RSS

Nature’s Laws vs Science

Nature’s Laws vs Science

The discoveries of science have awed humans since the beginning of human history.  The discovery of making fire was unbelievable at the time even though it had been experienced in the wild from lighting striking and causing a fire.  The early discoveries may not have been formally thought of as scientific discoveries.

Sometimes the discovery is interpreted as more than just a discovery.  Sometimes people attach to the idea of discovery of the scientists having created something.  I agree that this appears to be the case in some situations such as the discovery of the telescope.  People can get the notion that the telescope was created.  The reality is that it was a manufacturing of existing matter into a new relationship of that matter.

If science is discovering things and not creating things, then what are they discovering?  They are discovering the underlying “Laws of Nature”.  These are the laws by which things naturally operate.  Science has become the formalized study of nature with the objective to find the laws of nature that apply,.  The realm of science has become too large for a set of experts to understand everything.  It has become necessary to break the concept of nature into different fields.

There are many underlying fields but the main fields are physics, chemistry and biology.  Physics and chemistry have their own unique laws while biology uses some of the laws of physics and chemistry.  Biology has its own unique law besides called evolution.  Evolution is more about the connectivity of living matter as opposed to its functionally.

It needs to be remembered that science is the study of the laws of nature.  These laws are a given as they are what are functioning currently.  We can embrace science because science is describing the laws of nature and not making any claims of where the laws came.  Embracing science will not damage whatever you believe regarding where the laws came from.  Another thought that you need to think about is, have the laws of nature changed over time?  Were the laws different 13.5 billion years ago?  We make the assumption that they were the same because that is all we know and that is our framework of knowledge.

Thoughts and comments welcome.

Contact me at creativeevolution@aol.com for a copy  of chapter 1 of “Mommy, Was Daddy an Ape? – A Blending of Creationism and Evolution.  It is currently being edited but will send as soon as it comes back form the editor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , ,

Mommy, Was Daddy An Ape – A Blending of Creationism and Evolution

Mommy, Was Daddy An Ape – A Blending of Creationism and Evolution

The Big Bang Theory suggests that the universe was created, thus everything in the universe was created.

My pen name is Evolution Man and I am the author of the above titled book. The name of the book gives away what the book is about while the intent is threefold. First, it shows one how to embrace science without giving up one’s religious beliefs. Second, it shows how religion answers the questions that science can not. Third, it emphasizes that we all belong to one race with one set of parents.

Evolution is like gravity as it is a law of nature. To what extent one accepts evolution is up to them, the fact that it is similar to gravity supports that it was created. The beauty of this thought process is that the study of science does not refute God but is the study of all that God created through the creation of the laws of nature.

Normally it is thought that these two words, creationism and evolution, can not be used together as they are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. I use the term “Creative Evolution” which is the essence of what the book is about. My thought is that they can be brought together thus giving a better understanding of the function of religion and science.

Believers around the world – Our defense should not be to deny the obvious, but to challenge the origination of the laws.

Many times people who believe in religion do not have a convincing argument for what they believe.
The book addresses this issue by bringing together many different scientific disciplines in order to demonstrate their interrelationships. The two are interdependent which allows for creationists to take a more definitive position on the role of science in their lives.

This approach addresses certain common laws of nature that are common throughout different disciplines. Some of the laws of nature follow:

Laws of Physics
Laws of Chemistry
Laws of Evolution

What is scientific faith? It is the faith of scientists that their professional theories are sound and can be extrapolated to explain areas where there is no proof but only conjecture. This is the case with the origin of life and with the origin of the species.

The second focus of the book addresses how religion answers the questions that science can not answer. As we move from the actual toward the theoretical we also move from the scientific to the religious realm. This thought allows each to serve a different and unique purpose.

The idea of race is not a biological difference but a cultural difference. Science and religion teach us, one race with one set of parents.

Lastly the focus of the book is the fact that Darwinism and Creationism both believe that we had one set of parents. The fact is that all human beings are of one race and are 99% similar. It always seems that people want to focus on the differences when the conversation should be really about similarities. Having this thought in mind it seems that our scientific and religious leaders have fallen short of their obligation of teaching that we all had the same parents either from a religious standpoint of Adam and Eve or from a scientific standpoint of the first Homo sapiens.

