the devolution of evolutionary theory
I know, as one might be quick to argue after this blog, that evolution in the strictest sense isnt necessarily advocated by the so called "intellectual elite" of this age. But to the average layperson, myself included until recently, misconceptive strongholds about the subject persist - to the borderline of prejudiced absurdity.
evolution= any process of formation or growth; development.
big bang = a theory that deduces a cataclysmic birth of the universe (big bang) from the observed expansion of the universe
In other words, something that was once a WHOLE, exploded and from this explosion onward we find the absolute root of the theory of evolution. In other words, destruction as evolution - a seeming paradox.
Take a coffee mug, for example. Or for that matter, a cherry bomb. Both have certain qualities as whole objects. The mug holds liquid, the cherry bomb holds potential energy, in the form of explosive powder. But when we smash a mug to the ground, or light the firework and it explodes, is the logical process that we sense a type of EVOLUTION of the objects? Is the mug now a super-mug, able to hold more or hold hotter liquids or walk, talk, or make sandwiches? Does a broken, shattered coffee mug take a step towards becoming a coffee maker or an espresso machine? Does a detonated cherry bomb take a step towards becoming a grenade or a rocket ship?
Do they not, in fact, take steps backward? Does explosion not precurse a De-evolution or ENTROPY ; a decline from the previous state? The mug becomes REDUCED to ceramic shards, a cherry bomb to fragments of paper and dust. The big bang to exploded scraps, albeit large and relatively (to such small beings as men) powerful ones.
Now, the lay evolutionist has two options. One, evolution came from a single speck of space dust that later became the big bang ball. But if this were the layman's truth, it should follow suit that we'd have a much neater, clearer and more specific term for this than the 'big bang.' For certainly as it stands now, its not called the space dust theory, nor probably does the layperson have access to the "proofs" of such a position. We find our "proofs" for the big bang from the expansion of the universe, red and blue stars, etc. Option one leaves the evolutionist's concept of big bang as a theory to be re-worked.
Option two is not much better i'm afraid. It would imply that from spacedust came an "evolution" of sorts into a massive (complete and perfect?) ball of energy which in turn exploded (devolved?) into our present situation. This could be true, but again requires a reworking of the theory of evolution. Evoltuion would then consist of a microcosmic beginning (dust) to a macrocosmic peak (big bang) and then BACK TO a finite amount of microcosmic matter being spewed across space ON WHICH it were possible to "evolve" again from single cell to antelope to human mind. Evolution would no longer be evolution. It would be a theory half expressed. There would be no evolution so to speak without its opposite side, devolution ; or the decline unto death. And in fact, in light of the circumstances of the bang - it seems our universe's expansion will one day run out of force and energy and stagnate, much as a shattered glass rests in pieces after a moment of scattering.
So ask yourself; is the universe evolving or winding down? Why are humans considered the more evolved of apes? Apes never destroyed their own planet... birds never developed biological weapons.... who's to say intellect isn't a curse? Loneliness, depression, self-realized inadequacies??? You don't often hear of chimpanzees jumping off buildings in their self-conscious despair.
This is exactly where science can be witnessed and seen for the frail, finicky old trickster that it is. Men claim allegiance to science as the Ultimate Explanation and then two weeks later, theories change and man's explanatory belief changes with it. YET he refuses to stop worshipping the concept of his own intelligence as Ultimate. The new scientific facts quickly become assimilated into our old collective understanding of science under the guise of an evolution of our knowledge and theories of how things work as a whole. But by this very definition, man will always be chasing His tail - we will never master the Perfect understanding or attain to the ultimate Knowledge and therefore our 'science' always has an "out." Science can be wrong one hundred out of one hundred times because it is never perfectly right, YET still be seen as infallible by all those men who ignorantly hold all those theories as Ultimate PROOF and Ultimate SCIENTIFIC FACT.
The only thing ultimate about science is that ultimately it will never be right because, ultimately, it depends on man's CURRENT and FLEXIBLE interpretation of his surroundings. Ultimately, man will never be perfect and therefore, science can never be as wholly reliable as men mistakenly believe it is.
evolution= any process of formation or growth; development.
big bang = a theory that deduces a cataclysmic birth of the universe (big bang) from the observed expansion of the universe
In other words, something that was once a WHOLE, exploded and from this explosion onward we find the absolute root of the theory of evolution. In other words, destruction as evolution - a seeming paradox.
Take a coffee mug, for example. Or for that matter, a cherry bomb. Both have certain qualities as whole objects. The mug holds liquid, the cherry bomb holds potential energy, in the form of explosive powder. But when we smash a mug to the ground, or light the firework and it explodes, is the logical process that we sense a type of EVOLUTION of the objects? Is the mug now a super-mug, able to hold more or hold hotter liquids or walk, talk, or make sandwiches? Does a broken, shattered coffee mug take a step towards becoming a coffee maker or an espresso machine? Does a detonated cherry bomb take a step towards becoming a grenade or a rocket ship?
