Post by: Marnoot on December 29, 2006, 08:50:12 AM
I've never understood the desire among some Christian groups to suppress or somehow feel offended or threatened by science. My beliefs are not threatened by science, even science that seems to contradict my beliefs. If science appears to contradict one's beliefs, either:
1) The science is wrong,
2) The person has misinterpreted scripture/gospel,
3) The scientists have misinterpreted the science,
4) The person's beliefs are wrong,
or 5) If fully understood from the right perspective (like God's), there is no real contradiction.
When faced with an apparent contradiction, many people seem to immediately assume 1 and that Science is claiming 4 and viciously attack it without any understanding of the science at all. Something that appears to contradicts your beliefs does not necessarily conclude that your beliefs are wrong; while science being wrong is always a possibility, always assuming that *must* be the case and ignorantly attacking it is just not smart. I have no problem with people coming up with alternate scientific theories, a la Intelligent Design if the science is good. I don't think alot of the science in ID is good. That said, I'm 100% a creationist. Science != Faith, & vice versa.
I believe in micro-evolution (easily observed), but not so much in macro-evolution. That said, I believe both should be taught in schools as it's the best science at the moment. It's up to the parents to correct, re-direct, modify, or reinforce as their belief-system dictates. When I marry and have kids, depending on where I live I'm expecting to have to "de-program" my kids after school each day of liberal political propaganda, etc. If parents disagree with something taught in science class, they should do the same; they can talk with their kids about it. It can't be up to the school to tailor education to every child's religious or areligious needs.
Approaching science with an agenda leads to bad science. An example of this that amuses me is that of some Mormon archaeologists that devote their work specifically to seeking archaeological proof of the Book of Mormon. I'm Mormon, and I think that's silly. When you have an agenda like that, you're too likely to consciously or subconsciously twist evidence to suit your view when otherwise it might not. Same goes for many biblical archaeologists. If evidence after objective scrutiny should happen to support your religious beliefs, then great! But agendas have no place within the scrutiny. That also goes for scientists with secular agendas. Whether they be setting out to "prove" global warming, rather than investigate it, or setting out to "prove" anything with anything other than an objective, investigative view, open to all possible outcomes.
So, why do some people feel so threatened by science? I understand not agreeing or fully agreeing with certain scientific theories, as I don't with macro-evolution and global warming, but why the rabid response from some people? While I don't agree with its science completely, I think ID proponents have the right idea: look for alternate theories and explanations. I just think they've allowed their agenda to affect their science. But feeling threatened by the science and rabidly attacking it, I don't get.
Edited to make thread title more accurate.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 29, 2006, 09:28:17 AM
Either way, there will always be those who overreact and attack the wrong target; and those who seek to use govt to mandate their wishes. Those people are on the right and the left.
An alternative question: why do so many people look at science as the answer to all life's questions and fail to challenge scientific results and the interpretations that spring from them?
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on December 29, 2006, 09:32:17 AM
Now, I'm gonna geek out a little bit here, just because this is one of the coolest little bits of molecular/cellular biology I've ever seen.
Most everyone knows what a mitochondria is (for the star wars geeks in the rooms, I said mitochondria, NOT midiclorions), but those are the "energy sources" for every single cell in the human body. Other forms of life use mitochondria as well, but in this case I want to strictly talk about human mitochondria. Sandwiched in the middle of the membrane of the mitochondria is a protein know as the "F1:F0 ATPase". This is essentially a molecular "generator" that uses a proton gradient to turn a molecular shaft and spins an assembly to assemble a molecule of ADP (adenosine diphosphate) and a phosphate molecule into a molecule of ATP (adenosine triphosphate) the molecular fuel for the cell. Now, if this little molecule could operate independently in the mitochondria, this wouldn't be so remarkable. But it can't. It needs a series of proton pumps, which in turn use up a small amount of ATP, to generate the proton gradient necessary to generate ATP. Oh, and in order to generate the protons necessary, the Krebs cycle takes glucose and generates NADH+, NADPH+, which are proton carriers. But the Krebs cycle actually also uses a small amount of ATP. This, btw, is my oversimplification of the process. I'd need to get my cell bio and molecular bio textbooks in order to really get into the details. The point, however, is that these process are so inextricably interrelated that they CANNOT function independently of each other. Oh, and these processes occur simultaneously. Now, anyone want to calculate the odds that somehow, back in the "primordial ooze" ALL of the chemical reactions necessary for all of these processes to occur in the exact right sequence, in a manner that is somehow beneficial to the organism, and that was able to be passed on to future generations (because ALL life uses some variant of this mechanism to generate energy)? But remember, this "CLEARLY supports the evolutionary theory."
