Evolution and Creationism

[PerennialPhilosophy]

Is evolution any less a miracle than Creationism? Time does not dictate the miraculous. If a wizard appeared in front of me, whether it took him one minute to fly upwards or 10 years I would not consider the act any less miraculous. This leads one to ask why would evolution be considered miraculous? The general consensus around miracles is that they have to defy the laws of nature. While the meaning of that definition is a good argument for another time, I am going to move forward defining miracle as something that goes against the laws of nature. The laws of nature are all interconnected and go back to the big bang. To further demonstrate what I mean by this, let's imagine we're trying to predict where the ball goes after I throw it. This depends on the weight of the ball, the force of my throw, the wind, and etc. etc. To understand these forces, we have to view them as interconnected processes and not isolated events. So, the force I put into the ball depends on what I have eaten, if I have worked out, etc. which all depends on the processes before it. The wind that blows the ball slightly to the left is only blowing that way because of the weather patterns that happened before it, which happened because of what materials and where the earth formed etc. So, lets start at the big bang. Immediately upon that explosion, the universe was doomed. Granted its going to take an inconceivable-to-our-fragile-minds amount of time, but still everything was meant to die. Albeit this, there is a natural propensity for life to keep on living. This is the root of evolution, that life is fighting against itself. On one hand the universe was made to die, on the other it was designed to live. This difference between how things are and how things strive to be is ultimately irrational. It's the ultimate paradox. So my question is, how do you reconcile life on one hand being designed to end and on the other hand being designed to keep going on?

[robvalue]

Life isn't designed. Evolution isn't a guided process.

I made a video earlier today which is perfect for you. If you're interested in learning, you might find it interesting.

http://youtu.be/qV3WPyp8WmU

[ApeNotKillApe]

Life isn't designed to end, nor to keep going, self-replication is not life's 'intention', it's just what it does. Life isn't aware of the approaching annihilation, it simply does what it does within the system of the earth, oblivious to the equally oblivious exterior forces which act upon it.

[abaris]

Is evolution any less a miracle than Creationism?

I can stop at the first sentence. Evolution is not up for debate within the scienice community. It's not a miracle, but the best science could come up with. Within the last 150 years, they only added to the theory, but never changed it.

[RozKek]

Exactly what Rob and Ape said. When people ask these questions it seems like they add some special meaning to life. Realistically everything is just chaotic/random, messed up, has literally no special meaning or significance. These questions arise when humans assign meaning to life etc. The universe isn't designed to die or to keep on going, it just is doing something that you assign meaning to.

[Nay_Sayer]

One based on repeatable observable science and the other is based on an invisible sky genie snapping his fingers.

[PerennialPhilosophy]

Is evolution any less a miracle than Creationism? Time does not dictate the miraculous. If a wizard appeared in front of me, whether it took him one minute to fly upwards or 10 years I would not consider the act any less miraculous. This leads one to ask why would evolution be considered miraculous? The general consensus around miracles is that they have to defy the laws of nature. While the meaning of that definition is a good argument for another time, I am going to move forward defining miracle as something that goes against the laws of nature. The laws of nature are all interconnected and go back to the big bang. To further demonstrate what I mean by this, let's imagine we're trying to predict where the ball goes after I throw it. This depends on the weight of the ball, the force of my throw, the wind, and etc. etc. To understand these forces, we have to view them as interconnected processes and not isolated events. So, the force I put into the ball depends on what I have eaten, if I have worked out, etc. which all depends on the processes before it. The wind that blows the ball slightly to the left is only blowing that way because of the weather patterns that happened before it, which happened because of what materials and where the earth formed etc. So, lets start at the big bang. Immediately upon that explosion, the universe was doomed. Granted its going to take an inconceivable-to-our-fragile-minds amount of time, but still everything was meant to die. Albeit this, there is a natural propensity for life to keep on living. This is the root of evolution, that life is fighting against itself. On one hand the universe was made to die, on the other it was designed to live. This difference between how things are and how things strive to be is ultimately irrational. It's the ultimate paradox. So my question is, how do you reconcile life on one hand being designed to end and on the other hand being designed to keep going on?

