Adventists on Darwin and Evolution, Part 1
by Ervin Taylor
On the weekend of February 8-10, 2013, more than 500 congregations associated with a number of Christian traditions will celebrate “2013 Evolution Weekend” as a means of emphasizing the compatibility of Christianity and biological evolution. This is the 8th year that such a weekend had been organized. We all know the name of the 19th-century English naturalist, Charles Darwin, and the book, On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection, which provided the most detailed exposition of biological evolution as one of the most influential scientific concepts in the history of science.
The Christian congregations participating in 2013 Evolution Weekend include those affiliated with the various denominations or branches of the Anglican, Baptist, Church of the Brethren, Congregational, Disciples of Christ, Episcopal, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Presbyterian, Quaker, Swedenborgian, Unitarian Universalist, and United Church of Christ traditions. Many Jewish and a few Islamic congregations will also be participating, although surveys have determined that Orthodox Jewish and about half of all members of Islam in the United States reject biological evolution and its implications.
Although no individual Catholic parishes are listed as participating, a recent announcement by the Vatican noted that the present Pope and a number of his predecessors have declared unambiguously that Darwin’s evolutionary theory is compatible with Catholic Christian faith. Back in 2009, the Roman Catholic Pontifical Academy and Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome held a conference to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s major work. A recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that Catholics joined mainline Protestants, most Orthodox Christians, non-Orthodox Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and the “unaffiliated” in overwhelmingly accepting evolution as the best scientific explanation for the development of living forms—including humans—on earth.
We can be reasonably certain that no Seventh-day Adventist congregation from anywhere in the United States—or, for that matter, anywhere in the world—will participate in the 2013 Evolution Weekend. We know that institutional Adventism joins with other conservative evangelical and fundamentalist churches and denominations—such as the Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) and Mormons—in rejecting the key scientific idea contained in Darwin’s work, which represents the view that all life forms on earth evolved from common ancestors over hundreds of millions of years, primarily by the process of natural selection.
Focusing our attention just on Adventism, we might ask the question: “What is it about the Adventist theological tradition that has caused this small branch of Protestant Christianity to reject the ideas embodied in Darwin’s great scientific work?”
We can begin by reminding ourselves that when Darwin published Origin of Species, Adventism had, at most, 800 adherents scattered in “little flocks” in the northeastern United States. The organized Adventist Church did not as yet exist. As Darwin’s ideas or, more often, interpretations of his ideas, spread into the popular consciousness through various means in the communities where early Adventists lived, the reaction of individual Adventists adherents to Darwin’s ideas were almost certainly similar to those of all other working and middle class Christians in these communities. Unless an individual possessed some formal education beyond the elementary school, the ordinary Christian layperson almost instinctively contrasted Darwin’s view with what was being taught in the pulpits on weekends, about God’s creation of the world in six days about 6,000 years ago. The first chapter of the Book of Genesis in the King James Bible editions of that day even contain in their margins the date of Creation as 4004 BC.
Thus the views of early Adventists on this topic were essentially the same as all other Protestant Christians of similar background. What has happened through succeeding decades to completely alter this? Why have other Christian bodies—some quite conservative in some matters—modified their earlier views about evolution? Why is the Adventist Church not celebrating the “2013 Evolution Weekend” to show the compatibility of Christianity and biological evolution? What has changed?
Part 2 of this blog will suggest some answers to these questions.
“What is it about the Adventist theological tradition that has caused this small branch of Protestant Christianity to reject the ideas embodied in Darwin’s great scientific work?”
Two reasons: fear it will undermine our doctrine of the Sabbath (which it won't as Jack has written about several times) and undermine the authority of Ellen White (which it doesn't have to either if we have a biblical-human as opposed to impossible-mythical view of the gift of prophecy.)
"Thus the views of early Adventists on this topic were essentially the same as all other Protestant Christians of similar background."
