One of the main reasons that evolution can coexist with God without an infringement on either's turf is because evolution does not attempt to explain how life itself first came to be, nor does it attempt to explain away consciousness and self-awareness. Evolution does not try to explain away the human soul or spirit or to offer a theory on life from lifelessness. This is still the terrain of religion and philosophy, and just as religion has no place in a science class, science is best set apart from forages into metaphysics.
So science shouldn't try to explain what logically took place on Earth 4 or so billion years ago, when, in the organic soup of early Earth complex amino chains (a process which is easily duplicated in the lab) lipid cell-like structures, proteins, and finally life are believed to have formed, yes, from "lifelessness"? (And anyone who understands how prions- AKA mad cow disease- operate knows that the border between what constitutes "alive" matter and what does not is tenuous, indeed)
And consciousness and self-awareness are legitimate forums for scientific speculation in everything from medicine to quantum physics, in which the role of consciousness and awareness through acts of observation could quite well play an integral part.
To say that Evolution doesn't "disprove" God, per se, is fair enough.. (how can you 'disprove' an all-powerful, invisible being who is essentially all things to all different kinds of people, and who also is alleged to cover up evidence of his own existence?) but much of the rest of this piece is, in my mind, perhaps a bit overly charitable to folks looking to defend their religious views from encroaching scientists. To suggest that scientists should stop asking questions when they get to the frontiers of self or mind, or when they get past the fossil record in the history of life on Earth, is excessive.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
