Question for Evolutionists

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Sinai
Since the Hebrew scriptures relied on by Christians and Jews for the "notion of special creation" (as you phrased it) indicates that God's special creation was a soul for human beings, what portion of the work of "Methodological naturalism and scientists (notably Charles Darwin) respectively" discredits the existance of a soul in human beings?

Well I wasn't referring to "souls" (whatever that is), I was referring to the "creation" of physical, observable entities. In that sense "special creation" appeals to divine intervention for the appearance of, in the case of some creationists, mankind, and, in the case of others, bacterial flagella.

Many creationists insist, in the face of evidence indicating otherwise, that our own species was a "special creation" of a god, that homo sapiens appeared fully formed. Others insist that bacterial flagella are the "special creation" of a god, or "designer," to borrow their euphemism.

Since "soul" is a rather subjective term I don't see how science can either confirm or deny its existence. Of course scientific methodology can be applied to the study of human consciousness and there are indeed several areas of study devoted to the physiology of the human brain, for example.

As you probably know the presence and interaction of various chemicals in the brain have been determined to play specific roles involved with emotional responses to stimuli and so on. But I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "soul." Perhaps you are referring to the Roman Catholic position on evolution, which appears to distinguish between purely physical entities and reserves the theological right to assert that "God" is ultimately responsible for the appearance of the human "soul," whatever that is.

I don't believe "soul" is a term that frequently appears in scientific discourse.

I agree that science often does not attempt to speculate as to whether something caused something else to happen. For example, proponents of the Big Bang theory may believe that there was a definite beginning of our universe--but may be silent as to what (or Who) caused that beginning to occur--or where the energy or matter that comprises the universe came from.

Actually I'm sure there is quite a lot of discussion on these topics, much of which can properly be termed "speculation." Nevertheless speculation must itself adhere to what is observed and understood. Speculation that ignores existing empirical information is by definition pretty useless to scientists, I would think.

Teleology, or goaldirectedness, doesn't have so much to do with "cause and effect" relationships as much as it has to do with what philosophers refer to as the "final cause," that is, the ultimate goal of individual processes, or the total amalgamation of all processes, if I'm not mistaken.

As for the Big Bang the inference of a "beginning" to the universe proceeds from the fact that since the universe is expanding, it's possible to calculate a point in "time" at which the universe was much much smaller. What preceded that situation is obviously the subject of much speculation. I believe the jury is still out on whether or not gravity will eventually lead to a contraction of the universe, and if so, whether or not cycles of expansion and contraction have or have not been occurring infinitely.

The reason or purpose or goal of all this is certainly beyond the capabilities of scientific instruments and calculations, and we are all free to speculate what that purpose is, if indeed there is any purpose to it at all.

I don't have a problem with science being silent on such points. But I also don't see that it is a "misplaced teleology" for religion to attempt to fill in such gaps by asserting a belief that it was God that caused the beginning to occur and that He created the universe.

I agree with you; however, far fewer of these "gaps" exist today than they did hundred of years ago, by virtue of our continually broadening understanding of the physical universe. And it stands to reason that the gaps that exist today will themselves disappear in the future.

But teleological questions are certainly not misplaced when it comes to religion. I think "ultimate goals" are what religion is all about. Religion supposedly exists to try and give some of us an understanding of issues that appear on the surface to be beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. But, like the speculation I referred to above, religion needs also to comport with the findings of empirical investigations. And the "special creation" of mankind, for one thing, does not. But I don't believe there is any disgrace in that, as many creationists contend, seemingly appalled that our species shares so many physical (and emotional) characteristics with other species.

However science, strictly speaking, is simply not equipped, at least at the moment, to deal with many teleological inferences, which, as indicated by the large number of human religions and the myriad of sectarian interpretations within those religions, are open to a wide variety of subjective interpretation.

Your questions are very thought-provoking and I hope I've addressed them to some degree.

 

[Morat]

Just a note: Current measurements indicate that the universe is "open" and will not contract. Recent measurements indicate that not only is the expansion above the maximum for a closed universe, but that the expansion is also accelerating.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Thanks. Do these measurements preclude the possibility that prior to the current expansion of the universe there had been a cycle of expansions and contractions, and that now we're in the "final bounce," as it were?

 

[Raging Atheist]

I also have a question for the physics buffs... since gravity can be exerted between two objects no matter how distant, doesn't this mean there is a constant force being exerted to contract the universe back together? and if this is true, then doesn't it mean that eventually (eons and eons from now) the gravity will slow down and start to work back in on itself?

I'm sure I'm way off, but I've found that asking questions never hurts...

