Philosophy Now Forum

Genesis and Evolution.
1
Vacuum: T=0K
2
Dirac’s Virtual particles = Energy = Information = Consciousness.
3
Particles Evolution: from Virtual to Real.
=.
P.S.
There is - Evolutionary Biology
There isn’t conception of Evolution in Particle physics.
We have part of science which we call ‘ biophysics ‘.
Is it possible what one part of this science ‘ bio’ has
evolution and the other part of the same knowledge
‘ physics’ has not conception of evolution?
===========.
Israel Socratus.
=.

Book: What is your dangerous idea?
/ Edited by John Brockman /
Article:
Seeing Darwin in the light of Einstein;
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin.
/ by Lee Smolin. /
===.
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin suggests that
natural selection could act not only on living things
but on the properties defining the various species
of elementary particles.
/ Page 115 /
We physicists have now to understand Darwin’s lesson:
The only way to understand how one out of a vast number
of choices was made, which favors improbable structure,
is that is the result of evolution by natural selection.
/ Page 117 /
Now the only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature,
and for uniformity in general, is to suppose them results of evolution.
/ Page 117 /
And I believe that once this is achieved, Einstein and Darwin
will be understood as partners in the greatest revolution
yet in science, . . .
/ Page 118 /
=====================.

socratus wrote:Genesis and Evolution.
1
Vacuum: T=0K
2
Dirac’s Virtual particles = Energy = Information = Consciousness.
3
Particles Evolution: from Virtual to Real.
=.
P.S.
There is - Evolutionary Biology
There isn’t conception of Evolution in Particle physics.
We have part of science which we call ‘ biophysics ‘.
Is it possible what one part of this science ‘ bio’ has
evolution and the other part of the same knowledge
‘ physics’ has not conception of evolution?
===========.
Israel Socratus.
=.

You brain is a bizarre dustbin of unjustified connections and irrelevant link.
Have you ever had any psychiatric attention?

On another tack:

There are those who say the theory of evolution and Genesis (the first book of the Bible) are incompatible. I don't agree. Genesis is incompatible with the idea that the existence of a Creator God is not needed to explain existence.

The big idea implied by Genesis is that the universe was created on purpose by a superior Being, i.e. by "God". How God did it and how long it took become secondary issues. There are Christians, for example Francis Collins, the author of The Language of God, who would say that God is the instigator of the process of evolution.

Mike Strand wrote:On another tack:

There are those who say the theory of evolution and Genesis (the first book of the Bible) are incompatible. I don't agree. Genesis is incompatible with the idea that the existence of a Creator God is needed to explain existence.

The big idea implied by Genesis is that the universe was created on purpose by a superior Being, i.e. by "God". How God did it and how long it took become secondary issues. There are Christians, for example Francis Collins, the author of The Language of God, who would say that God is the instigator of the process of evolution.

Evolution is not a force of nature. Evolution does not create nor does it cause. It needs no "instigating". Such a statement is a misunderstanding of what evolution is.

Evolution is an effect of change. It is the consequences of natural changes, it does not need to be instigated by any one or any thing.

Let us say the Evolution is "generalized" free motion...

Cerveny wrote:Let us say the Evolution is "generalized" free motion...

I have no idea what you mean by this.