Does the theory of evolution address the purpose,  or lack thereof for life; esp mankind?
954196
As far as my knowledge goes, the evolutional theory states that all existence occured due to coincidence. A marvelous 'coincidence' if you ask me.  I would like to believe that a higher power made this coincidence happen...
518678
No, they are not saying that.  All living organism including the ape and man die.  I think what they are saying is that the nearly perfect man came from the simpler imperfect protozoans and apes, and that the general direction is toward excellence and superiority.\n\nOn the othe hand, I don't believe we came from the apes. I believe otherwise.  We came from perfection to our present near-ape nature.  I don't see man moving in the general direction of excellence.  Generally, I see the weakening human specie.  However, the direction toward perfection is always possible by virtue of the Law of Polarity.  I just hope that there will be more of us who would rather "close their eyes and think" (Einstien) than "open their eyes and see" (Aristotle).
361147
Micro evolution has been proven.  It is evidenced in history and observable in life.  That doesns't contradict the Bible or interfere in my beliefs in any way.\n\nMy problem with evolution is that:\n\nSomething cannot come from nothing.  It is against the laws of our universe for something to come from nothing.  Thus Someone (outside our universe) had to create it.\n\nMutations are degenerative.  That's why no one thinks it's a compliment to be called a mutant.  Diseases are mutations.  Where are all the positive mutations needed for macro evolution to be true?\n\nIn order for evolution to be true, original life would have to have been self-supporting and we have become more and more weak and dependent ever since.  If original life sustained itself on nothing, and we are growing more and more superior, why can't we sustain ourselves on nothing?  Why must we eat and have clothing and shelter?  We consume resources.  What resources did original life have?  How were they not depleted?  \n\nWhere do morality, intellect, and love come from?  Are they really suited to survival of the fittest?  \n\nIf the universe is orderly and designed by accident, why aren't all accidents orderly and designed?  How could the balance of our ecosystem just happen?  \n\nIf evolution crossed the line of species, how did that work?  If a man was born to an ape, what did he mate with?  If another ape, wouldn't their offspring have been sterile?  That would then be the end of mankind.  Why don't apes still have human babies today?  \n\nI believe that God created the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days.  He created everything in an order that supported life.  Yes, things change over time, but they don't cross the line of species without negative consequences.
417171
As it seems this question has raised yet another debate, I'd like to add my 2cents. As the father of paleoboy, and a Christian, I believe I have raised my son well. Because I have not fallen into the ignorance, as I will call it, of pre-empting God. Evolution is merely a theory, man should  not be assumed to be included in this factor. In fact, there exists more questions  of man's progress than proof of any evolution. \nThe animals however, and lower life, could have been designed by God in many numerous ways. Who are we to question the means, or claim to know as to how God works? He works, as we know, in mysterious ways! Could he not have in fact, by design, created species that could evolve and adapt to earth changes, if for no other reason, to allow clues behind for the event of man to discover, to weed out those that would choose to use this information, to disprove His existence?\nTo claim we have all the answers to the mysteries of God is to fall into ignorance as Christians. I back up my son's answer, as an open, unquestioning mind as to the works of God. Paleontology is a science, based on evidence, and a great deal of theory, which is always subject to change with newly discovered evidence.
1057508
The answer to that question is YES.   \n\nWe will fulfill the purpose God put us on the planet and it will be by our own choice.   God won't interfere with the details of our lives, but eventually we will fulfill our purposes.   He speaks to us in various ways directing us to a certain path and if we follow that path, we will get to our fate/destiny of fulfill his will sooner.   If we don't follow the path he speaks to us, then it will just take us longer to get where we are destined to be (and generally the road is much more difficult).   \n\nRead the Bible...and follow Moses story or Davids story or Isaacs story of their times in the Wilderness.
94584
The purpose of life is a life of purpose.
1087296
that's one theory, if you buy into a harsh rendition of 'survival of the fittest'. but there are pros and cons to most theories. many people would claim that what separates humans from other animals is our capacity for compassion, empathy, reasoning, problem solving. so it could be deemed immoral to allow the suffering of others if we're in a position to relieve it.\n\nthere's also the thought that we're all ultimately self-interested. it benefits us to have a happy world -- and that doesnt necessarily mean having the world all to ourselves. yes, perhaps the population will naturally impose checks on itself. the earth has been through a series of catastrophes and times of flourishing. perhaps it will regulate itself. but death and disease and suffering exact a toll on even the healthy. and we would want to believe that if we were in the position of needing help, others would reach out to help us, as well. the golden rule, right?
68859
"Purpose" is a human concept. And a darn fine one. But it is not a property of the universe. So planets, stars, tigers, trees do not have a "purpose" in the sense that a person has a "purpose." \n\nThese things are just part of the universe. We, as thinking individuals can make our own purpose.\n\n\nAnd as an aside, I welcome people to check out the creationist Kent Hovind, mentioned above at drdino.com. But one should also check out more about this "Doctor" at these sites as well. Kent Hovind is notorious for... well, check these sites and judge for yourself.
