Online dating articles, free dating sites reviews, relationship advice - Jumpdates.com



Evolution, nasayers, believers and non-believers - a must read

Evolution, nasayers, believers and non-believers - a must read

There have been heated debates in the last centuries over the subject of evolution and the belief in the existence of God.  Neither camps have come out gracefully from these debates and neither are likely to win their arguments for the foreseeable future. The Jumpdates ThinkTank provide an opinion as to why this maybe so, please continue reading.

The topic of evolution and belief in God is highly controversial and emotional and can rear its ugly heads from the two camps of believers and non-believers. It is still open to debate who is right and wrong because the simple truth is that nobody is right. Although, Richard Dawkins a proponent of evolution believes evolution to be an absolute truth and dispels anything that cannot be explained by scientific theory. In my opinion, if you do not leave ‘room’ for the unexplained and become awed by our physical observations, we come to a standstill and dispel any notions outside of ‘science’, like Dawkins like to think so. He admittedly believes in nothing that he cannot see or be explained by science? See our take on his definition of love.

Humans are wired differently, they have the capacity to imagine and see the world in a different light and not so much from the point of a scientific artifact but much more beyond that. I am pretty sure that history is laden with evidence that some of the great scientific movements came about by the belief that we are far greater than what meets the eye.

The subject matter of evolution after Darwin published his book on ‘On the origins of species’ has generated strong debates throughout the last century with religious folks battling out with the modern evolutionary thinkers. The idea is that Natural Evolution as witnessed and theorised by Darwin is based on natural selection and thus forms the basis of evolutionary theory. There have been plenty of presentable facts that seem to fit nicely with this theory but from a scientific point of view, it is still just a theory.

All theories should be taken with a pinch of salt, since there are not sufficient presentable fact to drop the term ‘theory’. From a scientific point of view, a theory can be classified as fact only if it has irrefutably proven all the presentable results at hand and continues to explain without any single shred of doubt of any new findings. If there are further findings and additional ‘theories’ are required to support the general theory, I believe it only weakens the strength of the original theory since more ‘theories’ and hence assumptions are required to support it. I believe that man should move away from trying to explain ‘the meaning of the universe’. As a scientist, you only need to peer 200,000 times under a scanning electron microscope to see how diverse nature truly is. What we have is simply mesmerizing works of nature that no single theory can every possibly try to explain it. Although, there maybe one, but it would foolish and futile to pursue it.

Many of us don’t always understand the origins of the word ‘infinite’. The definition means that there is no end and it’s impossible to put any kind of mathematical figure to it. The word infinite can be used in everyday context. Who is to say that there are an infinite number of universes and there are infinite possible explanations as to how we came into existence? The job of science is to add clarity to our findings so we can make better sense of it and extend our understanding to newer branches of science as well furthering practical applications of science. Science by its very nature tries to make sense of the unexplained phenomenon and observational findings by principles that are understood by man. We understand that there are electrons and they can conduct through various materials and has been quantified and harnessed by man. We live in a modern world where computers, wifi and all things digital have fundamental roots in the flow of current.

Let’s take our theoretical understanding of current which is the flow of electrons. We have tools that scientists (not just physicists as Michio Kaku like to think) have devised that can measure amperage ie. current. We thus use the mathematical models to intrinsically model it’s behavior and model the behavior in many circumstances. This awareness and understanding has led man to come up with Schrodinger’s equation, quantum mechanics etc. We base all of the supporting arguments that we know or can feel what an electron looks like without ever actually seeing it. We can also place it’s behavior in space, we just need a theory for this which happens to be Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

All of these findings and excellent mathematical models which by the way can be corroborated with other physical findings in other branches of study only gives weight to our credulity in the understanding of electrons and it’s behavior. What if I were to say, that this is all good but I have a better theory that not only explains all of the above but can explain why men keep coming up with new discovered particles when they keep bombarding high speed atoms in massive colliders of today. Surely everyone would listen, right, especially if I were to go into the mathematical intricacies of my theory that pretty much summed up all the phenomenon that are understood today, be it mathematical or observational.

I fear that this would not be the case, in this world of irrational beings.

Let me explain, since I am trying to draw the analogy to the debate on evolution and the existence of God. We have ardent believers in both camps and they can continue to debate on this topic till the cows came home. Nothing will get resolved, they will simply go each other’s ways and continue to hammer their beliefs on the other party until the next day. Also, I believe there should never be any meetings between the factions until new findings can come and overcome all of our beliefs today. We spend fruitless time and energy trying to stomp on top of each other with Dawkins being a major culprit who publicly discredits the other camp only to get publicity for his books.

As normal decent human beings, we should all get along and respect each other’s beliefs since nothing has come to steer either camps in new directions. However, we should remain open that there are other possibilities and it maybe an infinite one at that.

This article was brought to you by the ThinkTank of Jumpdates.com

Tags: , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Evolution, nasayers, believers and non-believers - a must read”

  1. favorably says:

    Nice response in rеturn of this matter with solid arguments and eхplaining the whole tһing concerning that.

Leave a Reply

Get Social with Jumpdates

RSS Feed
Twitter
Google+
  • Archives

  •  100% Free Online Dating Site - Jumpdates.com
    Sign up to Jumpdates Dating Tips Newsletter Now
    We promise you never to spam!
    Name
    Email
    Check out these helpful relationship and dating tips to improve your lovelife
    Get Social with Jumpdates
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Pinterest