This is an aspect of Adventism I am quite interested in. Many (often conservative) Adventists talk about their fears of ecumenicalism. But conservative Adventism strives hard to maintain its own ecumenical credentials of a sort – it's just the choice of friends that liberals and conservative differ.
For example, the 'historic' Adventist wing is not so 'historic' at all but rather something that was largely created after Ellen White's death in the 1920s. During that time the conservative wing took to the for and tried very hard to prove its credentials to the new and growing fundamentalism movement – where fundamentalism was not such the pejorative word it is now.
I guess in some ways even the pioneers were trying to conform to their own notions of non-conformity, during a time when a number of grass-roots restorationist and revolutionary Christian movements were forming – which is why we have the JWs and Mormons also arriving at the same time. But similar periods of history occured during the puritan era in England, during the Reformation, or even during 1st Century Palestine (where Jesus was hardly the first raddical messianic miracle worker).
"Part 2 of this blog will offer suggest some answers to these questions."
I look forward to your answers Ervin.
Dr. Taylor, when you refer to "Darwin and Evolution" are you refering to Darwin's views, or is Today's Neo-Darwinism in mind?
Darrel and others, I'd like to caution again use of the term "Neo-Darwinism," because its meaning is not clear. It is a term that has been in use for a long time, and its meaning has changed across the years. Adding "Today's" on the front of it helps a little, but not enough, because for some that means in the light of up-to-date knowledge, say, from the past five years, while it just means in the modern era (maybe the last 50 years) to others. That is a serious problem, whether we are thinking of the usage of Romanes in 1895 or by Sir Ronald Fisher with regard to the genetical theory of natural selection, essentially, "the modern synthesis." Even Ernst Mayr did not accept that usage. However, the term has been used and misused so much, including by evangelists for evolution like Dawkins and Gould, that it lacks real meaning. But more than any of these concerns, I do not like Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism to be used as if it were interchangeable with evolutionary biology because it suggests a kind of slavish discipleship or even religious devotion to Darwin.
If "Darwinism" is thought of as if it were religious dogma, it loses some of the most important dynamic features. Science is devoted to understanding things as they are through careful empirical research. Implications that Darwin gave us "the truth" are just deeply misguided. That Darwin, with a big boost from Alfred Russel Wallace, suggested a mechanism by which biological change could occur (selection). He had little knowledge or understanding of how genetics worked or how the variation arose upon which selection could act.
It is fine to acknowledge and celebrate the insight of Darwin and Wallace and the concept they proposed. It was indeed a dramatic advance. It is totally inappropriate and rather destructive to WORSHIP Darwin. That is the way I see it, so I do not excessively venerate Darwin, and call attention where possible to the important role of Wallace. BTW, some here might enjoy reading The Malay Archipelago by Alfred Russel Wallace.
Yes Joe, and this the problem, 'Evolution' is a very slippery term with multiple meaning.
Let me thank Joe for his very helpful comments concerning the nature of Darwinian evolutionary thought. My understanding is that when the term is used by contemporary biological scientists, it is used in the context of the original concept plus all the detailed knowledge that has been gained since Darwin first expressed his "one long argument." I also look forward to Darrel's comments as we move forward in the discussion.
When SDA writers use the term "Darwin" or "Darwinian" they are locked into the original meaning and not how it is used by contemporary scientists. This makes any dialogue very difficult with two distinct interpretations.
The reason the SdA church is fighting evolution: it would destroy the YEC and with it the sabbath. It is the foundation for adopting the seventh day as their worship day; despite its never being given for man following creation, and the first scriptural command for its observance is found in the Law given to the Israelites and no others. With the "fall" of sabbath, the entire trail of dominoes fall. Rather a fragile foundation to be built on the lack of commands to Christians.
I think Elaine you right about many being "locked in." In fact many Adventist Christians are actually locked in to two 19th century historical figures and have difficulty integrating 21st century information regarding them. Not withstanding YEC views, new information need not distroy faith in our Creator, the Sabbath or the glorious expectation of the Lord's coming.
