Replies

Evolution cannot account for the human spirit, and as you say, reassembling junk from a junk heap will not construct a single mili-liter of conscious, self-aware spirit.... There is one Wind (pneuma) blowing through existence, though, which can. "The wind blows where it wants to, but you can't tell where it comes from or where it's going. The same with everyone born of God's Pneuma."

Amen!

Yes. Beautifully said dear brother in Christ!

Yet your beautiful insight is no help (nor consolation) to our Darwinist brethren, I feel pretty sure. For most of them, it seems, don't mind that their dear theory not only cannot account for the origin of life, but that it's also stupified by the problem of the origin of consciousness, not even to mention spirit (the existence of which many categorically deny in the first place). So one has to ask: As a fundamental theory of biology — of living, sentient life forms — what does it really have to offer?

To me, Darwin's theory is not without merit. The problem with it is it overreaches. My sense is it has solid insights in terms of dynamic intra-species response to environmental change. This is within the domain of microevolution. To extrapolate from the micro- to the macroevolution seems an unwarranted step. It uses the "part" to explain the "whole." Generally speaking, this is rarely if ever a fruitful procedure.

To my scientist friends, a message from George Gilder:

Throughout the history of human thought, it has been convenient and inspirational to designate the summit of the hierarchy as God. While it is not necessary for science to use this term, it is important for scientists to grasp the hierarchical reality it signifies. Transcending its materialist trap, science must look up from the ever dimmer reaches of its Darwinian pit and cast its imagination toward the word and its sources: idea and meaning, mind and mystery, the will and the way. It must eschew reductionism – except as a methodological tool – and adopt an aspirational imagination. Though this new aim may seem blinding at first, it is ultimately redemptive because it is the only way that science can ever hope to solve the grand challenge problems before it, such as gravity, entanglement, quantum computing, time, space, mass, and mind. Accepting hierarchy, the explorer embarks on an adventure that leads to an ever deeper understanding of life and consciousness, cosmos and creation. — "Evolution and Me," National Review, July 17, 2006

Thank you ever so much for your beautiful, insightful essay/post xzins!

Do you believe all species were descended from what few “kinds” could fit within the given dimensions of Noah's Arc within the last few thousand years?

If so then you believe that “microevolution” takes place with a strength and at a speed not proposed by anything observed in the scientific literature.

Meanwhile what we do observe is an elegant process whereby minor and random variations along with selection can accomplish amazing things; and at a observable rate consistent with what we observe in the fossil record corroborated by physics and radioatomic decay, and know about the age of the Earth and the movement of continents.

As well as being consistent with the observed phylogenetic relationships found in the nested hierarchies of similarity and divergence in endogenous retroviral sequences.

We can observe this same pattern cropping up in diverging populations, and this process is at a speed consistent with the observed rates of interspecies difference accumulation.

That is Science. (to take it back to the title of the thread)

You observe a process. Measure its rate. Explain natural phenomena with natural observed and measured causes. Determine if what you observe is consistent with current theory. Publish. Publish and get a Nobel if you get to change the theory in light of your new evidence.

This micro macro drivel is like saying that the “micro” erosion observed and measured currently is not sufficient to explain the “macro” erosion of valleys and canyons.