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti


Your questions are very thought-provoking and I hope I've addressed them to some degree.

Thank you. You have. I suspected that your initial definition of "creationist" may have been directed toward "young earth creationists" and might not really pertain to other creationists--those persons who believe that God created the universe (and time, matter and life) but who also believe the evidence provided by mainstream science. Thus, the questions I posed for your consideration. Thank you for your thoughtful answers.

 

[Morat]

Scarletti: Could very well be. I know bounce models are being discussed, and not dismissed out of hand. However, it's basically the same sort of thing you get with panspermia. Ultimately, you get to origins. If not here (or now) then there and then, so to speak.

Most cosmologists were (and probably are, as the "accelerating expansion" thing isn't nailed down yet) looking at a flat universe. Perfectly balanced between expansion and contraction.


RA: Think "escape velocity".


And how on earth did I get so many blessings? I had zero a week or so ago. Whose playing silly buggers?

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by Morat

RA: Think "escape velocity".

Well, I am thinking escape velocity. What I can't get around, however, is that with an infinite amount of time, that miniscule force of gravity a planet exerts on another planet lights years away will cause it to slow and eventually reverse. Take any given satellite in absolutely clean space... just it and the object it orbits... say its initial velocity gives it an escape velocity... but, over time, because gravity is constant regardless of distance, wouldnt the satellit return and collide with the object?

 

[Morat]

Gravity is infinite, yes. But once you reach escape velocity, you're gone. A free object no longer bound by gravity. Your momentum enough to shrug off the clingy fingers of gravity.

Less poetic: I have absolutely no idea, except it isn't a problem. Whether it's because the expansion of the universe isn't that of matter, but of space-time, or because of something else, I'm clueless. I do know *exactly* the right person to ask, though. I'll let you know when he gets back to me

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by Morat
I do know *exactly* the right person to ask, though. I'll let you know when he gets back to me

cool, thanks!... *coughs*.... *wanders around*... um, I'll just wait here....

 

[DrLao]

RA, this might help. Especially, this part:

Escape velocity is defined to be the minimum velocity an object must have in order to escape the gravitational field of the earth, that is, escape the earth without ever falling back.

The object must have greater energy than its gravitational binding energy to escape the earth's gravitational field. So:

1/2 mv2 = GMm/R

Where m is the mass of the object, M mass of the earth, G is the gravitational constant, R is the radius of the earth, and v is the escape velocity. It simplifies to:

v = sqrt(2GM/R)

or

v = sqrt(2gR)

Where g is acceleration of gravity on the earth's surface.

Although it isn't explictly stated, it should be apparent from the equations that the v they solve for is the minimum velocity necessary to escape the Earth's gravitational field. Anything more than that will do the trick as well.

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by DrLao
RA, this might help. Especially, this part:


Although it isn't explictly stated, it should be apparent from the equations that the v they solve for is the minimum velocity necessary to escape the Earth's gravitational field. Anything more than that will do the trick as well.

Yes, I know what escape velocity is, thank you. Here is what I don't get, however.

F[force of gravity]=(G[constant]*m[mass1]*M[mass2])/r[distance between two objects]^2
thus
F=(G*m*M)/r^2

now, lets say r=1 gazillion light years... F is now like 1x10^-2billionth... infinitely small... yet still there... nothing is ever free of anything else's gravity... regardless of how fast away its travelling from it... can you show me some way to get F to equal 0 somehow? or maybe explain it differently? I was terrible at physics... hence the psych major... hahahaha...

 

[Morat]

My friend has come through. I'll paste the relevant portions of his response here:

I understand your question. I can answer this in several ways. The correct answer is that it's a straightforward sequences and series mathematical problem.
...
You're aware, I'm sure, of Zeno's paradox. It's the CLASSIC sequences and series problem. Let's modify it a little in order to demonstrate that an ever-accumulating value won't necessarly be enough to reach a goal even after infinite repetitions: Starting off going a half mile step, then a quarter mile per step, then in ever-halved steps, taking some fixed finite time to perform a step, one can demonstrate it will take an infinite number of steps to go one mile... and will never ever go two miles. This is easily mathematically demonstratable (chapter one of sequences and series), I've done that one myself. More important, it fits our intuition. Anyone can see it will take poor Zeno forever to go that mile (at least, in the form of Zeno's paradox that I've phrased here).

Likewise with the expanding universe problem. The gravitational attraction falls off sharply (inverse square instead of Zeno's simple geometric progression). People more up on their math can explicitly and clearly show that for certain values of mass and initial velocity, they'll never fall back together. It's the same math that shows there is a specific "escape speed" that an object needs to not fall back to earth.