This is not the reason most thinking Adventists are against macroevolution. It is because it conflicts with Christ as our salvation. It conflicts with the biblical idea of sin. It conflicts with the image of God as Love and not One to create by violence and blood shed. It is His adversary that has brought this into creation, how we haven't been told and can only speculate. Perhaps that is the test–whether to believe in a violent God presented by mainstream churches who have no other answer, or to trust in the God who loves, even without the answers. Remember Job was never told the story behind his experience, he just trusted.
'It is because it conflicts with Christ as our salvation. It conflicts with the biblical idea of sin. It conflicts with the image of God as Love and not One to create by violence and blood shed.'
With respect, I don't think that explains then why so many Christian denominations are willing to accept the possibility of evolution. Are you saying all these other Christian groups don't believe in a biblical idea of sin or have a different notion of Christ as our savior?
'Perhaps that is the test–whether to believe in a violent God…'
That's a better answer. A range of Christians, including many scholars who do believe in evolution, have noted that the problem of theodicy (why bad things happen) gets a whole lot harder when you add evolution into it. Evolution says we got here after billions of years of suffering, agony and death, and some 99% extinction rate. What does that say about a loving God?
But I don't think theodicy alone is a barrier to accepting evolution. Eden alone had the sinful serpent in it, and Lucifer's rebellion occured before the earth was even created. All evolution does it make the Great Contoversy bigger – much bigger, and the main characters older – much oder, and more evil – much more evil, than we thought before.
Erv, you asked: “Why is the Adventist Church not celebrating the “2013 Evolution Weekend” to show the compatibility of Christianity and biological evolution? What has changed?”
The answer is obvious: Because the theory of evolution is not compatible with the biblical doctrine of creation, the moral fall, and the plan of redemption. If Darwin is right, then Christianity makes no logical sense. I we are the product of unguided evolution and natural selection, this means that we have done quite well without any help from above.
If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no moral fall. We will probably continue advancing without the need for preaching a Gospel based on a mythical past and a chimeric future.
If Darwin is right, then the Bible, Jesus, and Christianity is wrong. We might as well disband and turn our church into a social club or a charity program devoted to clothe the naked and to the feeding of those who are hungry.
'If we are the product of unguided evolution and natural selection, this means that we have done quite well without any help from above. If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no moral fall. We will probably continue advancing without the need for preaching a Gospel based on a mythical past and a chimeric future.'
Who says that if evolution were true Adam and Eve were not literaly figures? God called the seas and land to bring forth the animals – He didn't create them out of thin air. He made Adam out of 'clay' (i.e. pre-existing stuff) – again not our of thin air.
Adam may not have been the first homo sapien but he may have been the first homo divinus. That is, the first prophet, or the first being on planet earth to have a level of consciousness that recognised the one God Yahweh. Adam was the first representative of humanity, not necessarily the first human. In the same way Christ is firstborn of the resurrection (1 Cor 1:18), which means in a representative sense, for Christ is not litereally the first human to be raised in a resurrection (e.g. Moses was before).
If Adam was literally the first human being on earth, then why did Cain fear he would be hunted down by other people – when there were none?
People on both 'sides' of the debate might not like to see a literal physical person called Adam and evolution mentioned together, but I merely point out it is certaintly a possibility.
Stephen, are you suggesting that Adam–who lived almost a thousand years, had only three children: Cain, Abel, and Seth? You have to allow for the law of parsimony. Read Genesis 5:3 where it says that Adam had other sons and daughters.
You attempt to harmonize the doctrine of creation with the theory of evolution is a dismal failure. Read the genealogy of Jesus Christ. It traces his ancestry back not to apes and other lower forms of life but rather directly to Adam and God.
So Adam had other sons and daughters in Gen 5:3, including Seth. But this occured after Cain had already killed Able in Gen 4:8. Cain's response Gen 4:14 and God's response Gen 4:15, presupposes that there are other people on the earth at the time – not just a few people.
