Can it be possible to believe in evolution while leaving some room for a higher power who actually might have started the whole process. No one.. no scientific theory even tries to explain what happened one second ago before the big bang.

Its impossible to ignore evolution.. I mean there is just too much evidence for it.. Yet there are many things missing from it too.

the current definitions of evolution and natural selection both have flaws, they are not perfected theories

although these two terms are backed up by hard evidence, evolution and natural selection still cant explain the un-evolution like creation of certain species among other things

so one shouldnt believe in the current concept of evolution and natural selection... rather believe the process of life being something similarly related to these two terms

as far as a god goes who started this evolution process, yes it is a possibility cuz some entity had to start this all but it dont mean that entity is the same entity religion portrays god as, or in some cases, multiple gods and goddeses and demons

blah........

i think it's perfectly valid to believe in both. to me, it's more logical somewhat to believe in evolution and a god than just in god.

although i don't believe in either - not in the conventional eithers anyway. as in i don't believe in a being, a supreme being i.e. "god", and i don't believe in evolution as in we evolved from apes etc.

What exactly do you believe are the definitions of "evolution" and "natural selection"? How are these definitions flawed?

What do you mean by "un-evolution"? When you say "creation of certain species among other things" are you referring to speciation or abiogenesis?

Start what? Evolution? The Big Bang? Why is "some entity" necessary for either of these?

it is not some "entity," but there was "necessarry being"....the only problem with God is that we consider such a being to have conscious thought.....

Science still can't explain why or how life happens so both evolution and some higher power are viable.

Neither can be fully proven or fully disproven.

I often find with this thread that many people air thier thoughts without anything to back up thier general statements..This isn't me getting all up myself as I do it to but when it comes to subjects I'm fascinated by I like to see them discussed properly.

In this case statements like 'Science can't explain...' and 'no scientific theory even tries to explain what happened one second ago before the big bang' Are based upon personal opinions and should be preseanted as such.

Scientists like Steven Hawking (Brief History of Time) Have attempted to explain the creation of the universe and have provided some sound explenations, whether you believe them or not is of course up to you.

The 'flaws' with evolutionary theory are also down to personal opinion. And if that personal opinion is 'We don't come from Monkeys!!!Because I'm nothing like a Monkey!' then I worry about the state of this philosophy forum.

evolution is one of my favorite mysteries...they know a lot about the migration of man...and even pre-iceage man(shortly there after something happened)there is a period during this creation when people start turning from their animal nature, walking upright with practical intelligence. So many races, colors, creed...a dozen great cultures, simliar in theory, different in concept, i don't think it started with monkeys in australia migrating up north...ending up down in south america...there was a catalyst that made it all click...i don't think anyone will ever know that, just plausible theories based on concepts and personal study.

i believe there was intervention, but my belief is just my theory...however much sense it makes

If it's a subject you are fascinated by read up on the Frankencell experiments here and here
a bit more

It is not contrary to science for anything to happen..that is hogwash science! Chaos theory states anything that can happen will happen at some point in an infinite universe with an infinity of time. The problem a few scientists have is that the creation of a living cell is not reproducable in the laboratory but this is a bizarre doubt. It is not possible to duplicate billions of years of evolution in a laboratory..well it is but by the time the experiment is complete billions of years will have past and you will be dead.

Some evolutionary theories see life being created when lightening strikes hit the sea creating more complex bonds between molecules..eventualy over millions of years these came together to form amino acids and then protiens and protien strings. This is a process of massive chance, the conditions for life may exist on only one planet in the entire universe out of billions and billions of planets! The only reason humanity says 'but why did it happen on this planet?' is because it did..if it hadn't then obviously we wouldn't say that.

Chaos theory and evolution are linked, they are also linked in our inability to concieve of thier entire process as they become infinitely complex over even a very short time. It would not be contrary to science for a glowing cow to land on the pope, only unlikely.
There are now protiens being created from scratch in laboratories that mimick life...who is to say that they are not forms of life? They breed, eat etc Life itself is a hard thing to define, fire contains most of the properties of life and many 'living' things don't, there is a controvercial theory that life is simply the earths complex way of releasing heat, after all this is what life does.

No that's Quantum theory, witha bit of Heisenberg thrown in for good measure.

Chaos theory is the one about everything affecting everything else in the universe in some way.

I never said they couldn't reproduce a form of life, I said they didn't know how or why it happened in the first place

~Mikey's thought on Evolution~

Evolution is perplexing. Without a doubt, there's substancial evidence to back up the theory. It wouldn't be logical to deny the scientific proof we've been presented.