Post by: MechAg94 on December 29, 2006, 09:34:14 AM
Quote
Approaching science with an agenda leads to bad science. An example of this that amuses me is that of some Mormon archaeologists that devote their work specifically to seeking archaeological proof of the Book of Mormon. I'm Mormon, and I think that's silly. When you have an agenda like that, you're too likely to consciously or subconsciously twist evidence to suit your view when otherwise it might not. Same goes for many biblical archaeologists. If evidence after objective scrutiny should happen to support your religious beliefs, then great! But agendas have no place within the scrutiny. That also goes for scientists with secular agendas. Whether they be setting out to "prove" global warming, rather than investigate it, or setting out to "prove" anything with anything other than an objective, investigative view, open to all possible outcomes.
Now ask yourself how many archaeologists "believe" that evolution is the truth, believe that the basic time line of pre-history used today is correct; and ask yourself how many of those people allow their beliefs to affect their findings. If archaeologists at a dig fail to recognize evidence or mis-classify evidence because it doesn't fit their preconceived views, that is no different. Very good way to make the point though.
Post by: BrokenPaw on December 29, 2006, 09:39:27 AM
Quote
An alternative question: why do so many people look at science as the answer to all life's questions and fail to challenge scientific results and the interpretations that spring from them?
Because many people are lazy. This is the reason that people blindly cling to any position; because they're too lazy to think about why they believe what they believe.
People who blindly believe in something that is true, but have no idea why they believe in it, are as intellectually bereft as people who blindly believe in something that is not true.
I have more respect for someone who disagrees with me but can articulate why, than for someone who agrees with me, but can't explain their position.
That said, the answer to both Marnoot's initial question and to MechAg94's alternative question is: People who are lazy tend to remain ignorant. Ignorance when left alone remains simple ignorance. But ignorance when challenged leads to one of two things: enlightenment (which occurs when laziness is overcome), or anger (when laziness prevails). Those who overcome their laziness do the research or the introspection or whatever it takes, and either affirm their position, or change it, and (either way) are no longer ignorant, and therefore no longer angry at being challenged. Those whose laziness prevails take the simplest course: to lash out against whatever challenges their ignorant premise (whether it be science or religion or any unsubstantiated belief).
-BP
Post by: MechAg94 on December 29, 2006, 09:43:11 AM
However, IMHO, ID is not really an alternative theory from evolution but an attempt to show the short comings of macro-evolution and demonstrate that creation (in one way or another) is not such a crackpot theory.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 29, 2006, 09:43:58 AM
I always had difficulty with the "odds" argument. Odds are only good before the fact. What were the odds of Jack Whittaker winning the biggest lottery of all time ($314M, actually got $114M after taxes etc)? They were billions to one. Yet he won. What were the odds of people developing exactly this way? Lots, but it happened anyway.
Not saying I dont believe in Creation (I do) but the argument is poor.
Post by: BrokenPaw on December 29, 2006, 09:52:00 AM
And there are lots and lots of things out there that are really really unlikely. But if you add together the possibilities of all of those things, it actually becomes pretty likely that something strange is going to happen, sooner or later; something that would be impossible to predict, but which seems uncannily odd after the fact.
-BP
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on December 29, 2006, 09:52:50 AM
I'll try to find the actual instance, but I remember one instance of radiocarbon dating that "proved" a relatively young object to be several orders of magnitude older than it actually was.
And BrokenPaw, the reality of statistics is that they are additive, but in an opposite manner as what your post suggests. If you take one really statistically improbable event, and it relies on another statistically improbable event, the probability of both those events happening becomes even smaller, and if a certain sequence is required, the probability is even smaller still.
