So I watched a video on the internet in which the filmmaker was asking people in the scientific community, mostly students and professors, whether they believed in Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, and if so why? Without fail, every one of the people interviewed said they 100% believed that the Theory of Evolution was FACT, and scientifically proven. Then the filmmaker went on to ask what observable proof they had seen with their own eyes of a change of species/kind that would fit into the scientific method's definition of observable proof.
Many sited the case of Darwin's finches or tortoises that have adapted to distinctly different niches on different islands in the Galapagos, and can no longer mate with each other. Or a particular strain of bacteria that has evolved into another strain. Some pointed to the fossil record, which has yet to produce the "missing link", or the DNA record which can only prove that we have "common ancestors", whatever that means. However, in the end, everyone had to agree that the tortoise is still a tortoise, and the finch still a finch, and the bacteria still bacteria. All the professors haughtily went on to add that it otherwise takes millions upon millions of years for species to evolve, and thus could never be "observed". But when asked whether, even though they hadn't seen it with their own eyes (in fact, nobody had EVER seen this with their own eyes) whether they still personally BELIEVED in Darwinian Evolution as scientific FACT, everyone of them said yes without hesitation, and were almost offended by the question's intentions.
To me, "Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection" does make sense to a certain extent, and probably accurately accounts for some of the vast biodiversity on our planet. However, in my mind, it does not adequately explain the human animal. To me, Humans are the opposite of what should we should be, according to this theory. First of all, we are weak and ill-equipped to survive in harsh natural circumstances without major intellectual manipulation of our environment, compared to a bear or a monkey that has thick fur and can really survive in cold and changing environmental conditions. Especially considering that, historically, humans rose out of an Ice Age, multiplies this thought exponentially. The thought that humans, who have taken over this planet, would be the most naturally adapted to our surroundings over a million year process, according to the definitions of Darwinian Evolution, just doesn't make sense. To me, it makes far more sense that we are at least part extraterrestrial. This would account for the vast difference between us and other animals on the planet in many different ways; including our smooth skin, our ultra-developed brain, our consciousness, our ability to change our surroundings--to build cities and civilizations, our global mythology that cross-culturally describes superhuman beings who created us in their form.... Humans are unlike anything else that is in the animal kingdom.
And that gets me onto the topic of science. It's a perfect example that, in general, people believe in the Theory of Evolution. People really BELIEVE it, even though they have not seen this observably themselves. Many people who believe in "science" and have faith in the "scientific community" believe certain things are true that they have never seen proof of with their own eyes. People are too busy living their own life, having their own specialty, following their own heart path, thinking about their own love life/friends/family etc. and they're not actually doing science to prove their "beliefs"... they just "have faith in the scientific community". This is blind faith. This is blind faith because they have actually not seen the proof of the things which they believe, they are only taking someone else's word for it blindly, since they have not seen proof with their own eyes. Have they considered what possible human error, misinterpretation or conflict of interests may be involved in the scientific conclusion? or Who is funding scientific studies? or How future scientific findings could overturn the current ones?
It is ironic that these are the exact same people that ridicule religious folks for having blind faith in things that don't make sense, for in my eyes Darwinian evolution doesn't make sense, and yet so many people believe it blindly. This brings us to another point about science in general, and the scientific community, and their inability to open their minds to certain things beyond their current fixed understanding. If you look at the history of science, you see that it is constantly being refined with the invention of new technology. For example, with the invention of the telescope, scientists were able to observe subatomic particles and microorganisms (bacteria and viruses) for the first time. The new power of observation that the telescope provided forged a whole new paradigm in science...And I believe that with future technological advances, science will finally catch up to multidimensional understanding and the understanding that "everything is energy" (since String Theory is already hinting at both of those things at the cutting edge of theoretical physics). In conclusion, it's just a matter of time before we create scientific instruments that are able to observe multidimensionality... and then can we all just agree on what is true?