Talking of geneologies in both the OT and NT, you do know they don't list every single generation, but rather only the notable ancestors? And you know the geneologies in the Gospels don't match exactly either? So of course one would expect Jesus to have His geneologies traced back to Adam, the first homo divinus human, and not to an earlier ancestor.
We make a mistake by assuming that things happened in the order written in the Bible. Cain left after the murder and built a city an married a wife from where? And built a city. It may be describing events covering hundreds of years, given the longevity recorded at that time. Certainly, Cain married a close relative, if not a sister. Genealogies should not be taken as accurate, as Stephen has shown. They were not written to be accurate, but to follow PART of one patriarchal line, with no mention of the maternal line.
In studying genealogies today, either maternal or paternal is considered. I have been fortunate in tracing my direct genealogy for more than 1500 years, with both maternal and paternal ancestry. The Bible writers knew nothing of maternal gene contribution, as only the father conceived a child.
Ella, I agree with you because whatever definition of evolution one chooses, it entails the process of mutation and death as the creative force making all things. This philosophy is not only anti-christian, but also not-scientific in my view at least.
George Gaylord Simpson, the leading neo-Darwinist a generation ago defined evolution leading to man as, "the result of a purposeless and materialistic process thatdid not have him in mind. He was not planned.” The Meaning of Evolution, pg. 344.
In our day, Douglas Futuyma’s biology text explains evolution thus: “By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.” Evolutionary Biology, pg. 5.
These represent "standard evolution" do they not?
This is what is in the mind of most people when they think about what evolution is, right?
I'm going to consider the suggestions of some who insist that the concept of biological evolution is totally incompatable with a number of important Christian concepts in subsequent segments. However, might I ask those that believe that to explain why so many Christian churches obviously do not agree with that view. Is there something different about the Christanity of these Christian churches and the Christianity of Adventism? If so, what is that difference?
Erv, this is explained by the deceptive power of the Devil. The Bible teaches that Satan deceives the entire world, and Jesus stated that he will deceive–if possible–even the elect. This includes you and me!
I believe there are two reasons that Christians say they are Evolutionists:
In general, in the Adventist Church and many, many others, we strong philosophical and scientific doubts about materialism itself. I believe these doubts are well founded.
I do not see any other branch of natural science needing to resort to popularity of Christian groups’ endorsement for its validity. Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, etc. pretty much can stand on their own as progress is being made. Science does not progress by popularity contest. Let scientists lay out their evidences and we judge their validity against known scientific laws and logic.
I'm sure that Mr. Law did not mean to suggest that evolutionary biology needs the endorsement of Christain groups to support its validity. That would be a truly strange suggestion. The interest of many Christians to make a statement about this particular scientific concept is because Christian fundamentlists have insisited that Christianity itself and evoliution are in conflict. What the majority of Christians seem to wish to do is to correct that impression. What is in conflict with evolutionary biology is the fundamentalist understanding of Christianity. .
Dr. Taylor, do you agree with Douglas Futuyma’s biology text “By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous" ?? I Doubt you do, and you are not a fundamentalist chistian and neither am I.
Or do you have a special definition of Evolution?
Darwin’s model is an explicitly scientific model and, because of this, it cannot and thus does not use any “theological or spiritual explanations of life processes”. Darwin explains biological change over time by a totally naturalistic process. Science, by definition, employs methodological naturalism. I would assume that Professor Futuyma is expressing his view in that context. On the other hand, if he is expressing his understanding in the context of metaphysical or existential naturalism, then he is, in my view, straying out of a scientific mode of thought into a philosophical one. It’s his textbook and if he wants to express a philosophical point of view in that paragraph, then, of course, that’s his perfect right.
“What the majority of Christians seem to wish to do is to correct that impression. What is in conflict with evolutionary biology is the fundamentalist understanding of Christianity.”
An opposite perspective is the majority of Christians wish to correct the misconception that Evolution as generally accepted is considered factual. What is in conflict with Christianity is the fundamentalist understanding of Evolution.
