"Fundamentalist" fear of science

[MechAg94]

God spoke and BANG, it happened. 

I don't think the Bible and natural selection are contradictory.  The contradictory part comes in when you start saying that evolution and natural selection lead to the creation of new species and were the origin of the species; however, that is where evolution starts into guessing and speculation anyway. 

[Perd Hapley]

Either that or good and evil are just side effect that exist because GOD created man imperfect - but then that wouldn't make GOD good either - would it?

Apparently, your idea of perfect man is one that never questions God or His ideas about morality.  You would create men and women who were automatons, blindly following a program, incapable of hatred or love.  You're not the kind of parent that forces your children to follow your religion in every particular without question, are you?  Neither is God.

To assume that there isn't something, somewhere in the vastness of the universe comparable to mankind seems not a little farfetched. Why would a rational god create the whole universe and then populate just one planet out of trillions and trillions of them?

  An all-powerful, all-knowing, every-where-present God could have a million other worlds like this one, where He is deeply interested in the affairs and morals of every living creature.  Why should a trillion inhabited planets be any more difficult for Him to monitor than one?  Also take note that you are inserting your assumption that morality is Man's idea.  You are assuming that morality is localized here and created here by us, rather than something God has given to a million races such as our own. 

[Werewolf]

Either that or good and evil are just side effect that exist because GOD created man imperfect - but then that wouldn't make GOD good either - would it?

Apparently, your idea of perfect man is one that never questions God or His ideas about morality.  You would create men and women who were automatons, blindly following a program, incapable of hatred or love.  You're not the kind of parent that forces your children to follow your religion in every particular without question, are you?  Neither is God.

OK... I have to wonder how in the world does one extract from the above that I am religious. I am not. I almost believe in a GOD if one wishes to call it that but to imagine I am religious from all that I've posted in this thread so far <shakes head>. I'll try again.

1. People want to believe that GOD is good.
2. Look around - see all the bad in the world.
3. Why does bad exist in a world created by a good GOD?

• a. He's testing us - what an ahole - not good
• b. He's got a sick sense of humor - not good
• c. He gave us free will and let us run with the ball regardless of where it led us. Again not good. Neutral apathy at best (free will is good but... I'm still cogitating on this one).

• d. There ain't no god - in which case God didn't make us and the whole question is moot.

Then again as I said maybe good and evil result from man being imperfect. Which begs the question why would a god create an imperfect being? Amusement? God itself is imperfect? Who knows but most of the rational answers would lead one to believe that god is not good.

To address your point re: automatons Fistful - it is the highly religious that want everyone to be the same, automatons etc. not I. But you've got it right, though I imagine you barely know it, because organized religion (god's supposed earthly agent) has nothing to do with GOD - it is all about control and GOD is the main tool used to implement that control. I imagine that if there actually is a sentient being that created the universe that is omniscient and omnipresent that it either is highly amused by the religious and what they imagine about it or highly pissed that it is being used as an excuse to oppress people who would otherwise be free. On the other hand the most likely attitude for a supreme being is benign apathy.

To assume that there isn't something, somewhere in the vastness of the universe comparable to mankind seems not a little farfetched. Why would a rational god create the whole universe and then populate just one planet out of trillions and trillions of them?

An all-powerful, all-knowing, every-where-present God could have a million other worlds like this one, where He is deeply interested in the affairs and morals of every living creature.  Why should a trillion inhabited planets be any more difficult for Him to monitor than one?  Also take note that you are inserting your assumption that morality is Man's idea.  You are assuming that morality is localized here and created here by us, rather than something God has given to a million races such as our own. 

In this phrase "not a little farfetched" note the negative attached to the adjective little. Maybe I should just have taken the simplistic route and stated that , "To assume that there isn't something, somewhere in the vastness of the universe comparable to mankind seems farfetched".

Probably would have been easier for some to understand.

Still, thanks for summarizing my point even though you made it because you incorrectly believed I was stating the exact opposite.