Since we're talking about gravity and math and the size of the universe, here's my favorite analogy: conic solids! Consider a graph of the size of the universe vrs. time. In a closed universe, such a graph will look like (half of) an elipse- it will start off expanding fast, level off, then fall back slowly at first then quickly. In the case of a flat universe, it will look like half of a parabola - expanding quickly at first, then gradually slower until after sufficently long time it will be practically not expanding. In the case of an open universe, it will look like half of a hyperbola - expanding quickly at first, the expansion will slow but it will never fall back. The rate of expansion, the value of the derivative of the hyperbola will get smaller but will never go to zero. It will always keep expanding.

In short, the RATE of expansion will continually get smaller, but for certain initial conditions of the universe, it will get smaller slowly enough such that the rate will never reverse. Zeno can get to a half mile easily, nearly mile after nearly an infinite time, and never to two miles. The rate of a hyperbola's expansion goes down, but the hyperbola never closes. The math is explicit and reproducable by even the most sceptical

He didn't give the math, but did gripe a bit about his sequences and series class. I gripe I can empathize with.

 

[Raging Atheist]

the analogies helped significantly... I'll just have to wander around on my own and see if I can come up with the math... I have a friend I might ask as well... if I ever get off work... *sighs*... thanks again

 

[Sinai]

NR, what you are suggesting appears to be the oscillating universe theory or a variation of that theory, which basically proposed that the universe would expand until its momentum slowed and the gravitational pull of the universal mass caused the expansion to eventually stop. The gravitational attraction of the matter of the universe would then cause it to collapse in upon itself.

One of the major problems with the theory is that it requires there to be sufficient matter in the universe to cause the gravitational attraction to eventually overpower the momentum of expansion (referred to as the critical density) . If there is not enough mass to cause such an attraction, the universe will continue to expand forever or until it is acted on by a force not yet observed in nature. If I recall correctly, scientists maintain that there is not sufficient matter to attain the critical density needed for this theory to be viable.

 

[Raging Atheist]

tsk... thats just because the light from the 2nd universe hasn't reached us yet...

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist:
tsk... thats just because the light from the 2nd universe hasn't reached us yet...

RA, do you suppose you could get Howard the Duck to provide more light from that 2nd (or parallel) universe?

 

[Raging Atheist]

Sinai, don't be ridiculous. It would still take just as long for the light to get here, though it would be brighter...

hah... turn up the light... and I suppose next you're going to tell me that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction...

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Sinai
I suspected that your initial definition of "creationist" may have been directed toward "young earth creationists"

My understanding of the term "creationist" refers largely to issues in biology, which appears to be the main battleground between proponents of empirical, naturalistic science and their detractors. Creationists by and large don't seem to have a problem with gravitational theory or atomic theory (except of course when it conflicts with their creationist views, for example with respect to the fixed rates of atomic decay, the speed of light, and so on).

I would also consider Michael Behe, for example, a "creationist." Although Behe seems to accept a considerable portion of evolutionary biology, he claims that certain entities were "designed," which, as far as I'm concerned, is a euphemism for "created."

So whether a creationist insists that homo sapiens or angiosperms or bacterial flagella or the blood clotting cascade were specially created, he's still a creationist.

and might not really pertain to other creationists--those persons who believe that God created the universe (and time, matter and life) but who also believe the evidence provided by mainstream science.

I guess you're referring to what a lot of people call "theistic evolution." I wouldn't call such a view "creationist." I don't think any scientist or scientifically minded person can object to theistic evolution. Whether some sort of divine intelligence or "god" or whatever got the ball rolling and the universe has since proceeded according to purely naturalistic laws and circumstances is beyond the purview of science, I think.

Such a god would have a far more impressive imagination, if one can even speak of gods' imagination, than the Biblical literalists give it credit for, it seems to me. The Biblical literalists contemplate a god that behaves exactly the way they want and expect it to, which is completely absurd and defeats the whole purpose of postulating a god in the first place.

As has been pointed out many times before many many professional scientists that are otherwise committed to purely naturalistic explanations for the workings of the universe are believers of various religions and denominations. Science and religion can indeed coexist peacefully and, in my view, can and should be mutually enriching.

It's unfortunate that too many fundamentalists insist that they cannot. But that is more of a problem for religion than for science, which proceeds apace while religion often splinters and bickers over the interpretation of doctrine and scripture which have nothing to do with the questions and problems of science.

I am quite sure many devout Christians are embarrassed by the wild histrionics of creationists of various persuasions.

Thus, the questions I posed for your consideration. Thank you for your thoughtful answers.

And thank you for yours, and for your intriguing questions and comments.