"It’s his textbook and if he wants to express a philosophical point of view in that paragraph, then, of course, that’s his perfect right"
Why is it OK for materialists to mix theology with science in public textbook, but wrong for theists to do so???
Darrell, I agree! The theory of evolution is not science! Science is based on observation and replication. Macro evolution is simply philosophical speculation bereft of a solid scientific foundation. The creation event–or Big Bang and what followed–is not subject to experimentation and replication. This is why we need God’s Revelation. God is a reliable witness, because he saw what happened in the distant past and he revealed it to his prophets.
"The theology of evolution is not science!." Nic provides us with a classic illustration of why many educated individuals take those speaking from what is insisted to be "Christian" perspective with such little regard..
In the strictist sense of the word, I don't see evolution as being science either. Isn't pure science based on upfront observation? This is quite impossible as science must have faith in various kinds of dating methods. Still the evidence is just that–evidence that only exists. To go beyond that, as one scholar has said, is to make a value judgment and pure science is not supposed to do that.(Of course, pure science does not include the application of science as in technology and medicine).
There could be many other explanations for the evidence. Would it be science to say that my computer created itself?
We cannot prove to the planet that God exists either–we only have evidence; sometimes personal and sometimes more obvious–like beauty, nature, and goodness. It's a personal choice.
Another perspective: For one who just cannot take the creation story or some other stories as realisitc (such as Jonah and the fish), I think the meaning is by far the most important part of the story, and it is truth. This may be heretical to some, but wouldn't it be more important to study the stories as metaphor and symbol and work on one's relationship to the Trinity? Read the Bible and learn God's love through Jesus. In other words, make first things first–relationship with the divine. Perhaps then it wouldn't make any difference if other church members believed as you did, and you wouldn't try to argue with or persuade them. That can go for both left and right.
Ella M,
With all respect, in the final analysis these attempts to mollify or accommodate the so-called educated by seeking some reconciliation between the Biblical narratives and disbelief of the Biblical narratives are inevitably laughable.
Interpretation is used as a euphemism for disbelief—which can be different than unbelief—but of course few will admit it.
This is not to say however that believers are necessarily any better than disbelievers; but that Pharisees are different than Sadducees.
Erv, you are right: “The theology of evolution is not science;” and the philosophical speculation about origins is not science either. Neither approach is based on observation, experimentation, and replication; which are the fundamental requirements of scientific study. This is why we need Revelation from above from one who is a reliable witness for those events.
Besides, you are using a double standard when dealing with evolution. When scientists point to weak points discovered in the theory of evolution you claim that it is not science, but when you detect evidence favoring the Darwinian interpretation of facts you call this science! For me, either both are science or else both are philosophical speculations.
I
Nic is right. Strickly philisophical speculations about origins is obviously not science. We have agreement! Wonderful! And theloigcal speculation ("revelation from above") is also not science. We have agreement! Wonderful! However, the suggestion that "Revelation from above" is a relaible witness does not tell us "reliable for what purpose?" I assume that Nic is saying "Revelation from above" = the Genesis Creation narratives. But what are the Genesis Creation narratives making "reliable" statements about? That's the question. The topic of this particular blog is why did the Adventist institutional tradition decided, but even more importantly, continues to support a particlar view about what those narratives are addressing.
Erv, you said: “Strickly philisophical speculations about origins is obviously not science. We have agreement! Wonderful! … But what are the Genesis Creation narratives making “reliable” statements about?”
Excellent question, and the answer is: origins. Since philosophical speculation is not science, we are left with a choice between philosophical speculation and Revelation. This means that, since LSU was founded by a religious organization, the school should stop teaching a topic like evolution, which deals with origins, as an integral part of science. Said teaching should be relegated to the realm of philosophy.
Timo,
Is it necessary to personalize comments?
(Perhaps you should read the entire post.)
Let me ask, are comments that suggest that “the educated,” whoever they are, are better informed than “fundamentalists,” whoever they are, suggestive of exclusivity or division to you?