Do they not, in fact, take steps backward? Does explosion not precurse a De-evolution or ENTROPY ; a decline from the previous state? The mug becomes REDUCED to ceramic shards, a cherry bomb to fragments of paper and dust. The big bang to exploded scraps, albeit large and relatively (to such small beings as men) powerful ones.
Now, the lay evolutionist has two options. One, evolution came from a single speck of space dust that later became the big bang ball. But if this were the layman's truth, it should follow suit that we'd have a much neater, clearer and more specific term for this than the 'big bang.' For certainly as it stands now, its not called the space dust theory, nor probably does the layperson have access to the "proofs" of such a position. We find our "proofs" for the big bang from the expansion of the universe, red and blue stars, etc. Option one leaves the evolutionist's concept of big bang as a theory to be re-worked.
Option two is not much better i'm afraid. It would imply that from spacedust came an "evolution" of sorts into a massive (complete and perfect?) ball of energy which in turn exploded (devolved?) into our present situation. This could be true, but again requires a reworking of the theory of evolution. Evoltuion would then consist of a microcosmic beginning (dust) to a macrocosmic peak (big bang) and then BACK TO a finite amount of microcosmic matter being spewed across space ON WHICH it were possible to "evolve" again from single cell to antelope to human mind. Evolution would no longer be evolution. It would be a theory half expressed. There would be no evolution so to speak without its opposite side, devolution ; or the decline unto death. And in fact, in light of the circumstances of the bang - it seems our universe's expansion will one day run out of force and energy and stagnate, much as a shattered glass rests in pieces after a moment of scattering.
So ask yourself; is the universe evolving or winding down? Why are humans considered the more evolved of apes? Apes never destroyed their own planet... birds never developed biological weapons.... who's to say intellect isn't a curse? Loneliness, depression, self-realized inadequacies??? You don't often hear of chimpanzees jumping off buildings in their self-conscious despair.
This is exactly where science can be witnessed and seen for the frail, finicky old trickster that it is. Men claim allegiance to science as the Ultimate Explanation and then two weeks later, theories change and man's explanatory belief changes with it. YET he refuses to stop worshipping the concept of his own intelligence as Ultimate. The new scientific facts quickly become assimilated into our old collective understanding of science under the guise of an evolution of our knowledge and theories of how things work as a whole. But by this very definition, man will always be chasing His tail - we will never master the Perfect understanding or attain to the ultimate Knowledge and therefore our 'science' always has an "out." Science can be wrong one hundred out of one hundred times because it is never perfectly right, YET still be seen as infallible by all those men who ignorantly hold all those theories as Ultimate PROOF and Ultimate SCIENTIFIC FACT.
The only thing ultimate about science is that ultimately it will never be right because, ultimately, it depends on man's CURRENT and FLEXIBLE interpretation of his surroundings. Ultimately, man will never be perfect and therefore, science can never be as wholly reliable as men mistakenly believe it is.
Leave a Comment
TheJoeD on
Science...science is constantly evolving. I realize that the coffee mug and cherry bomb statements were analogies, but those were created by man, and man could *evolve* a coffee mug into a super awesome coffee mug that files your taxes too, if one had time and felt that would be advantageous to society.
Ever walk through an old house, and the doorway and ceilings are low? Consider that for a second; poor nourishment, and no modern medicine. Now with that, we have evolved into taller, healthier people (in a relatively short amount of time). Science meets evolution! We can reach the sweeter fruit, higher up in the tree by our own device.
Look at DNA research etc. The evolution of man as a species is a hell of a lot different than the "evolution" of society which in that case, in my opinion, is de-evolving.
Religion stopped evolving at it's on set, science will continue to improve, and there are many a thing that are undeniably real, FACT, PROOF, etc.
But as to what is the absolute truth, neither side will ever know.
Ever walk through an old house, and the doorway and ceilings are low? Consider that for a second; poor nourishment, and no modern medicine. Now with that, we have evolved into taller, healthier people (in a relatively short amount of time). Science meets evolution! We can reach the sweeter fruit, higher up in the tree by our own device.
Look at DNA research etc. The evolution of man as a species is a hell of a lot different than the "evolution" of society which in that case, in my opinion, is de-evolving.
Religion stopped evolving at it's on set, science will continue to improve, and there are many a thing that are undeniably real, FACT, PROOF, etc.
