Looks like Cthulhu to me...Personally I don't like Intelligent Design on the grounds that it posits deity as being external to the universe. My theory is that the process of the universe becoming increasingly complex (one of the processes by which it does so being the evolution of life) is what gives rise to the consciousness of the universe (which I reckon is actually clumpy like matter, which is why you get individuality and many deities and spirits). In other words, the development of life is the thought process of the mind of the universe.
On the other hand...
The original meaning of "science" was "knowledge," so that "a scientific explanation" was as Arnold Lunn says in The Revolt Against Reason, "an explanation which is in accord with all the known facts" (105). However, "science" has been redefined to mean "knowledge of the material world as explained by reference to the material world" thus, by definition, eliminating knowledge of non-material entities and truths and prohibiting supernatural explanations. Thus, if the truth is that God has created the natural world, then the truth--that is, the real, actual explanation--is by definition "unscientific." Robert Harris
See also Alan Rayner's inclusional version of evolutionary theory - the idea that evolution is the survival of the fitting, not the fittest - in other words, life co-operates and diversifies to fill available niches, rather than competing for ever-diminishing resources as in the Darwinian model. And then there's Kropotkin's critique of Darwin - he demonstrated that co-operation, not competition, is the basis of evolution.
Clearly evolution happens, but the mechanism by which it happens is still up for discussion, in my view. The problem is that, because of the polarisation between creationists and Darwinists, both of whom adopt an "you're either with us or against us" stance, there is no room for sensible debate about alternative scientific theories of evolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment