Hi there,
So, for whatever reason, people don't like anything new, to Evolution - but I don't think that that would be the approach that Charles Darwin would have taken. I suggested there is negative 'Evolution' for example, and no one seems to be able to understand, that what you give can also be taken away - Darwin, would have laughed at such humbug! But when it comes to his own theory, what is the direction that he would have taken?
We know that Darwin struggled, with his theory and that he thought it would account for all life at the same time that it struggled to be differentiated (his diagram of the tree of life, being evidence) - it was in a sense a commitment on his deathbed, not to suffer more for Evolution: implicitly, more than he had done. There was no reason for him to completely recant the theory, elements of it resonated with the promise received in Heaven, that the difference would be unshackled once there and so every species would ultimately be freed!
So what would he do with his theory, if he had a second chance? My thinking is that he would simply start with a change of name - that would be the most extraneous, most changeable aspect of the theory; an aspect that would not contradict the workings of theory, but perhaps illuminate the direction he had initially thought he could take the theory in the direction of. This makes sense because the rules, as they were, could still be made to apply to the changing of the name, at least as initially as the illumination had been. The temptation would of course be, to call something that is evolved, "evolved" for the sake of it appearing to mimic its own discovery process: something would have to be discovered in the meantime, or the effort of changing from the initial condition would risk crushing the science behind the endeavour, with overzealous attempts to endear more than had been thought - thought being the tool, not the object.
The secret here, going with an initial change to "Evolution" is to seek that which would be most surprising - for example, the discovery that every species has its own unique stamp, that makes it the species that it is, whether through struggle or acknowledgement or distancing of that stamp (in principle) or that the young develop play around having that stamp come in to effect, that when their time come, they may succeed instinctively, rather than with effort. The point would be for Evolution, to step into the background of something, that had developmental depth - depth that could deliver at the point that the species needs to pass the test, not simply be passed by.
The conjecture at this point - and I really do mean to go so painfully slow, that we do not initially progress past the most superficial beginning - would be that the name is the only thing that needed to change, because the theory is that perfect! Well! Certainly the possibility of that, is there, but if the theory is heeded at all, it is heeded through an acknowledgement that growing corruption is best put in its place, not reacted to in a knee jerk fashion. No, the surprise we are looking for, is that science get easier and lighter - as the Lord Jesus promised - that we would come at an understanding of ourselves, that even clinging to theory, we know better than to try and save ourselves with theory!
But what would be better than choosing between Evolution-A and Evolution-B? That is the point, we have differences as individual members of a species, that can be completely accounted for, in legitimately observant ways! Jesus said "if you are trying to observe heaven, it is never going to come!" Surely this is a warning, that we not develop endless lists of cross-pollinated branches!! Rather, we must ply to the task: surely Evolution-A on first principles is better invoking 'place', than Evolution-B is invoking an entire "alphabet" give or take that we stop there. Do we give a name to this arbitrary change? Or is the scientific approach to maintain "Evolution", and rather invoke "selection pressure zero" from which we get the singularity of Evolutional differences coming to a head, purely on the basis of presence in the same world-defined "set".
I hope you see that I have made a point here, that we are able to ascend to a point where we are not competing with each other, to be the most boastful and proud we can be: but rather to be the most humble, most inclusive, we can be for the good of all who have come to depend on us, to this point? If nothing escapes the power of Evolution, surely the hand of God is there, somewhere where me may still find Him? The question you may ask is, is God going to implement a rule, that Evolution cannot ignore: if we let Him in to the equation, by which we do all our Evolutional work.
That is for science to ask, surely?
So, for whatever reason, people don't like anything new, to Evolution - but I don't think that that would be the approach that Charles Darwin would have taken. I suggested there is negative 'Evolution' for example, and no one seems to be able to understand, that what you give can also be taken away - Darwin, would have laughed at such humbug! But when it comes to his own theory, what is the direction that he would have taken?
We know that Darwin struggled, with his theory and that he thought it would account for all life at the same time that it struggled to be differentiated (his diagram of the tree of life, being evidence) - it was in a sense a commitment on his deathbed, not to suffer more for Evolution: implicitly, more than he had done. There was no reason for him to completely recant the theory, elements of it resonated with the promise received in Heaven, that the difference would be unshackled once there and so every species would ultimately be freed!
So what would he do with his theory, if he had a second chance? My thinking is that he would simply start with a change of name - that would be the most extraneous, most changeable aspect of the theory; an aspect that would not contradict the workings of theory, but perhaps illuminate the direction he had initially thought he could take the theory in the direction of. This makes sense because the rules, as they were, could still be made to apply to the changing of the name, at least as initially as the illumination had been. The temptation would of course be, to call something that is evolved, "evolved" for the sake of it appearing to mimic its own discovery process: something would have to be discovered in the meantime, or the effort of changing from the initial condition would risk crushing the science behind the endeavour, with overzealous attempts to endear more than had been thought - thought being the tool, not the object.
The secret here, going with an initial change to "Evolution" is to seek that which would be most surprising - for example, the discovery that every species has its own unique stamp, that makes it the species that it is, whether through struggle or acknowledgement or distancing of that stamp (in principle) or that the young develop play around having that stamp come in to effect, that when their time come, they may succeed instinctively, rather than with effort. The point would be for Evolution, to step into the background of something, that had developmental depth - depth that could deliver at the point that the species needs to pass the test, not simply be passed by.
The conjecture at this point - and I really do mean to go so painfully slow, that we do not initially progress past the most superficial beginning - would be that the name is the only thing that needed to change, because the theory is that perfect! Well! Certainly the possibility of that, is there, but if the theory is heeded at all, it is heeded through an acknowledgement that growing corruption is best put in its place, not reacted to in a knee jerk fashion. No, the surprise we are looking for, is that science get easier and lighter - as the Lord Jesus promised - that we would come at an understanding of ourselves, that even clinging to theory, we know better than to try and save ourselves with theory!
But what would be better than choosing between Evolution-A and Evolution-B? That is the point, we have differences as individual members of a species, that can be completely accounted for, in legitimately observant ways! Jesus said "if you are trying to observe heaven, it is never going to come!" Surely this is a warning, that we not develop endless lists of cross-pollinated branches!! Rather, we must ply to the task: surely Evolution-A on first principles is better invoking 'place', than Evolution-B is invoking an entire "alphabet" give or take that we stop there. Do we give a name to this arbitrary change? Or is the scientific approach to maintain "Evolution", and rather invoke "selection pressure zero" from which we get the singularity of Evolutional differences coming to a head, purely on the basis of presence in the same world-defined "set".
I hope you see that I have made a point here, that we are able to ascend to a point where we are not competing with each other, to be the most boastful and proud we can be: but rather to be the most humble, most inclusive, we can be for the good of all who have come to depend on us, to this point? If nothing escapes the power of Evolution, surely the hand of God is there, somewhere where me may still find Him? The question you may ask is, is God going to implement a rule, that Evolution cannot ignore: if we let Him in to the equation, by which we do all our Evolutional work.
That is for science to ask, surely?
