Science based philosophy is the absolute strongest. Ra ra ra
Intelligent Design is crap.

Ok anyway. Enough provocation. Is there anybody out there who can help me wrestle with the problems of evolution in philosophy?


Well, from where I sit, there are no philosophical problems with evolution.

You need to get the ball rolling yourself! What do you think?

Have you read any Richard Dawkins? “The Selfish Gene”? His work is a good place to start. Then go on to study some of the Meme ideas in something like “Meme Mechines” Sussan Blackmore. (Not a great book, but has some interesting points if you’re only starting, but best gotten from the libery as you’ll read it once and never look at it again).

It’s normally best to start a topic with some of our own ideas on the subject rather then just asking a question.

Of course there’s a problem w/ the “Big Bang.” Even if it’s true, it doesn’t account for where anything came from. If all matter as we know it today was compressed into the size of a period, it still had to come from somewhere.

The Big Bang isn’t anything to do with evolution. Also, it’s not clear that nothing comes from nothing. We don’t honestly have much of a precedent.

second to that, kyry… i was thinking exactly the same thing

actually, in this universe, things just keep coming from nowhere… ever heard of virtual parts?? it’s no explanation or so, i’m just backing up kyry, you can’t be sure only nothing can come from nothing…

do we even know what nothing means?? i’m quite confident that none of us can imagine an absolute nothing…

True - it very much appears as if virtual particle-antiparticle pairs come from nothing. I have heard people say that they come from the quantum field, and as such do not come from nothing, but I always felt as if that sidestepped the issue. Still, I don’t know enough about quantum field theory to have any certainty on the issue, but I hold to the point that it gives us pause before claiming that nothing comes from nothing.

Virtual particles don’t “come from nothing”. Always, the energy and mass in the universe is constant. They are by-products of interactions, and are temporary particles.

In the scheme of things the theories of modern physics and the suchlike amount to nothing more than artful vanity.

Discussions on the nature of particles and where they come from are tantamount to freakshows in fairgrounds: the curious and the short-sighted alike gawp at the latest monstrosity brought out for their delight and ghoulish edification.

Enough of this nonsense! ‘Particles,’ indeed! ‘Quarks;’ ‘Big Bangs,’ etc.! I mean, who actually believes this stuff? Can you not see that you’re being taken for a ride just like those bible-bashers you so readily mock?

But of course someone’s making a lot of money out of so called, ‘science.’

i suppose you never bothered reading what those scientists have to say…?

virtual parts indeed arise without any indicatable cause, they just do… they arise in pairs, one with positive energy, one with negative, sum = nil

within the planck length they are destroyed again…
ever heard of black-body radiation?

No one claimed otherwise.

White Lotus,
I’m coming at evolution from a slightly different angle. Dewey, Bateson, Cybernetics and complexity theory. I had a previous post where I stated that american philosophy appears exactly like postmodernism, but in fact is the consequence of dealing with evolution and its effects on thinking.

Regarding this big Bang problem, I tend to be suspicious of the Big Bang (I mean it’s named after an orgy for God’s sake!) as simply a post Judeo Christian cosmogenesis myth in disguise. Only recently have I heard of Hawking’s Non-singular universe theory, where there is no beginning or ending, but I haven’t approached it yet .