1. Before civilization and agriculture, humans had to spend the majority
of their day looking for food. The evolution of farming helped us
humans to stay put and we didn't have to spend the lion's share of our
days looking around for food. With that extra time, society evolved.
We became more intellectual, had more time for recreation, had more
time to spend with family, and there's evidence that this freed up
people to think philosophically about the world. There is a rise in
religious art during this period of increased agriculture.
Now, what we choose to do with that extra time may lead to a
"de-evolution" though! Do we choose to spend that extra time with our
families? Or to solve issues in our lives or communities? Or do we use
that time to argue with people online about which cat picture is cuter?
2. The Nye/Ham "debate".
Many in the scientific community were not very pleased that the debate occurred. The argument had a few facets to it.
a) The two are apples and oranges and cannot be directly debated
b) Making a forum for creationist ideas on the same stage as science legitimizes the creationist view in some way
c) There was no real "goal" or "endgame" with the debate.
Should it have taken place? Should it have been conducted differently?
Here's a link to the full debate if any of you haven't seen it yet:
3. "There are some things that even
scientists cannot understand or prove". I think many share the same
sentiments and in that "unknown zone" there lies a lot of opportunity
for non-scientific explanations.
I have a question though... do you think it is more a matter of "science will never understand the phenomena"? Or is it more "science doesn't have the capability to understand it yet".