"Educated" infers someone is well-informed about his world and its inhabitants, which includes the knowledge of history, literature, the arts, and science. But those who are formally educated in the branches of science should be disparaged and called "exclusive."
There are many branches of learning and no one can be fully educated in all. Which is why we usually defer to those who have much more formal education and/or experience. Just as all can read the Bible, few are able to read in the original languages, we respect their ability in aiding us in interpreting its words. Physicians are equally educated and we usually seek their knowledge when our bodies are not functioning properly.
There is real dichotomy in religious circles that extols faith as necessary to interpreting the Bible stories, but it should also be used as a template to measure all the discoveries in our world, using the Bible as a scientifically literal book. It was never intended for that purpose and should be read as the writers intended: to reveal the ideas and thoughts of their world view. Why should it be ours today?
Erv, you ask an excellent and very valid question which I hope will provoke us to go deeper than the level of: "It's because we're right and they're wrong."
Let me suggest a couple of possibilities: 1) Adventism quickly became, in its early days, highly sectarian. That led to insularity and, because a theologically induced persecution complex was part of what it meant to be an Adventist, we defaulted to the conclusion that if we were in the minority, we must be on the right track. A persecution complex and sectarianism are mutually reinforcing, inducing resistance to the cultural and intellectual cross-pollination that opens a culture to evolutionary change. I don't mean this as a criticism. This reality has had both positive and negative effects on the Church.
The second, and closely related phenomenon, is the SDA infatuation with literalism. Because of EGW counsels, probably seeded by writings of conservative Protestants who distrusted the "new" literary genre of fiction, our Church grew to believe that anything which was not literally true was of the Devil (I would like to hear a scholar of literary history and culture give me a better understanding of how this notion evolved and became embedded in fundamentalist religious subcultures.). I remember as a child that my mother frowned on any reading material, whether it was story, illustration, or moral object lesson story that was not true. Even Mother Goose was off limits. There was only one exception: Pilgrim's Progress. I'm sure many readers raised in the Adventist subculture will nod in recognition.
So Adventists have historically had little capacity to appreciate either the beauty and profundity of myth, or the ability of the moral imagination to reveal Truths that cannot be reduced to neat propositions and principles, but that shape morals and behaviors in ways that echo in eternity. It wasn't until I went to college, and was introduced by religion and speech professors to thinkers like Tillich, Bultmann, Fromm, Frankel, and by English professors to writers like Dostoyevsky, Hemmingway, and Camus, that I began to understand the power myth has exerted throughout history to reveal transcendent reality. Life has never been the same since, and my faith has been enriched transformed by incorporating myth and mysticism. The Biblical story of creation and the Fall is far more powerful to me as myth than as literal truth. I don't need for it to have actually happened in the manner described in order for it to be true.
Adventism got itself trapped by sacralizing 19th Century literalism and turning it into a kind of religious materialism: "Only that which emanates from physical, literal reality can be true." Traditional Adventism has taught that God, like George Washington, cannot tell a lie – a lie being defined as a statement that is not literally true. While other religious traditions were able to see that Darwinism was only a threat to the extent that it presumed to dictate moral truth, and tell us the nature of ultimate reality, Adventists, who had completely unlocked and revealed the puzzle of scripture, saw Darwinism as a threat to God Himself. "After all, a God of truth would never mislead or deceive by allowing Himself or His actions to be revealed by His servants in other than universal language which could be taken literally."
Adventists have historically denied that they are sectarian, while making the writings of Ellen White sacred text. And they have denied that they are literalists, while insisting that the Bible must be taken literally, at least when it comes to what Adventists believe. These realities are, I believe, at the heart of why institutional Adventism has been unable to come to grips with the OEC and OLC science. I look forward, Erv, to your take. Somehow, knowing how you reverence EGW, I suspect you may also be inclined to give her a little credit for the SDA Church not sending representatives to the conference (lol).
Let me ask you Nathan, does the Biblical narrative of Jesus’ birth/life, death, burial and resurrection have to be literally true?