But in light of that, we must examine science itself. Religion some might say, like science, was created by man. As religious aspects are debated today, as are the scientific ones which undergo the same third degree. But I have to wonder sometimes... aren't both approaches flawed? Science is the product of human research. It's our perception on this planet in which we live. I'm sure no one would argue that the human race, is indeed, a flawed species - perfection is but an illusion. Therefore, every explanation for evolution, or our existance, will only be theory in my opinion. "Right and wrong" is a matter of perspective.

I won't lie, I can be very easily swayed when debating this sort of topic. But I like to hear different opinions on it - ultimately, it can probably help me be more derivitive to my own conclusion - however I'll stick with my religious beliefs, just enqueue some science with that. With that said, I believe in a bit of both - Science, and Religion. In no way do I doubt my religion, though. The human existance has been disected down to the smallest gene, cellular mitosis, and all that other fun stuff - but I can't seem to grip the belief that raw human passion, and emotion, can be summed in a chemistry equation about hormones or chromosomes in the back of our brain. If that makes me oblivious, then I'm totally oblivious.

Actualy it is Chaos theory so mnuh ...Chaos theory is much broader than 'the one about everything affecting everything else in the universe in some way' (that is just the butterfly effect principle) and includes Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Quantum physics deals mainly with the nature of matter, energy and dimensionality.

The chimps typing on typewriters to produce Shakespeare is one aspect of Chaos theory and evolution is supposed to work in much the same way. Random changes pushed on by the universal constants of physical law (now brought into question mostly as they may not be as constant as we thought e.g the gravitational 'constant') create stable patterns based around the simplest protien form...in the case of evolution life, in another case crystals or the creation of stars etc all follow the same process of destructive/creative change.

Science is not the same as philosophy, there are scientific 'theories' that are generaly held to be true by scientists to simplify thier understanding but these theories without proof are not science. Science is mans attempt to distance himself from fantasy and focus on the reality using precise instrumentation. If it falls outside the measurable universe of science then it is philosophical conjecture. Science was not created by man, it is the study by man of the things not created by man, a good scientist never says 'This is the truth' unless he has a repeatable unbiased observation to back up his understanding.

Chaos theory is shitting in one hand and pissing in the other then throwing the two together to make a mess which may or may not produce an ignoble effect....

Evolution is fact... it occurs... what is theory is the why of it...

Why do things form into other things which adapt to the surroundings they are presently in.... when we answer that question.... well..... we will have our answer...

Oh, in no way do I consider philosophy and science identical. But you raise a valid point. My thought was merely that these tests and experimentations carried out by man are as likely to be flawed, as factual. But that's pretty much along the same lines as you had said, in which I agree. There's no precise definition of exact truth, in my opinion. It's impossible to derive to one, sole truth. Even with a low margin of error, and numerous case examples, I still believe evolution itself is far to complex to take a definate stand on, personally.

However, I like your opinion on it. It's far more intelligent compared to what I'm used to (As I've seen elsewhere). Topics like this can easily make you think - controversy in itself is benificial.

While it's true that any procedure conducted by human beings is subject to possible error, I think it's superfluous to say that scientific research is just as likely to flawed as factual, since the scientific method is set up specifically to reduce such error. The rigorous peer-review that accompanies all cutting-edge research and its self-correcting nature ensure that science is more reliable than not.

But you can't deny that they intersect, considering the epistemology that is the basis of science. All scientists accept to some degree the axiom that our sensory perceptions are reliable. This is a philosophical stance and cannot be proven.

I totally understand where you're coming from Dead Dreamer. I think I'm pretty much in the same place.

ASD, Isn't it a bit of a contradiction to state...

"I think it's superfluous to say that scientific research is just as likely to flawed as factual" and then " All scientists accept to some degree the axiom that our sensory perceptions are reliable. This is a philosophical stance and cannot be proven."

Which would therefore prove Tentacles point?.

This does not necessitate that I agree with Tentacle.

"Science was not created by man, it is the study by man of the things not created by man, a good scientist never says 'This is the truth' unless he has a repeatable unbiased observation to back up his understanding."

If science wasn't created by man was it created by god or did it evolve?

"What this means, as a practical matter, is that everything in science is open to question. Can we be sure that the speed of light isn't an absolute upper limit? Is it possible that genetic information can be carried by proteins, rather than DNA? Was Einstein correct in his formulation of the theory of general relativity? It's never easy to upset the scientific apple cart, but the practice of science requires as an absolute, than everything in science be open to question, Everything"...compliments of Mr K.R.Miller