Donald,
A pleasure as always. :-) And, all the best to you, too, for the holiday weekend.
I'm afraid I'm not very current on the latest "beginning of the universe" theories of physics. When last I was remotely up-to-date, the theories only covered up to an instant after the "Big Bang". Assuming that the Big Bang (and Big Crunch) theories are correct, then, sure, I'd say we'd have a few problems figuring out why the whole thing took place and what (if anything) caused it. I do recall, however, a theory that suggests the universe oscillates in "size" from nearly nothing (spatially) to great expansion (a big bang) to slow expansion to maximum (spatailly) size then to slow contraction and then great contraction to nearly nothing (big crunch), and repeats this over and over again. I have no idea whether time, space, and mass "preserve" their forms within each cycle or not. Whether your assumption that some force beyond our understanding kicked this all off... well... ha ha... it's beyond our understanding.
I don't know whether the latest theories suggest a finite or infinite universe. For all I know, the Big Bang theory may not even be the currently accepted theory anymore.
If you are saying God is beyond our understanding, beyond our logic, beyond all that is human... sure... I'd go with that. I lean that way when I say that God, Freedom, and Immortality of the Soul may be things that, though we continue to argue/discuss them to the bitter end, we may never learn anything about them that might be characterized at TRVTH. Perhaps this is too cynical a summary of the way I lean. I'm sure you've seen me steal this from Kant before. :-)
OK... back to fossils. I understand what you mean now about transitional forms. I'm not sure the odds would actually suggest that we would see any transitional forms... but, as I said, I don't know the numbers that palaeontologists use. I'm still denying your appeal to "random number theory" until we get some numbers. ;-)
I've heard the theory that evolution occurs in leaps rather than slow progress. I suggest that evolution probably occurs in both time-frames. There are evolutions and revolutions. Periods of intense mutations and natural selections against a backdrop of plodding evolution. Don't forget that a bird's wings are actually its arms. The fingers extend. One might consider that creatures first glided like some modern-day squirrels do; would a gliding modern-day squirrel leave a fossil that would suggest such a mode of transport. The flight example is a particularly tricky one since flight not only depends on the bone structure, but feathers, or extended flaps of skin, &c. that are even less frequently preserved than fossilized bone. I think your idea of looking for nubs of bone that become horns, &c. might be more reasonable.
Of course, the heart of the matter is: why, given such (apparently) scant evidence in favour of evolution, do we teach it in schools? Well... because there is even less evidence in favour of creationism. We have, in fact, only one piece of evidence: the infallible word of God. Now, I'm not saying that's wrong... but I am saying it's not scientific. The palaeontologists who study fossils and try to come up with models and theories that link the forms and shapes in some reasonable manner are doing science. They come up with theories they can never prove (as does all science), but which fit the current data as best as they can. Only to have a new fossil blow theories, that they may have worked on for decades, clear out of the water. And to them (at least to the less bitter ones), it is a joy to find new data which forces them to expand the envelope of "knowledge" - which really only envelopes the theories they know not to be true. This is a rather harsh characterization of science (and, like any simplification, not the truth), but I'm trying to show the difference between science and religion.
Do I want kids learning religion in public schools? I can only say that I wouldn't want my kids learning religion in public schools. I would have them learn science (with all its attendant faults) in school and have them learn religion in a church... and, of course, a liberal sprinkling of learning at home about all things.
Do you believe that creationism is religion and not science? Hmmm... at this point we should probably decide on exactly what you and I mean by the "theory of creation". If you are taking the Bible literally, and saying first there was Adam and Eve, then I think there's a preponderance of evidence and data against that theory. If, however, you think that God created DNA and set the whole thing in motion, then I don't think I can agree or disagree with the theory since I don't think there's any data either way... yet. ;-) Am I correct that you lean to the latter idea of creation?
Yes... we are taking a lot of subjects at once aren't we... hmmm... let me see exactly what I've asked you.... hmmm... let me see if I can summarize:
Let's leave the physics for now... I think we're in reasonable agreement regarding the beginning of the universe; i.e., neither of us knows... except you think it's started by God... I haven't a clue.
I hope I didn't belabour the difference between science and religion. I was trying to lead up to your question about evolution being taught in schools. It's a shame that science is so easily misunderstood, but scientist can be easy victims of hubris and intellectual snobbery. Why do we teach theories as fact in schools? Maybe part of education is learning that theories might not be fact. But, does religion do anything differently... except that within a religion it is (almost?) never taught that ideology might not be fact.
Great... my summary is getting huge....
OK... I vote we take on the "science vs. religion" issue first; i.e., what are the differences between science and religion and what should be taught in schools. I suspect we may already agree on most of the points of this issue... so we might be able to get this issue quickly resolved. Of course, resolution doesn't mean we can't revisit it in our future journeys. :-)
Greg |