Regarding the point concerning morality: Morality is a construct of mankind that provides structure necessary to keep most people from killing most other people. It has nothing to do with GOD. God as organized religion defines it is also a construct of mankind - a tool used to control people much like governments use force to control people. In fact the only real difference between government and organized reiligion is that one supplanted the other a few hundred years ago as the primary institution of controlling the lives of the people - well - that and the tools they use.

Unfortunately there is no convincing the religious of that fundamenta truth because they take everything on faith and it is impossible to argue with faith. On the other hand there's no evidence that my position is valid either which all leads us to discussing god, reliigion etc is really little more than a waste of bandwidth.

[Ron]

I believe some things are self evident.

I believe nature teaches us something.

I believe observation of mankind shows us something.

Christianity in it's barest most stripped down form predicts and explains much of what I see.

What I see is humans having an idea of what they think is right and wrong and how things should be and then blame God for not agreeing with them.

God is God and can do whatever he wants. He makes the rules.

In Christianity He has told us how He wants us to behave. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love your neighbor as yourself. This is not rocket science and He didn't say you cannot love certain groups of people. Our inability to do this most basic thing shows we need fixing. God has provided a means of fixin, through Christ. He is the only one that can fix us because He is the Creator.

As far as science is concerned, that there is a Creator seems self evident to me.

Trying to hide Him behind an incomprehensible number of years is folly.  Trying to come up with some mathematical equation that shows something came from nothing and order springs from chaos is just folly.

The reason almost every religion on earth has a creation myth and requires humans to seek salvation is because it is written in our being.

Some things are self evident.

[Werewolf]

Some things are self evident.

Ahhhh... like the earth being flat or the sun and planets rotating about the earth? Self evident things like that?

Self evident is just another way of saying:

Proof! I don't need no stinkin' PROOF! Its self evident.

[Ron]

To assume that there isn't something, somewhere in the vastness of the universe comparable to mankind seems not a little farfetched. Why would a rational god create the whole universe and then populate just one planet out of trillions and trillions of them?

You look at the universe and make an assumption^, it seems self evident to you.

I look at the universe and our world and make some assumptions, it seems self evident to me.

This is how we are wired to think. None of can know all things. We look at life through the filter of our experience and make assumptions. To think that scientists are immune to this human trait is naive.

[Brad Johnson]

One of the most hosestly revealing things I've ever heard was from a guest speaker in an Ethics and Religion class I took in college.  It was a Christian college but this guy was a devout Hindu (I think, it's been a while).

His point was that no one has it right.  Everything we see, feel, or do is always from our particular perspective, and that "religions", for all their semantic differences, are the same basic premise - belief in the divine, and belief in an all-powerful Creator.  The phrase he used that pretty much sums it up is, "Allah, God, Budda, Shiva ... People arguing over the name of their Creator is like fleas arguing over the name of the dog.  A name is a name, nothing more.  Fighting wars and killing each other over that name is not something done for religious purposes.  It is simple pride and ego."

Brad

[ilbob]

Science often masquerades what is not proven as fact.

Only small parts of evolution have ever been proven, and those are parts of the theory that are not all that important to the basic hypothesis anyway. That does not mean that some form of evolution is not true, but there is no clear means by which entirely new species occurred. One might be inclined to expect hundreds of thousands of fossil records showing mutation from one species to another, yet they just don't exist.

It is much like the global warming thing. There is little evidence to prove human activity is responsible for a supposed increase in temperature that over such a small period of time is probably not all that significant. Yet in some circles, it is taken as absolute gospel.

In the end, I guess it depends on where your faith lies.

[gunsmith]

"matter can neither be created or destroyed"

  How did it get here then?

[Cosmoline]

One might be inclined to expect hundreds of thousands of fossil records showing mutation from one species to another, yet they just don't exist.

Really?  What about the myriad of Hominid and Primate species discovered in the fossil record?  What about the line of Ursine species, or feline?  You are assuming that each species stands alone as some sort of unique creation, but this is confusing taxonomy with reality.  The lines between them flow and blur as you take a view over the ages. 