One may ask, who are you to challenge what has been written in the stone tablets of science? My response is that I am an average person who lives in the United States and have freedom to think on my own. The United States is one of the few countries in the world which allows everyone to challenge the existing establishment. In other countries Gods of Science are accepted without question because they are the experts. Many scientists like the scientific environment in the United States because it allows them the freedom of challenging the existing theory which they may not be able to do in their native country. Each current theory has individuals that have a vested interest in it by the existing establishment. Sometimes it is these individuals that do not want to accept the new theory.

I write on many related topics to help people gain an understanding of how science and religion are related. One of the examples that I write about emphasizes that theories of science are open to change, with new theory replacing an old theory resulting from new information having been discovered. The science of today will be out dated by the science of tomorrow.

I hope that you enjoy the book.

Thoughts to Ponder

Does not knowing deny the existence of something?

It seems sometimes the description is painstakingly detailed with the expectation that it alone explains the process when in truth it doesn’t.

Evolution seems that is of two types: Adaptive which responds to the environment, Anticipatory which adapts in order to develop something new.

Have you ever noticed that you have an attraction to all living organisms? This is because we are all related.

Filters are the interpretative fabric that allows us to see the truth.

Could there be other senses that we don’t know about because a mutation has not occurred to unlock it?

“History followed different courses for different people because of differences among peoples’ environments, not because of biological differences among people themselves.” Jared Diamond

My contact information:

Phone # 815-546-2253

creativeandevolution.wordpress.com
Creative Evolution – Facebook
creativeevolution@aol.com

PS. I have been researching and writing about evolution for over six years.  If you would like a copy of Chapter 1 of the book please email me at creativeevolution@aol.com and I will send you a copy as soon it comes back from the editor.  Thanks.

Evolution Man

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , ,

How Many Galaxies Exist?

Originally posted on Creative Evolution:

One of the early questions of inquisitive minds was the question, “was the galaxy that the Earth resided the only galaxy?”   I presume if one is an astronomer then this is an easy question to answer.  For an average Joe like me it is not so obvious.  When I look out into the night sky I see hundreds of stars but I can not tell how far away they are.  One of the amazing things regarding  the universe is its enormous size.  I suggest that it reaches to infinity and has no limit.

Hubble calculated a light called the Andromeda Nebula to be 900, 000 light years away.  A light year is the distance that light travels in one  Earth year or 5.9 trillion miles.  This light that Hubble was viewing was 900,000 times 5.9 trillion miles.  This is enough to boggle one’s mind.  It had been calculated previously…

View original 148 more words

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 26, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Time and Distance Relationship

My last two posts have been about time and distance and now we are going to talk about their relationship.  As a recap we have concluded that time is a law of nature but it is not an absolute and we have no absolute measure of time.  Also distance is a law of nature and distance is an absolute but with no absolute measure.

I don’t want to scare anyone but this is where math comes into play as a valuable tool.  If I don’t have any absolute measure then I can use a letter of the alphabet to represent the concept that I am describing if we all agree on the concept.  For example we can use the letter a to represent a measure of time such as an interval of time.  This would be instead of an hour or minute of any other representation that we are familiar.  This idea of using letters could also be used for a measure of distance.  We could use the letter b as a measure of distance instead of what we think of as a yard or mile.

This idea of using symbols is very powerful as we can now talk about universal relationships and we don’t have to agree on a particular measure.  This now allows us to use these ideas to talk about the universal concepts which I have continued to call the laws of nature.  In our normal vernacular we think of the relationship of time and distance as speed.  The distance we can go in a certain amount of time is speed such as we can travel 60 miles in one hour.  The relationship looks like this:  60 miles divided by 1 hour equals 60 miles per hour.  Now using our new math notation, which is not new at all except in this conversation, we would say b (distance) divided by a (time).  This represents speed as we would know it in the universe.  Much of this is logic and you just need to think about it awhile.  The conclusion is that even though we do not have a universal measure we have a relationship called speed that we can add to the laws of nature in order to describe relationships that are valid in the universe.

Thoughts and comments.

 

 

 

Tags: , , , ,

What Is Distance and How Do We Measure It?

