When you look at the evolution vs creation controversy, the impression you get is similar to Hezbollah and the
Israelis encountering their differences! On the one hand, we have the view that a bearded fellow on a throne specifically
created mosquitos and guinea worms - while the opposition insists that irreproduceable phenomena ( breeding reptiles
into birds or monkeys into men) are utterly "random" and the product of molecules bumping into each other.
It simply amazes me that things have gone on so long this way with no synthesis or reasonable view in the middle:
less than Hairy Thunderer, more than unguided billiard balls.
There are a few brave souls trying to do this - James Shapiro ( U of Chicago) or Gary Schwartz come to mind.
Since nonlocal quantum effects have been confirmed ( by the Bell and Aspect experiments), there is nothing wrong
with speculation about what might pop into being as the result of distant guidance. I appreciate Schwartz's point
that "random" can't be precisely defined since anything could be defined as non random ( like digits in Pi).
We are also exploited by creation myths like the Big Bang - in which all the regulated order of physics emerges
from a titanic explosion zillions of years ago. And this is better than Tiamat and Marduk?
Let's put a name on it: Pantheism - God is everywhere and everything and we're all a part of "Him". It's what
Einstein believed, as well as Spinoza and Dyson and countless other thinkers. It is the natural conclusion
of Intelligent Design ideas, rather than a quick trip to the Bible. Hello, Awake?!
And while we're at it, don't "Sagan" me with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". All claims require
proof and asking for more "proof" is merely an excuse to deny ideas that are inconvenient. They're proved or not
proved.
This synthesis of the two opposites is long overdue.
metatron