Post by: Marnoot on December 29, 2006, 09:59:50 AM
Quote from: MechAg94
Now ask yourself how many archaeologists "believe" that evolution is the truth, believe that the basic time line of pre-history used today is correct; and ask yourself how many of those people allow their beliefs to affect their findings. If archaeologists at a dig fail to recognize evidence or mis-classify evidence because it doesn't fit their preconceived views, that is no different.
Exactly. Agendas and preconceived notions work both ways, without a doubt. There is a happy medium, because you have to base research/etc on preconceived ideas somewhat, even if just the hypothesis, in order to get anywhere; but you also have to be open to the idea of your findings not agreeing with your preconceived ideas. Too many scientists on both sides of the religious fence postulate a hypothesis and then seek to prove it by any means necessary, rather than openly seeking to determine whether it is or is not fact.AmbulanceDriver, I remember very briefly learning about that process in my biology class a few years ago, and you raise a very good point. Complicated biological processes like that are what lead me to feel that Intelligent Design proponents have the right idea for looking for alternate theories/ideas, but again you can't use science to prove faith; you do find things that can help support your faith, but some people get so attached to that support that if new evidence disproves it, they fly off the handle. Brokenpaw's Laziness Theorem
helps explain that a bit.Rabbi, the "odds" argument, and the problems with it, are part of why I brought up that science can never prove faith. It can support here and there, but one should never base their religious faith on scientific findings. Faith is faith, science is science. In the grand scheme of things, from God's perspective, I have no doubt that there is not a single contradiction between science, religion, and how things really are. But from our imperfect perspective, we're not going to see that view and so feeling threatened by science, or saying that science "proves" some aspect of religion false, or "proves" some aspect true, is all a work in futility. I guess when I see something like the Kreb's cycle, and any scientific fact/theory that seems to support my beliefs I find it "interesting," but do not attempt to hinge my faith on it and thus do not feel threatened should the "fact" or theory be proven to be wrong/different.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 29, 2006, 10:08:32 AM
While you are right that the odds of things developing just this way is tiny, what are the odds of some other viable system developing? What is the limit on the number of viable systems in biology? Taken from that perspective, the odds of *one* of them occuring are a near certainty.
I personally think there is no contradiction between the account of Creation in Genesis and whatever theory is most likely true. It is simply a matter of proper understanding of the account, or the theory. As the Talmud tells us, the Torah speaks the language of man.
Post by: BrokenPaw on December 29, 2006, 10:16:57 AM
Quote
And BrokenPaw, the reality of statistics is that they are additive, but in an opposite manner as what your post suggests. If you take one really statistically improbable event, and it relies on another statistically improbable event, the probability of both those events happening becomes even smaller, and if a certain sequence is required, the probability is even smaller still.
You're right, of course. I was referring to the fact that given a huge number of discrete but unlikely events, chances are at least a few of them will occur.And as Rabbi says, the fact that this one event seems astronomically unlikely does not actually mean that it didn't happen that way. The very fact that we are here discussing it means that the cycle came into being somehow and whether the odds were against it in a purely-chance-based system, or whether it was an inevitability because of an intelligent Creator, either way, it's happened, so arguing over its likelihood is not useful.
I happen to believe in the idea of an intelligent designer (although it is not Biblical Creation I ascribe to). None the less, arguing that "occurrence A is extremely unlikely, therefore premise B must be true" is just as erroneous as saying that "The chances of any one person winning the lottery is millions-to-one against, therefore if anyone wins it, it must be God's Will".
-BP
Post by: MechAg94 on December 29, 2006, 10:25:45 AM
The BrokenPaw Laziness Theorem applies to everyone.
Post by: Bogie on December 29, 2006, 10:35:56 AM
There. Everyone's happy. Now STFU and let's go get a beer. I hear they're hybridizing yeasties like nobody's business!
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 29, 2006, 10:53:13 AM
Who is to say that evolution itself isn't guided by a higher power?
There. Everyone's happy.
There. Everyone's happy.
There's a lot of reasons why that won't make everyone happy. For one, evolution does not and cannot agree with the Biblical account in the details of how and when things took place. Worse, evolution contradicts the Bible's overall scheme of history, wherein creation was "very good," and no animal or human died or suffered from any disease or deformity until Adam and Eve first sinned. If the evidence points to evolution, then let's believe that, but let us not think we can keep the Bible and Christianity along with it. All that would be left are some suggestions about morality from a book written by well-meaning idealists. And anyone could write one of those.
