Evolution Unites those of Faith and Atheists

I'm glad Con resolve the technical problem. Getting back to the debate. Con stated, “I take issue with the manner in which my opponent treats the subject of evolution; instead of accepting evolution as referring to evolution by natural selection…” The titled of this debate is “Evolution Unites those of Faith and Atheist.” It would seem Con's initial perception of the title was synonymous with “natural selection” unites those of faith and atheist. For that to happen, is the foundation of this debate. That is, understanding the physical law of evolution (aka the constructal law) will help unite the faithful with the faithless over “natural selection” or any other issue pertaining to evolution. Evolution is all about the freedom of flow seeking the path of least resistance morphing into configuration, which transcends across all domains in which evolutionary phenomena are observed, recorded and studied scientifically includes: Con's “natural selection,” animal design as a function of movement, river basins, turbulent flow, athletics, technology, economics, food production, medicine, culture, governance, etc. Most of these evolutionary domains “unites those of faith and atheist,” in other words, there is more agreement than disagreement between the faithful and the faithless. On the other hand, it seems too much time is wasted over a narrow view of evolution having the greatest philosophical disagreement, socially unproductive and the noisiest, over the Darwinian monkey debate (aka Con's position in R2). Society should “take a timeout” over this issue that is going nowhere. The point of this debate is not to lament over the monkey issue; but to demonstrate to Con the universal scope of evolution is found in thermodynamics a physical law of nature. Life is a product of those physical laws and we are trapped within its matrix, there are no exceptions. And on that note, life is a way for nature to see and experience itself. The argument here is not focused on the endless redundant noisy conflict between the faithful and the faithless over divinity; but to embrace the constructive nature of evolution that brings the faithful and faithless together across so many evolving domains. In our modern age, the scientific method has become inseparable from human endeavor. Even the young-earth creationists are using a pseudoscientific explanation called “creation science” to embrace their philosophy. Such young-earth philosophy compared to those of the Dark Ages would share the same conviction as Galileo over heresy. In our modern day, even the faithful are talking about science in their empirical attempt to rationalize the supernatural. This in itself, is a step where “evolution unites those of faith and atheist” by using science to unlock the secrets of God's nature (faithful) or the laws of nature (faithless). I will agree with Con there are disagreements between the faithful and the faithless over their philosophies, theories and claims, but only the empirical will be the deciding factor. The subtlety about evolution is simply shifting the God debate between those “two worldviews” having an unpredictable outcome. At the turn of the last century Einstein too had his philosophies, theories and claims about relativity, where it took nearly forty years to get the scientific community to evolve from classical Newtonian. Such evolution was only possible by the evolution within the science of metrology to obtain the necessary empirical needed to verify said claim. It's not that Newtonian was wrong, Einstein just added an evolutionary step in the fidelity of understanding. In general, evolution across all domains take time but not all evolve at the same rate. For example, Einstein's evolutionary step was on a much shorter timeframe compared to religious reformation, and not all faith based philosophies evolve at the same rate. Even the young-earth creationists are evolving beyond gothic rituals to discovery. The evolution of faith based philosophies are convoluted with cultural diversity, governance, science, and economics just to name a few. Relative to the evolution of governance, reminiscing over recorded history starting around the time of Galileo's incarceration, 13.3gts ago, to today. Most governance were ruled by theocracies or royalty then, but today, we have a rich diversity from oligarchs to democracies and republics having few theocracies or royalties. A clear example of cultural evolution moving further from the Dark Ages. It was the flow of human rights seeking the path of freedom from the tyranny of resistance that became the continuing struggle, a catalyst in the evolution in new configurations of government. The philosophical evolution relative to human rights resulted in the culmination of “unalienable Rights” defined as “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” unknowingly then, but today is the animate interpretation of the constructal law (http://www.youtube.com...). In light of Bejan's reference made in R3 relative to cultural evolution in the migration of “good ideas,” the ideas in this debate expands the scope of evolution. Considering Con's narrow focus on biology in the evolution of organisms changing over time via “natural selection.” In this debate expanding the scope of evolution, includes those biological organisms morphing linkages within the mind of Con and perhaps, within the minds of those who critique this debate. Morphing new vascularize linkages of neurons within their brain in the evolution of understanding evolution put forwarded in this debate. Understanding becomes the freedom from the resistance in the struggle to understand. I feel society will be best served by the constructal law induction in the classroom, helping to place those “two worldviews” in its proper context. Like the laws of gravity, aerodynamics, and other physical laws unites many of those faithful with the faithless in the acceptance and understanding of those laws, and in some generational time, it will be the physical constructal law the law of “Evolution Unites those of Faith and Atheist” shifting their God debate to new levels. And there is no reason why that debate will ever end, until the evolution within the science of metrology can measure events before the beginning of time or in the supernatural domain. In closing, I thank Con for the time spend in this debate and in this New Year setting, I wish Con a long and healthy “Life,” with ample “Liberty,” in the “pursuit of Happiness” within Con's comfort zone, life's “unalienable Rights” the animate interpretation of the physical constructal law.