Also, how do you explain the way DNA evidence has confirmed the links suggested by evolutionary theory?  We have almost all our genes in common with ape cousins, slightly less with monkeys, slightly less with other mammals, much less with boned fish, and so on.  Recent examination of Neanderthal DNA has suggested we share even more with them than with chimps.  If we had DNA from other hominids there's no reason to expect a change in this pattern. 

[Perd Hapley]

Werewolf,

I never meant to imply you were religious.  I was trying to point out that a good and all-powerful god could not create "perfect" people.  Perfect animals, yes.  Perfect people, no. 

I also understood perfectly well your point about the vastness of the universe, etc. 

I don't really want to respond to your very long post.  As you certainly understand, it's frustrating to be misunderstood.  But I was the one misunderstood here, and not you.

I have said that an all-powerful, universe-creating god COULD NOT create perfect people; at least not right off the bat.  At first this seems hard to understand.  But consider that the greater one becomes in body or in mind, the more tempting it is to think oneself to be God, or at least to have an inflated sense of self-worth.  So, creating mankind with greater intelligence or even greater wisdom would only have exacerbated the problem.*  Then consider that this perfect creature could not have been simply programmed to do and think as God willed him.  What sort of perfection is that?  An animal can be perfect as far as animals go, but at best they are but exquisite machines, ruled by instinct and training.  A truly perfect creature must excel in abstract thought, and in selfless love for other creatures - perfection of the intellect and the character.  Freedom to choose is written into the criteria - and this WILL result in evil in some cases. 

* Indeed, I would posit that Adam and Eve were as wise and as intelligent as God could have made them. 

[Perd Hapley]

One might be inclined to expect hundreds of thousands of fossil records showing mutation from one species to another, yet they just don't exist.

Really?  What about the myriad of Hominid and Primate species discovered in the fossil record?  What about the line of Ursine species, or feline?  You are assuming that each species stands alone as some sort of unique creation, but this is confusing taxonomy with reality.  The lines between them flow and blur as you take a view over the ages. 

Also, how do you explain the way DNA evidence has confirmed the links suggested by evolutionary theory?  We have almost all our genes in common with ape cousins, slightly less with monkeys, slightly less with other mammals, much less with boned fish, and so on.  Recent examination of Neanderthal DNA has suggested we share even more with them than with chimps.  If we had DNA from other hominids there's no reason to expect a change in this pattern. 

If you really want to know how creation science or ID answers these questions, there are numerous books on the subject, and articles online, most of them written by people who've done actual research and/or have the requisite scientific bona fides. 
 http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.discovery.org/csc/

[grampster]

I've really enjoyed reading this thread.  I avoided it for days because I thought it would quickly degenerate into a pissing contest.  Surprise!  I did not give youen's the credit you deserve.

Werewolf:  I note that you expressed an almost belief in a God.  May I please suggest you pick up a copy of Mere Christianity written by C.S. Lewis?  When I was going through a period of wonder concerning my belief of lack of it, I stumbled across the writing of this amazing man.  I've read quite a bunch of his books and articles since and find him able to describe some fairly difficult reasoning in a manner that helped me come to grips with some things.

I've read the Bible through and through several times.  Listened to it on tapes several times.  I've read the Book of Mormon as well.  The Koran, till recently did not interest me as Arabs are children of the Bible.  I need to read it now, though.

In the vein of writing from a perspective, may I suggest Evidence That Demands a Verdict. by Josh McDowell.  He started out to write a book debunking the reality of God and particularly who Jesus was.  He spent a good number of years doing so.  In the end, an atheist at worst and agnostic at best, became a Christian based on his lengthy exploration of the subject.

Rabbi, we've been down this road before, eh brother? 

J.I. Packer has some interesting things to say in his books.  Knowing God and God's Words.

Having said all of the above, a persons faith comes from within and is a solitary and sometimes lonely decision.  You must make it by yourself based on a willingness to understand some things about your ownself.  Every man, in reality, is an island.

[cosine]

(...)Mere Christianity written by C.S. Lewis?  When I was going through a period of wonder concerning my belief of lack of it, I stumbled across the writing of this amazing man.