This is a much needed video and I appreciate your responses. One small point to make is you say you're going to explain what evolution isn't then do a 190 and say what it is. If you did a 190 you would be slightly off target, much like your video is to my point. My point is how do you reconcile the ephemeral nature of the universe with evolution? You discuss evolution in terms of animals passing on traits that make them more fit for survival. Permanent survival is nonexistent. You look at how evolution functions, but you're ignoring my question of why? Abaris, I would recommend reading somebody's full argument before you dismiss it. You say it's not a miracle because it is not "up for debate". That is not the definition of a miracle. 
"Life isn't designed to end, nor to keep going, self-replication is not life's 'intention', it's just what it does. Life isn't aware of the approaching annihilation, it simply does what it does within the system of the earth, oblivious to equally oblivious exterior forces which act upon it."
what it does is not its intentions? It has to be designed to either end or keep going, those are the only two options. Whether there is a designer or not does not matter. "Life isn't aware of the approaching annihilation.." I am not aware of approaching annihilation? 

---

Exactly what Rob and Ape said. When people ask these questions it seems like they add some special meaning to life. Realistically everything is just chaotic/random, messed up, has literally no special meaning or significance. These questions arise when humans assign meaning to life etc. The universe isn't designed to die or to keep on going, it just is doing something that you assign meaning to.

What does it say about consciousness that I can apply meaning to it? That is an innate part of being human. We are made of the universe and we give it meaning.

---

One based on repeatable observable science and the other is based on an invisible sky genie snapping his fingers.

Whether you observe it repeatedly or not does not make it any less of a miracle.

[brewer]

There is no miracle or magic.

How do you know that "Permanent survival is nonexistent"? How do you know that "Immediately upon that explosion, the universe was doomed"?

Do you know how many degrees are in a circle? In an about face?

You keep using the word "designed". Designed by who? god? Prove it. Prove it even exists.

You say, " I am not aware of approaching annihilation". You need to read more. Start with the sun.

These are all your beliefs and you are welcome to them. I'll believe/not believe other wise.


Edit: Almost forgot, Welcome!

[Esquilax]

So, lets start at the big bang. Immediately upon that explosion, the universe was doomed.

The big bang is not an explosion. The fact that you're that wrong, right away, does not bode well going forward. And the universe is only "doomed" if you assume that life is its sole purpose, and I don't think you can justify that. Without certain anthropocentric assumptions, the fact that the universe will run out of energy someday doesn't mean that it's doomed, just that it'll exist without energy.

Granted its going to take an inconceivable-to-our-fragile-minds amount of time, but still everything was meant to die.

"Meant to," presumes pre-designated purpose, which you haven't established.

Albeit this, there is a natural propensity for life to keep on living. This is the root of evolution, that life is fighting against itself. On one hand the universe was made to die, on the other it was designed to live. This difference between how things are and how things strive to be is ultimately irrational. It's the ultimate paradox. So my question is, how do you reconcile life on one hand being designed to end and on the other hand being designed to keep going on?

There's nothing to reconcile. Organisms are naturally selected for their ability to continue living, but the fact that they aren't perfect at this, and will eventually fail, doesn't mean there's a paradox. I mean, hell, even within the context of your claim here, you say the universe was "made to die," and if you think that, wouldn't that mean that the fact that life forms inevitably falter and die fits perfectly within that paradigm? You can live, you can resist, but eventually you'll fail because the universe was made to die?

I mean, you're straining a metaphor anyway, apparently in the service of a stupid tu coque fallacy, but it doesn't even work while taking the metaphor seriously.

[robvalue]

What is the "ephemeral nature of the universe"? It is what it is, and we're here because we survived. I don't know what there is to reconcile. If you're looking for deeper answers, there's no guarantee there is any.

I think you're infusing the whole thing with magic and agency rather than just following the science. If you pre-suppose design, the discussion can't even begin.

Thanks for watching my video, though