623503
Edward O. Wilson's book Consilience deals with this question among others.  He maintains that genetic code associated with ethics and religion played an integral part in early man's life since religion and ethics help people to make sense of things like death, pain, and most importantly, purpose.  Wilson maintains that communities with stronger religion/ethics genes rose above those without it and so people today tend towards religion and ethics for good and sound reasons (that is, it's better for humanity to be driven by a sense of purpose than for it not to be).\n\nSo, in my mind, this is the crucial fork in the road.  Is purpose really a creation of our own, or is it possible that our sense of purpose comes from an outside force?  I think that it is at least possible, but how far does the rabbit hole go down?
3359
The answer depends on your religious and personal beliefs.  I personally believe our purpose is to improve ourselves and our loved ones in this life and the next.
729212
NO NO NO!!!\n\nThis is about science and the lack of divine intervention.  The reason the planet seems so perfectly balanced is because it had 4.6 Billion years to get here.  A lot can happen in the trial-and-error game in that amount of time.  The earth evolves, life evolves, the only thing that remains stagnent and vestigial is theism.\n\nWhat you proposed is non-science, it is not a testable hypothesis.  Evolution is a tried and true, uber-tested and passed law of life.\n\nEvery fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
886021
Evolution and the means to survive.
1034540
That's just it, it is a theory only and there is NO real proof. And every so often they change and adapt things in this theory when some scientific fact or discovery comes along and begins to expose it. People did not come from monkeys. A piece or two pieces of nothing did not explode and create everything. And evolution disproves itself. It teaches that the strongest species survives. So if that is so why is man still here? Man isn't the strongest species, but he does think. But the original theories say the strongest not the one that can think. So as I said it disproves itself. So now the only logical and factual explanation for existence is GOD!!!
1031230
Errr, not really.\n\nYou must also understand that evolution in no way says anything about the origins of life.  That's a whole other subject ;).
503157
Evolution is by no means a one road definition.  That is, not even those who study it completely understand it.  I think, however, it may be unwise to think of evolution as having a "purpose".  Evolution is a process, with definite outcomes, but saying it has a purpose almost implies it is a living thing.\n\nI believe you may mean that in order to evolve, then beings must die.  As it stands right now, this is absolutely correct.  That is to say, in order for a species as a whole to change, mutations must happen, and then be passed on to further generations, and then become selected for.  If this in fact happens, then the those with the old traits will be selected against, and hence may die.  This is not because they are supposed to die, but because there is now something out there which better fits a niche and will compete for it.\n\nAs for the idea of eternal life, as it stands right now, it is completely unknown, and almost unfathomable.  One of the reasons for this is because the niches we live in are continually changing.  If organisms did not change as a species to fit them, then they would die out completely.  As long as the environment changes, one way or another, life will change to fit it as best it can.\n\nThis is not to say, however, that the idea of immortality is impossible to fathom.  There is nothing in evolution that touch on anything spiritual, including what humans call the soul.  These things are inherently seperated from evolution because of the fact that you can completely describe evolutions effects without considering it.  However, if you choose to believe in a soul, then I see no reason why it couldn't be a possibility.  But evolution does not encourage it.  I'm sorry.
127591
The innate psyche, I believe, is mis-trust. We do not, and probably cannot, fully trust or believe in any physically present system. A greater source which is defined as the "undefinable" serves as an easy solution. Many (and I think majority) of the people I have met are not exactly in the search for God. They just believe it and carry on.\n\nThe purpose of life I feel is just to scale time. It is just that we cannot define "purpose" beyond our own life. I do not believe that the approximately 80 years that we spend here has to be balanced by a purpose. I think the whole multitude of generations starting from whenever the Earth formed Life serves just to scale Time, which (time)  by the way has surely got be of a far greater meaning than we can ever reach. We have to accept that we cannot know everything.\n\nWe are like thinking cogs of a machine. If a cog knows the purpose of the machine it will effectively have a choice to approve or disapprove of it (the purpose). Which gives it the power to mess up the whole system. Hence, it is better, as a whole, for it to only know whether to rotate clockwise or anti-clockwise.\n\nThe best we can do is define our own "reality" and Live it.
652920
By Arthur Custance \n"Man in Adam and in Christ"\n\nTO MY MIND, one of the saddest and most disastrous results of the theory of evolution as applied to man is that it has led to an entirely false conception of what man's true nature is.\n\nIf human evolution is true in the sense that Huxley and Simpson have held it to be, then man is an angel in the making, changing steadily for the better as he moves further away from his animal ancestors. His propensity for wickedness is recognized as unfortunate, but more in the nature of a relapse, a temporary set-back, a kind of unfulfilled-ness, which there is every reason to believe he will in time grow out of.\n\nBut if man is a divinely created being who has fallen from grace and can by nature change only for the worse, then his propensity for wickedness is something more than merely evidence of unrealized potential. From the biblical point of view it is a demonstration that something has gone dreadfully wrong from which there now seems no possibility of self-recovery.