Another book I found quite helpful and informative besides Mere Christianity was another of C.S. Lewis' books, Miracles. The topic of most of the book revolves around why Lewis believes in miracles, but there are several chapters in it which focus on Naturalism versus a belief in something supernatural, and why Lewis believes that a belief in something supernatural (such as a supreme being like God) is not unreasonable. 

[grampster]

God In The Dock touches on that subject as well, Cosine.

[cosine]

God In The Dock touches on that subject as well, Cosine.

I'll have to read it. Thanks, grampster.

[CAnnoneer]

I think we had simiar discussions with fistful some time ago.

Since then, I have learnt of a few interesting facts.

1) One of the chief arguments against evolution is based on the accepted biological dogma that evolution happened but does not happen. Basically, "no new species can be generated at present". So, the opponents of evolution say that if it cannot be repeated, it may never have happened. The new info I have on the subject is that indeed evolution of new species has been documented in the past century, concerning certain flies and small animals. One of the respective papers is from 1971. It was observed that members of the different subpopulations of the same species could no longer interbreed, which by definition means they became separate species.

2) Another argument against evolution is that it is very unlikely because the biological dogma states that the mutation rate is very low (one per billion basepairs per large amount of time) while there are damage-control enzymes and loops (proof-reading activity) which would improve fidelity in DNA replication. However, new experimental evidence suggests that mutation rates are not constant. Moreover, they are strongly affected by environmental pressures and speed up significantly in times of ecological crunch. Finally, workers in the field are starting to identify enzymatic circuitry whose specific function is to increase transcription and translation errors specifically to increase mutation rates.

A real-world example of that is how bacteria beat anti-biotics. Some very effective antibiotics have already been developed but they are beaten by bacteria relatively quickly, at worst on the scale of decades. If the old dogma of low mutation rates is true, then there is no good way to explain bacterial behavior, because the low rate cannot account for the fast adaptation. Moreover, there are studies that show that if a specific antibiotic targets the activity of a specific enzyme, during the initial almost complete wipeout, certain enzymes activate that make the respective target enzyme to mutate until it is no longer affected by the antibiotic.

Finally, propagation strategies of bacteria in nanofabricated environments under food shortage pressures show clever mechanisms of adaptation, wherein bacteria first try to spread out to move away from the ecological pressure, then virtually die out, then recover completely and repopulate the scarce environment. What remains to be determined is the specifics of the mutation that took place.

For more detailed info on the subjects above, check out the work of Robert Austin at Princeton University and check out any respective references.

[richyoung]

I think we had simiar discussions with fistful some time ago.

Since then, I have learnt of a few interesting facts.

1) One of the chief arguments against evolution is based on the accepted biological dogma that evolution happened but does not happen. Basically, "no new species can be generated at present". So, the opponents of evolution say that if it cannot be repeated, it may never have happened. The new info I have on the subject is that indeed evolution of new species has been documented in the past century, concerning certain flies and small animals. One of the respective papers is from 1971. It was observed that members of the different subpopulations of the same species could no longer interbreed, which by definition means they became separate species.

Far, far, FAR too simplistic.  If I get a vasectomy, am I now a member of a different species?  Suppose, for example, its found that Eskimo women are allergic to, say, native Ethiopian sperm, and their antibodies destroy it.  WOuld you seriously contend that they are now a different species than Homo Sap?

2) Another argument against evolution is that it is very unlikely because the biological dogma states that the mutation rate is very low (one per billion basepairs per large amount of time) while there are damage-control enzymes and loops (proof-reading activity) which would improve fidelity in DNA replication. However, new experimental evidence suggests that mutation rates are not constant. Moreover, they are strongly affected by environmental pressures and speed up significantly in times of ecological crunch. Finally, workers in the field are starting to identify enzymatic circuitry whose specific function is to increase transcription and translation errors specifically to increase mutation rates.

...and we now know that mutations are a LOSS of information.  You can't get a large positive result by repetitive subtraction....