But as to what is the absolute truth, neither side will ever know.
neelsn on
I'm not sure de-evolution and entropy are analogous. De-evolution is a process of adaptation, presumably for some benefit to the species. Entropy is a process of break-down or decay from a state one desires to maintain. Si o no? I like the assessment of science though. Can we ever know anything when the end to the process of knowing is never known? Is the scientific method a proper endeavor for all inquiries?
TheHero1 on
I'm wondering about the whole big bang deal. Exactly what do scientist have to say started the bang in it all? was there another species of beings before the big ball of dust exploded? Is life just an illusion is it that were really asleep or just remembering about when we were alive? All these questions yet confusing need to be answered before we move on in this Universe we are alone in
johnlanguage on
I am under the strong impression that we've gotten this "evolution" thing mixed up a bit. I mean, when speaking of evolution we often site VARIATION or ADAPTIVE examples as evolutionary. Like, losing a pinky toe or growing taller. Are these really a step in becoming something more evolved than man, or is it just possible that years from now if it's back to the farm and we've done away with growth hormones or unidentified aspects of lifestyle and such, will that variation come back down to the height of our recent ancestry?
And if being tall is a sign of further evolution, why, according to the darwinians, are blacks the closer to the ape (and therefore less evolved) even though they are generally taller and in many cases healthier? (ie - much better teeth). I'd say thats a gaping hole in the analogy of reaching the fruit on the higher trees bit. If we use that reasoning, blacks would be more evolved than whites in direct contrast to the theory. Now, one cant say white people are closer to apes on the evolutionary scale, can we? I dont think any self respecting darwinian has ever thought such a thing...
Watch what happens in the coming years. and i mean watch and remember. People will come out and say that naturalists (believers in evolution here) are "more evolved" than people who believe in God, (afterall - according to your statement, true or false, religion is almost archaic due to its lack of evolution) - therefore creating yet another attitude of superiority, and reinforcing prejudice just like how the darwinian model fuels white supremecists in their affirmation that they are indeed superior. For what is the white supremecist model based on if not on the further evolution of the whites and inferiority of the blacks. I seem to recall certain swhs students, myself included - TO MY SHAME, who practically based their entire theologies on this very point. "Apes," anyone?
For example, read your Tool aenima insert. timothy leary - "futants" - prejudice against believers in God. Think about it for one second, because i believe if you do you'll see a speck of light coming in through the dark shadow of a lie that gets perpetuated on purpose by men with alterior motives.
Think about it: if evolutionary theory is so whacked and these are simple questions that SHOULD BE BEING ASKED yet hardly anyone has ever heard: doesnt one have to ask themself whats going on here and why are so many atheistic evolutionists so damn set in their BY FAITH (just like,say, the christians) belief system and not asking themselves these important questions?
there's something more going on here...
And if being tall is a sign of further evolution, why, according to the darwinians, are blacks the closer to the ape (and therefore less evolved) even though they are generally taller and in many cases healthier? (ie - much better teeth). I'd say thats a gaping hole in the analogy of reaching the fruit on the higher trees bit. If we use that reasoning, blacks would be more evolved than whites in direct contrast to the theory. Now, one cant say white people are closer to apes on the evolutionary scale, can we? I dont think any self respecting darwinian has ever thought such a thing...
Watch what happens in the coming years. and i mean watch and remember. People will come out and say that naturalists (believers in evolution here) are "more evolved" than people who believe in God, (afterall - according to your statement, true or false, religion is almost archaic due to its lack of evolution) - therefore creating yet another attitude of superiority, and reinforcing prejudice just like how the darwinian model fuels white supremecists in their affirmation that they are indeed superior. For what is the white supremecist model based on if not on the further evolution of the whites and inferiority of the blacks. I seem to recall certain swhs students, myself included - TO MY SHAME, who practically based their entire theologies on this very point. "Apes," anyone?
For example, read your Tool aenima insert. timothy leary - "futants" - prejudice against believers in God. Think about it for one second, because i believe if you do you'll see a speck of light coming in through the dark shadow of a lie that gets perpetuated on purpose by men with alterior motives.
Think about it: if evolutionary theory is so whacked and these are simple questions that SHOULD BE BEING ASKED yet hardly anyone has ever heard: doesnt one have to ask themself whats going on here and why are so many atheistic evolutionists so damn set in their BY FAITH (just like,say, the christians) belief system and not asking themselves these important questions?
there's something more going on here...
TheJoeD on
Sorry dude. Threw out Aenima years ago.
Blacks are *black* because they originate from a hotter climate, thus needint more prtection from the sun. Got nothing to do with apes, Imus.
Blacks are *black* because they originate from a hotter climate, thus needint more prtection from the sun. Got nothing to do with apes, Imus.
