，也不得不在学校的网页上发出如下声明：
: http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html
: “My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely
: my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh
: University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular
: . In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with
: them.”
|
|