If you like, you can believe in a God that created through evolution. But look at the God that you are left with. He creates through violence, bloodshed, sickness, deformity, mutation, etc. You could believe in such a God, and serve him, but it would not likely bring you much happiness. And if the Bible is to be believed, he said all of that was "very good!"
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 29, 2006, 11:31:49 AM
Quote
Odds are only good before the fact. What were the odds of Jack Whittaker winning the biggest lottery of all time ($314M, actually got $114M after taxes etc)? They were billions to one. Yet he won. What were the odds of people developing exactly this way? Lots, but it happened anyway.
So the probability of our universe or of life happening is 100% It happened. But that doesn't speak to the odds of it happening in a particular way. We've probably all heard stories in the news about someone being admitted to the hospital with some large object wedged in an orifice. When they claim "I just fell down on it," we don't believe them. In our heads, we make a rough estimate of the statistical probability of such a thing happening, and we reject their explanation. ID does this, but more formally, and with more depth. Life forms and various evolution issues are examined to see what sort of odds must be overcome, and theories of chance development are rejected as less probable and less believable than Design.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 29, 2006, 12:03:05 PM
Quote
Odds are only good before the fact. What were the odds of Jack Whittaker winning the biggest lottery of all time ($314M, actually got $114M after taxes etc)? They were billions to one. Yet he won. What were the odds of people developing exactly this way? Lots, but it happened anyway.
So the probability of our universe or of life happening is 100% It happened. But that doesn't speak to the odds of it happening in a particular way.
Right. But if it wasnt this way, it could have been another way, or another, or any of infinite variations. So the chance of one of those variations occurring is enormous.
As far as evolution, we need to define what we mean. Most Jews have no problem at all (I dont anyway) with the idea that one species deveoped characeristics over time. So short necked giraffes became long necked ones. We do have an issue with one species developing into another, monkeys to man for example.
As far as "very good", the commentators say that "very good" refers to death. It is used only on one day of creation.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 29, 2006, 12:54:16 PM
Most Jews have no problem at all (I dont anyway) with the idea that one species deveoped characeristics over time. So short necked giraffes became long necked ones. We do have an issue with one species developing into another, monkeys to man for example.
As far as "very good", the commentators say that "very good" refers to death. It is used only on one day of creation.
As far as "very good", the commentators say that "very good" refers to death. It is used only on one day of creation.
Creation science agrees with you that natural selection could cause limited changes within a species. That is sometimes expressed as micro-evolution, rather than macro-evolution. Although I've heard those terms have fallen out of favor. I don't know why.
Can you explain this thing about very good and death?
Post by: Ron on December 29, 2006, 01:02:50 PM
Where did the singularity come from?
The scientific community really expects me to take their word for it that order arises from chaos given enough time?
Inanimate matter given enough time becomes animate?
That personality and self consciousness is strictly a biological/chemical illusion?
Ideas have consequences.
The theories of "what is man" that modern science puts forth, taken to their logical conclusion will bring forth a world that is depraved meaningless and without hope.
Post by: Werewolf on December 29, 2006, 01:13:01 PM
Quote
All that would be left are some suggestions about morality from a book written by well-meaning idealists. And anyone could write one of those.
If you like, you can believe in a God that created through evolution. But look at the God that you are left with. He creates through violence, bloodshed, sickness, deformity, mutation, etc. And if the Bible is to be believed, he said all of that was "very good!"
If you like, you can believe in a God that created through evolution. But look at the God that you are left with. He creates through violence, bloodshed, sickness, deformity, mutation, etc. And if the Bible is to be believed, he said all of that was "very good!"
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner.
Mankind has an almost patholigocal need to believe that what ever GOD created us must be good. Why must GOD be good? Afterall assuming a GOD did create the whole ball of wax wouldn't it be more interesting to watch and/or control a universe where stuff went wrong than one where it always went right? Where's the challenge in that. Personally I believe that GOD is above good and evil - GOD created those concepts as a form of amusement and a way to kill time during all those billions of years the universe has/will last. 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?
