The Evolution of Brazil

The course in Brazil is coming together nicely. I was initially concerned, as the concept of names within a WebSphere configuration was challenging to the students. But they've come a long way in the last two days. I've learned a dozen or so Portegeuse words. I think my trying -- badly -- to use snippets of their language is appreciated.

* * *
I think the power of a theory can be tested by seeing what it predicted, and predicted correctly. And to that extent, the idea of natural selection (or "evolution" -- I'm not convinced the two are the same thing in some people's minds) seems to bear the scrutiny. But within the context of the more essential argument about creationism or evolution, I'm not sure there's a problem here. The idea of "change over time" isn't contrary to the Bible, or at least in my reading. The idea of things "evolving" over time doesn't shake my faith in God as creator and sustainer.

The idea of natural selection being the explanatory force behind our initial creation is what I reject. I reject the idea that the universe simply "always was" and that by the random bumping of atoms into atoms, molecules were formed. And that stars formed by the collapsing of dust clouds, which then led to conditions creating basic amino acids, which then formed up DNA, which then formed up life, which then formed up a chain of events that led to the complexity of the human ... all by random chance, all without any guidance by a higher power.

To my view, it takes considerable "faith" to believe that.

However, that "faith"is much less threatening than the belief in an omnipotent Creator God that might -- just might -- hold us accountable for our actions.

And that, dear friend, is why I think most who hold so strongly to the theory of evolution do so -- it is a way to avoid thinking about the alternative.

That's just my view ... I freely admit that.

As for natural selection, I am quite comfortable with the idea of God using the mechanism as part of His creation. And even if humans "evolved" from lower forms, I'm okay with that too ... but at some point human beings must have been "touched" by God -- imbued with his "image" -- because we have evolved much more than any other species. Natural selection must explain that, and I'm not sure it does ... or at least not well.

Question: it is said that the human brain -- very large in proportion to the rest of our body, particularly compared to other species -- is only fractionally utilized. If so, then the question is this: why? What reproductive advantage would be offered by having a bigger brain that isn't fully used?

I'm sure some would say that the bigger brain might be used in small, select instances, providing a greater chance of survival and reproduction. Perhaps. But I'm not convinced of that argument ... particularly when I think of the enormous gap in development between humans and all other species.

Well, all species except the dolphin, of course ... or whales. They're the smartest things on the planet, of course. :-)