Would it be more or less powerful or meaningful to your faith if some or most of that is not true?
Where do you draw the line? What part(s) of Scripture must be literally true?
I appreciate Erv's questions and Nathan's comments but I believe that Stephen has pointed out the elephant in the room. "Does the … resurection [of Christ] have to be literally true?" Perhaps, in future, Erv could address that religeous tradition with, as he says, "the rigor of science."
Nathan, you wrote: “The Biblical story of creation and the Fall is far more powerful to me as myth than as literal truth. I don’t need for it to have actually happened in the manner described in order for it to be true.”
What else is myth in the Bible? Are the miracles–including those performed by Jesus–also mythical? How about the resurrection of Jesus? I find that the writers of the Bible treated the story of creation, the flood, the crossing of the Rea Sea, and the Egyptian plagues as factual. Were all these events fictional? Can you provide us with some guidance on this?
Just briefly, I want to affrm the excellent analysis of Nate of the historical situation. To do his comments justice, it will take an extended discussion which I will attempt in the second part of the posting. For now, Nate's suggestion that I am going to offer the influence of EGW as a prime factor will not be a surprise, since I will suggest precisely this explanation as the most inmportant factor. Without EGW we would not have the Adventist denomination and, because of the end procuct of a process of her being canonized by influencial elements in the Adventist Church, a lot of the serious theological problems which confront us today have been created. I look forward to Nate's and other comments on this thesis which I will advance in Part 2.
“While other religious traditions were able to see that Darwinism was only a threat to the extent that it presumed to dictate moral truth, and tell us the nature of ultimate reality, Adventists, who had completely unlocked and revealed the puzzle of scripture, saw Darwinism as a threat to God Himself.” As an Adventist myself I do not see Darwinism as a threat to God himself nor do I believe we have completely unlocked and revealed the puzzle of scripture. My fear is Darwinism becomes a threat to science. As a scientific endeavor it lacks the vigor of other branches of natural science and it is commonly regarded as fact of nature. Any religious tradition with respect for truth needs to challenge its validity with the rigor of science.
May I suggest that Mr. Law has made an excellent point. I assume that he would not mind if I paraphased his point as:: "Any religious tradition with respect for truth needs to challenge the validity of its religious traditions with the rigor of science."
What does the "rigor of science" mean to you Dr. Taylor? To exclude by definition the supernatural is a self-defeating way to study the supernatural. Is it possible to find confirmational evidence for the Creator God? If not, then one epistomology is by default too narrow to study the evidential roots of Faith.
May I suggest to Mr. Lindensmith that, on the contrary, to exclude by definiton, the supernatural to explain physical causation, is the great contribution of science to modern thought. It allowed it to study the natural world without worrying about whether its conclusions supported or did not support some theological interpreation. I know that this is difficult for fundamentlists to understand as it apparentl is difficult for them to understand the difference between existential or metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. .
Darrel,
Can you tell me how I can "rationally" study the supernatural? Certainly not with the scientific method. How would I design a series of experiments to provide sets of data where we could reasonably argue that "god" or some other supernatural entity is involved? Yes science assumes natural causes and that assumption is its power. The universe is explained by natural forces and these are comprehensible. Furthermore, if science cannot explain a phenomena that does not mean it is inexplicable. Some phenomena had to wait for explanation with the gathering of new data and more advanced analytical tools. Once you invoke supernaturalism into any explanation you enter the theological and religious world where everything becomes opaque.
Joe,
To challenge religious traditions with the rigor of science may be using the wrong tool as to challenge Darwinism with the rigor of relgious traditions. However I do agree that we need to challenge scienctific statements or interpretations of religious traditions with the rigor of science.
“Any religious tradition with respect for truth needs to challenge the validity of its religious traditions with the rigor of science."
Here is another challenge: prove theory of evolution with the rigor the highest level of science, meaning of prospective, reproducible facts.