Post by: Ron on December 29, 2006, 01:22:50 PM
To judge what God does as either good or evil presupposes a standard that exists outside of Him or His creation.
By definition Good is what God says is good and Evil is what God says is evil.
Post by: Werewolf on December 29, 2006, 01:34:41 PM
Quote
By definition Good is what God says is good and Evil is what God says is evil.
IMO - Good is what man says is good and Evil is what man says is evil. It seems unlikely that a being that with the power to create a universe in all it's grandeur and glory would really give a hoot about good and evil. God has more important things to worry about than an insignificant species on an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system in an insignificant galaxy among trillions of galaxies. Mankind is less than a microbe on a single grain of sand among all the grains of sand on the planet compared to the rest of the universe.
Geez - if nothing else Mankind is an arrogant species to believe we really matter in the grand scheme of things.
Post by: Lee on December 29, 2006, 02:53:05 PM
That's assuming that there IS something comparable to Earth and it's inhabitants elswhere in the universe. If not, I'd say that God does have a stake in the behavior of mankind. But then, the Mayans might have been a favorite of 'his'...who knows?
Post by: Werewolf on December 29, 2006, 03:44:48 PM
Quote
That's assuming that there IS something comparable to Earth and it's inhabitants elswhere in the universe.
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?Post by: gunsmith on December 29, 2006, 03:54:46 PM
Nothing, being very unstable and highly explosive, exploded, creating the universe.
That whole thing about matter can neither be created or destroyed is simply unscientific because nothing means nothing, but there was this big bang and now there is something.
I think folks that hate on intelligent design need to get an imagination and read "Divine Invasion" & "V.A.L.I.S"
by Phillip K Dick.
Isn't it obvious to everyone that God created some really smart beings who came to earth a billion years ago and seeded the Earth with some DNA?
Still, I go to Church and pray to Jesus anyway....please don't hate me for that.
I love science, science fiction.....I don't fear much really.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 29, 2006, 05:11:34 PM
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 29, 2006, 08:15:53 PM
Quote
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.Quote
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.
Post by: Werewolf on December 30, 2006, 05:58:46 AM
Quote
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.
Quote from: Werewolf
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?
Quote from: fistful
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.
Post by: Ron on December 30, 2006, 06:46:21 AM
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.
Post by: Werewolf on December 30, 2006, 08:06:04 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: Ron on December 30, 2006, 09:46:37 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: Brad Johnson on December 30, 2006, 10:00:28 AM
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
Post by: ilbob on December 30, 2006, 12:55:57 PM
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.
Post by: gunsmith on December 30, 2006, 05:49:39 PM
How did it get here then?
Post by: Cosmoline on December 30, 2006, 06:37:52 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 31, 2006, 03:15:29 PM
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 31, 2006, 10:42:58 PM
Quote
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/
Post by: grampster on January 01, 2007, 05:20:56 PM
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.
Post by: cosine on January 01, 2007, 05:35:21 PM
(...)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.
Post by: grampster on January 01, 2007, 06:04:18 PM
Post by: cosine on January 01, 2007, 06:06:57 PM
God In The Dock touches on that subject as well, Cosine.
I'll have to read it. Thanks, grampster.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 18, 2007, 09:48:30 AM
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.
Post by: richyoung on January 18, 2007, 10:04:15 AM
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.
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?
Quote
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....
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 18, 2007, 10:38:43 AM
Quote from: richyoung
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
...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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 18, 2007, 01:50:22 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 18, 2007, 03:57:29 PM
Quote from: fistful
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 18, 2007, 04:08:06 PM
In which case I think the equivilence is reasonable.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 18, 2007, 04:52:40 PM
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?
Post by: Firethorn on January 18, 2007, 07:37:05 PM
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 18, 2007, 08:14:16 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 18, 2007, 08:39:18 PM
Conduct the following mental exercise. Assuming you are given solid incontrovertible objective evidence that completely refutes everything you currently believe in (whatever that might be), will you be able to divest yourself of your beliefs and acknowledge the new reality (whatever that might be)? If yes, then you are an objective seeker of truth. If not, you have to ask yourself where your bias comes from and to what extent it affects your current beliefs.
Hehehe.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 18, 2007, 08:51:06 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 18, 2007, 08:55:17 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 18, 2007, 09:51:05 PM
There is no possible way to "objectively, definitively" disprove religious faith.
