Re: The real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
They say we only use a small % of our brain. The rest was meant to do something wasn't it?

OK, now pound me into the turf.

[/ QUOTE ]

The small percentage of the brain idea is popular myth. We use our entire brain, it's just that only part of it is active at any given time. If the whole thing were active at once, we'd be incredibly confused. Even having large parts of the brain with excitatory activity at any given time is essentially a seizure.

The general operation of the brain is a global inhibition with small islands of excitation. When the surrounding zones of inhibition break down, seizure results.

Consider yourself pounded. :P

As for the rest, I do believe humans could evolve other abilities, but I consider the ones you describe as unlikely. I do think there is energy/information that humans can take in that does not come directly from our main sensory modalities and is difficult to consciously appreciate.

I think we're a long way from Jesus though, who btw was way cool.

Re: The real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for the rest, I do believe humans could evolve other abilities, but I consider the ones you describe as unlikely. I do think there is energy/information that humans can take in that does not come directly from our main sensory modalities and is difficult to consciously appreciate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that when evaluating likelyhoods in evolution, the change from our original being to our current being, was a lot more unlikely than a change from our current being to one of that of Jesus would be.


On a side note: When speaking of evolution and likelyhood, isn't any "non-simple" change very unlikely?

Re: The real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion
 

[ QUOTE ]

we are not the ultimate objective of evolution


[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of ultimate objective is contradictory with the concept of evolution by chance. Objective implies goal, motive, mind. Chance is blind and impersonal. You're trying to exclude God and save purpose when God is the only possible source for ultimate meaning.

Re: The real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion
 

If so far we are the best product that evolution has produced (a rational creature)

Like "survival of the fittest", this is a tautology. In many ways, the cockroach is the best (most adaptable) product evolution has come up with.

Dinosaurs were the dominant species on the planet for over 100 million years, 2 orders of magnitude longer than we "rational" beings, until something happened to which they could not adapt. This alone mitigates against [censored] sapiens being evolution's "best" product. What H. sapiens is, is a relentless competitor for resources. Perhaps the fiercest ever. Ask the other homonid species we drove to extinction.

The OP is correct in his assumption only providing we define "religion" as the political entities that are the organized bodies that purport to be religion.

On the other-hand, if we take the (I'll invent a word here) meta-spiritual concept of religion, which doesn't necessarily presuppose the human-is-god's-image concept, I seen no conflict at all between religion and evolution.

Also in Zen Buddhism, there exists no concept of human as the pinnacle of anything, certainly not the image of god, as Buddhism does not have a godhead, only referring to "the one" similar to the Taoist concept "The Uncarved Block."

As Lao-Tzu put it so long ago - "The way that can be named is not the true way."

Religion <> Judeo-Christian-Muslim

Re: The real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion
 

And scorpions. Don't forget scorpions. They'll be feasting on the roaches.

Re: The real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
If so far we are the best product that evolution has produced (a rational creature) how can we possibly know that evolution will continue past us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you get the overstatement of the year award. We're one meteor away from being in the same boat as the dinosaurs. You might be able to find pockets of rationality, but you can't prove that as a species we innately possess rationality.

Re: The real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion
 

I consider us absolutly better evoloved than Ar Ramidus, Ar kadabba and a whole slew of other hominids that are no longer around. We are better evolved than chimpanzees, gorillas another primates- take a population of them and transprt them to a cool non tropical climate and they are dead within a few weeks. Humans can be transported to almost any climate and make it livible. The great ape fmaily has been losing representation in the fossil record for the last 7 my- with the exception of humas and our ancestors, they are going extinct. We move into other animlas niches and drive them to extinction because they cannot compete with us- if thier niche doesn't suit us we alter it so that it does- we are one on a very short list of organisms that can do this.
We are clearly not "better" evolved than ALL other organisms on this planet, but for the most part we pwn other species. It doesn't matter that we aren't tthe fastest or the strongest- we are better than most at getting our genes to the next generation- that makes us more successfull.

Re: The real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion
 

"However, we're only better evolved to do what we do"

evolution isn't about making pretty things or fast things or things that fit well in chies, these are random byproducts. Evolutions is about passing on your genes to the next generation. Its a competition- there is a limited amount of resouces to go around, and he who has the most viable offspring "wins". Humans are clearly better than a lot of orgnaisms at this. WE are absolutely better than great apes and the hominids that evolved into us.

Re: The real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion
 

I think you missed my point entirely.

Re: The real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion
 

Why are you narrowing it down to one lineage? That seems like a cheap high-school debate tactic. Or maybe Crossfire.