Not for the weak of head
Has anybody else noticed that Darwinism, and evolution in general, has become a new religion? A lot of it is based on faith- there's this diety, Natural Selection, that designs complicated structures, all of which are nearly mathematically impossible, and there are intrinsic flaws in the whole idea. You know, the whole bearwhale thing. Where a bear, living in an environment over a period of n years, would eventually become a whale, or at least very whale-like. The issue is that of the mule- if it became so different, there would be a point where it would be a different species, and thus unable to mate and create fertile offspring, and thus be unable to continue the process of evolution. In fact, the basis upon which Darwin and Wallace came up with survival of the fittest, the Galapagos finches, is complete crap. The birds are the same species. It's just sub-species. It's like referring to Americans and Japanese as different species. Or, more suitably, Americans and Britons. And some of the finches were simply freak accidents- it's like saying somebody with polydactyly or albinism has an evolutionary advantage. Add to that the flawed fossil record and vestigial organs, and you have something that seems a lot like a flat globe.
It all just seems like a well-worded belief system, moreso than it does a real science. Even I kinda did it- I used science as an excuse, but saying "Well, there were billions of years and an infinite amount of space. You know, Shakespeare monkeys" is still a statement of faith. It's unlikely to the point where it's not even admissable. Made me no better than the Creationists I was arguing against.
So. First, I'm guessing at least one among you is wondering, "Okay, first, he talks seriously about becoming a priest, and now he's ditching evolution, what's up with Neavor?" In response to that, no, I haven't found God. In fact, I'm even farther from it than before. I'm kind of offended by myself, however, having come to the above conclusion. I was taught this, for years. And it was described like a fact, not a theory. But it really is just like religion- people pass something off as fact, because it's easier to accept something as fact than say "well, draw your own conclusions." So no, there still is no God. But now, I can't even find evolution ground stable enough to tiptoe upon. Second, "So now what?" Honestly? I have no clue. It would be irresponsible of me to just let it go- faith is a form of resignation, and bullocks to that. Enough faith is used, just hoping the rest of the universe exists outside my immediate senses, and I'm working to get around that. But I don't know how to start with this one. It was said that all questions of "why?" either go back infinitely far, or conclude with a God. But I vote for Nader in this- there has to be another option. And fuck Occam!
-N
It all just seems like a well-worded belief system, moreso than it does a real science. Even I kinda did it- I used science as an excuse, but saying "Well, there were billions of years and an infinite amount of space. You know, Shakespeare monkeys" is still a statement of faith. It's unlikely to the point where it's not even admissable. Made me no better than the Creationists I was arguing against.
So. First, I'm guessing at least one among you is wondering, "Okay, first, he talks seriously about becoming a priest, and now he's ditching evolution, what's up with Neavor?" In response to that, no, I haven't found God. In fact, I'm even farther from it than before. I'm kind of offended by myself, however, having come to the above conclusion. I was taught this, for years. And it was described like a fact, not a theory. But it really is just like religion- people pass something off as fact, because it's easier to accept something as fact than say "well, draw your own conclusions." So no, there still is no God. But now, I can't even find evolution ground stable enough to tiptoe upon. Second, "So now what?" Honestly? I have no clue. It would be irresponsible of me to just let it go- faith is a form of resignation, and bullocks to that. Enough faith is used, just hoping the rest of the universe exists outside my immediate senses, and I'm working to get around that. But I don't know how to start with this one. It was said that all questions of "why?" either go back infinitely far, or conclude with a God. But I vote for Nader in this- there has to be another option. And fuck Occam!
-N