[CAnnoneer]

Far, far, FAR too simplistic.  If I get a vasectomy, am I now a member of a different species? 

That's the definition. It is silly to argue about it, or we end up in Alice in Wonderland.

If you have a vasectomy, then you are functionally sterile, but you are still a member of the same species, because if you weren't sterile, you would be able to interbreed with other Homo Sapiens.

Suppose, for example, its found that Eskimo women are allergic to, say, native Ethiopian sperm, and their antibodies destroy it.  WOuld you seriously contend that they are now a different species than Homo Sap?

Indeed, Eskimos and Ethiopians would then be separate species, provided that all Ethiopians could still intrabreed and so could all Eskimos. Call them whatever you want.

...and we now know that mutations are a LOSS of information.  You can't get a large positive result by repetitive subtraction....

There are different kinds of mutations. They do not need to be a loss of info, in the sense of deletions. They can also be heterozygous mutations by DNA replication, for example. Also, a lot of the genome is believed to be junk in the sense that it codes proteins that are currently worthless. A mutation in any of them can conceivably produce a new "useful" protein. Would that create information? "Information" is a term that should be used carefully in genomics.

[Perd Hapley]

I think we had simiar discussions with fistful some time ago.

Thank you, Colonel Cooper.

Why do we continue to think that we can demolish decades of research and scientific thought with little paragraphs on the intronet?  One can no more disprove creationism thereby than evolution. 

[CAnnoneer]

Why do we continue to think that we can demolish decades of research and scientific thought with little paragraphs on the intronet? 

Demolish? No. Give interested people a few pointers to relevant references? Yes.

One can no more disprove creationism thereby than evolution. 

I do not like the connotation of equivalence. The former is a reactionary theory by non-scientists, based on dubious motives and selective reading of the known facts. The latter is a scientific theory by scientists based on objective evidence and open to changes as new observational and experimental evidence becomes available. The former is poor-man's "theoscience" for C-student preachers and presidents. The latter is the only rational recourse of people strong enough to handle the objective truth, what that may be. There is no equivalence.

[Matthew Carberry]

They are both equally immune to destruction by paragraphical postings on internet forums, is how I read it.

In which case I think the equivilence is reasonable.

[Perd Hapley]

How is creationism reactionary? 

Why do you suggest that no scientists are creationists, when that is obviously not the case?  Why are the motives of creationsists more dubious than those of evolutionists?  How do their motives make creation or evolution true or untrue? 

What strength is required to believe in evolution?  Seems easy to me.  It doesn't invite the mocking of the elite.  The evolutionist is supported by academia, the media, the public school system, etc.  It doesn't demand one believe in a God that makes moral demands. 

Should I match your invective by declaring that evolution is an escape hatch for those who don't want to believe in God or want to let the establishment do their thinking for them? 

[Firethorn]

Indeed, Eskimos and Ethiopians would then be separate species, provided that all Ethiopians could still intrabreed and so could all Eskimos. Call them whatever you want.

I'll note that 'species' is much fuzzier today than it was 40 years ago.  We've found members of various species that can, at least occasionially, breed with each other and produce fertile offspring.  Some species of cat, I believe.

Now, they generally don't, and are in different geographical areas, but then again, we didn't know about bacteria's ability to trade genes in a non-sexual way until fairly recently.

I always say that 'evolution' is a fairly simplistic way to state the process, but it can be taught in elementary school, while the other stuff would have to wait for junior high for the bright kids and maybe not even high-school for the 'average' ones.

We've discovered that certain conditions can increase the mutation rate, but in 'nicer' conditions it's more stable...  Sounds like something that might come up in evolution;  After all, when you're adapted to your enviroment mutation is, on average, a bad thing.  When you're now ill-suited for the enviroment, mutation is a good thing.  We're not looking at 'stage 1' of evolution, we're looking at stage 1 trillion and counting.  It's gotten pretty subtle and complicated over time.

[Perd Hapley]

Evolution/creation is one of those debates in which both sides voice a lot of scorn for each other, as if the other side are nothing but blind, unquestioning idiots, believing in "junk science."  It's sad.