My last blog was about time and the fact that the concept of time was not an absolute but a relative concept.  Tonight I want to explore the concept of distance.  Distance is an absolute without an absolute measure of it.  We have constructed measures of distance such as a yard or a meter but the fact that we have these different measures proves my point.

If you hold your two index fingers out in front of you and look at the space between the two fingers, we would agree that there is a distance between the two fingers.  We can describe the distance as being big or small but the concept is relative.  Some distances are small such as the distance between atom particles neutrons and the surrounding electrons and others are very large such as the distance to the next nearest galaxy.

This is rather interesting because the idea of time is not an absolute and people from outside the Earth would not understand our time.  Also the measures that we use for distance are also only known locally and again people from outside the Earth would not understand our measures of distance.

Throughout this series of blogs I have been talking about the idea of laws of nature meaning that they are applicable everywhere.  I think what I have to conclude that even though time and measures of distance are not absolutes, the underlying concepts are laws of nature.

The speed of light may be the measure of nature as it appears that nothing moves faster than the speed of light.  If the speed of light was infinite then we might not be talking about time.  If the speed of anything is less than infinite then there is some succession of current moments for light to get from point a to point b.  This succession of current moments has to be considered time and the unmeasurable space between point a to point b has to be distance.

To conclude I believe from observation and logic that the concept of time and distance does exist throughout our universe.  The problem is we do not have a universal measure of either time or distance.

Thoughts and comments.

 

 

Tags: , , ,

Time – What is the Meaning of Time?

Time – What is the Meaning of Time?

We all talk about time with phrases such as, what time is it? ,where did the time go?  time is going to fast, I don’t have time.  What does time really mean?  I had never really thought much about time from a scientific point of view until recently.  Suddenly what I thought I understood I no longer..

Science says that there is no absolute thing called time.  Time is only a relationship between two objects.  When I think of a rock, I am thinking of a tangible thing which you can see and pick up.  It is an absolute thing or object.  Now when we think about time it only has meaning when we compare the big hand on a clock and a little hand on a clock in relation to the numbers on the clock.

The clock measures the relationship of the Earth rotating once on its axis which equals twenty-four hours on the clock.  This again is a relationship and not an absolute.  The other interesting thing is that it is a relationship that only Earthlings are familiar with.  If we were to meet someone from another planet they would have no concept of what an hour is.

We really can only talk about the present in absolute terms.  Our life is a continuous string of present moments following each other.  The past is only present moments that have already occurred and the future is moments that have not occurred yet.  Therefore we can only relate the string of present times of one thing to another but we can not say much more than that.  Time is a concept that has been created by man to help him explain his reality.

Therefore our idea of time is just made up and not a real thing.  This is an element of science that is only an imaginary concept with no real meaning.

Am I thinking about this correctly?  Thoughts and comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,

A Blending of Creationism and Evolution

I believe that Creationists can accept evolution.  The reason I came to this conclusion is threefold.  First, the idea of the species is unique,  Second, the Big Bang suggested that there was a beginning of time and the laws of nature have been here since that beginning, thus the laws had to be created.  Third, I believe that his all-powerful force gave the human species a conscience.  The conscience was given to the first woman and man and has been passed on to each dependent.  The religious definition of a conscience may be called a soul.

This thought process allows creationists to accept evolution and at the same time retain their belief that man was created by God.  The idea of the soul allows for one to think of humans in the image of God.  We don’t look like an all-powerful force but with a soul we resemble God’s goodness.  The teachings of God are not to be taken always literally as the important take away is the underlying message and not necessarily the exact terminology.  If Genesis described the idea that there is no such thing as an absolute time, do you think the persons hearing the message would understand that there was a progression to the creative process?  The answer is no.  They would have not understood.  The purpose of language as we know it is to communicate ideas and many time we use things that are familiar to us in order to allow the communication to be understood.

I have called this thought process creative evolution.  The term had been used before but slightly differently.  Please join me in embracing this thought process of natural philosophy.  It allows for creationists to take a more forceful position in defending their beliefs and eliminate some of the tension between science and religion.  Keep in mind not so much the differences but the fact the we are all brothers and sisters.  Peace be with you.

 

 

Tags: ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 116 other followers