It's the perfect out, suck it atheists.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 19, 2007, 03:04:43 AM
Copping out, are we? As expected. Hehehe.
So, you really think your little test is simple and objective? I thought you were just joking. If you like, I'll say that I would indeed change my mind. See, I have proved that I am objective.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 19, 2007, 08:34:37 AM
fistful, I am glad to hear you are amenable to evidence. But, that also means you are not a true believer. Hehehe.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 19, 2007, 09:28:10 AM
Lest you misunderstand, that's actually my position. It's a logical fallacy to assume any physical data can prove or disprove a non-physical belief using the scientific method.
Faith and divinity is a far bigger thing than can be encompassed in something so small as a mere infinity of created time and space.
When you flip over to internal logic for Christianity, you start with the mandatory assumption that G-d is who He said He is and that, in fact, as created beings there are things we cannot understand about a raft of faith-based beliefs. If you start saying "well this seems evil to me, so G-d isn't who He says He is", by definition you are no longer talking about the Christian G-d and might as well be talking about Superman. It helps that I don't view the Bible as a "science text" or a strict "history". That stuffs in there, but the Bible is all about the relationship between G-d and man, which has nothing to do with this world except in passing.
There's no conflict between science and my faith because I start with the presumption that my faith isn't dependent on this created, temporary world (all the important stuff will happen after I'm dead). I enjoy studying science to better understand my "home for my lifetime" and figure if something doesn't seem to mesh there's a divine explanation I'll get soon enough. For the present I can just take it at face value as the best explanation the human mind is capable of and leave it at that. It has nothing to do with salvation or my relationship with the Creator of everything.
Post by: Werewolf on January 19, 2007, 09:48:15 AM
To paraphrase:
If you're a creationist you don't have a brain and if an evolutionist you don't have a heart.
In a nutshell one group believes in a bunch of touchy feely crap and their primary information processor is their heart while the other group's primary information processor is it's brain.
Both primary processing methods have their advantages and disadvantages unfortunately a compromise between the two is unlikely as they are diametrically opposed.
Now that I've pissed off both sides of the current argument I think I'll grab a beer, slither into the nearest dark corner and hide for a while...
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 19, 2007, 09:52:10 AM
What is it they say about liberals and conservatives concerning hearts and brains?
To paraphrase:
If you're a creationist you don't have a brain and if an evolutionist you don't have a heart.
In a nutshell one group believes in a bunch of touchy feely crap and their primary information processor is their heart while the other group's primary information processor is it's brain.
Both primary processing methods have their advantages and disadvantages unfortunately a compromise between the two is unlikely as they are diametrically opposed.
Now that I've pissed off both sides of the current argument I think I'll grab a beer, slither into the nearest dark corner and hide for a while...
To paraphrase:
If you're a creationist you don't have a brain and if an evolutionist you don't have a heart.
In a nutshell one group believes in a bunch of touchy feely crap and their primary information processor is their heart while the other group's primary information processor is it's brain.
Both primary processing methods have their advantages and disadvantages unfortunately a compromise between the two is unlikely as they are diametrically opposed.
Now that I've pissed off both sides of the current argument I think I'll grab a beer, slither into the nearest dark corner and hide for a while...
Won't help.
You got both sides riled up and both sides believe in stakes and fire...
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 19, 2007, 11:06:03 AM
Fire and pitchforks come into play when the critics are emotionally or materially invested in the argument.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 19, 2007, 12:14:32 PM
There are proprieties to uphold.
Post by: Brad Johnson on January 19, 2007, 12:30:09 PM
Good point, forgot the pitchforks.
There are proprieties to uphold.
There are proprieties to uphold.
And the torches. Don't forget the torches.
Brad
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 19, 2007, 12:36:16 PM
Good point, forgot the pitchforks.
There are proprieties to uphold.
There are proprieties to uphold.
And the torches. Don't forget the torches.
Brad
Those go without saying. You have to light the pyre with something.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 20, 2007, 03:56:33 AM
fistful, I am glad to hear you are amenable to evidence. But, that also means you are not a true believer. Hehehe.
Sure I am - a true believer in what the evidence suggests.