How many Adventists are products of SDA schools? Years ago, it was almost imperative to send children to church schools through college. We now reap the results of a very narrow education: little science and it had to discount any possible theory not seen in the Bible; very little literature. Is it in the great classics of fiction where a student's mind is opened to another world of ideas of morality that do not fit the dichotomy that must classify everything as either evil or good.
Now, even the hint that much of the Bible is myth is considered heresy by those who cannot accept that myths have always been the method through which truth was taught: truth of life and death, love and courage. The law of unintended consequences has ruled again.
Amen Philip
"The Biblical story of creation and the Fall are far more powerful as myth than as literal truth. I don't need for it to have actually happened in the manner described in order for it to be true.
Extremely Important point Nathan. Are we missing much of the allegorical symbolism with overliteralization?
Stephen Foster and Roy Campbell raise very valid questions. Without going into depth, yes, I do believe the Biblical narrative of Jesus life, death and resurrection. The creation story strikes me as qualitatively different. I know there is much scholarly literature on both sides of the question. But I accept the perspective of those who see the parallelism and symbolism of the creation narrative following a poetic pattern. It seems to me, looking at the totality of the evidence, that the author(s) were more concerned about revealing truth about the Creator and His creation than giving a blow by blow account of how and when it occurred.
I believe God could have done it as Adventists have interpreted the words of Genesis 1. I just don't think the available literary and scientific evidence supports that conclusion. I believe in miracles, and I believe in the Incarnation. I think it is clear that the writers of the Gospels intended that their narratives be taken as factual. The fact that a phenomenon was contrary to science doesn't mean it didn't happen; it simply means that it was either supernatural, or we do not have a naturalistic explanation for it. Also, the story of Jesus needs to be true in order for my life and faith to make sense. The Adventist perspective on creation does not need to be true in order for my life and faith to make sense.
Nathan, Thanks for your clear and concise responce.
Nathan, you wrote: “The Adventist perspective on creation does not need to be true in order for my life and faith to make sense.”
Have you really considered the implication of your statement? If we are the result of evolution instead of creation, then there was no Adam and Eve and no moral fall; if there was no moral fall, then we continue to evolve and the plan of salvation makes no logical sense. No moral fall=no need for confession, repentance, and forgiveness nor salvation.
How fragile a belief that hangs by such tenuous thread.
Actions, not beliefs, reveal the man and they are not limited to those who accept the biblical account of creation as nowhere must the "correct" concept of creation equal a free ticket into heaven.
An example of the continuing sect-type focus within Adventist which is being advanced by the current General Conference administration can be read about in the most recent issue of Adventist World (February 2013). The second part of an article adapted from a sermon given by Ted Wilson, the current GC President, concluded with a section entitled “Unite, Unite, Unite.” He cites 20 examples of where he wanted Adventists to unite. Of those 20, mixed into the “unites” which address general Christian values such as “unite in lifting up Jesus” and “unite in the love and grace of Christ, are 6 “unites” which focus on Adventist sectarian beliefs. These sectarian “unites” include: (1) “unite in reading the Spirit of Prophecy,” (2) “unite in sharing the sanctuary message”, (3) “unite in proclaiming the Three Angels’s messages”, (4) “unite in sharing The Great Controversy”, (5) “unite in believing that the Seventh–day Adventist Church is God’s remnant church”, (6) “unite in the heavenly prophetic messages given in the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy.” Thus a little less than one-third of these “unites” focus attention on those elements in traditional Adventism which mark the 21st Century institutional Adventist Church as a sect-type Christian body.
Ervin,
Why this digression?
That is the latest Adventist Manifesto under Wilson. It mentions twice the SOP that should be read, and in case that point was no sufficient emphasized, it must also be believed.
Nic –
I don't see the issue in quite such black and white terms as you seem to. I don't see how any particular affirmative belief logically follows from questioning whether the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis 1 is scientifically or theologically sound. There are lots of alternative conclusions to the ones you suggest. I am not persuaded by the arguments for macro-evolution. And theologically, the Biblical story suggests a special creation for humans – created in the image of God. Neither faith nor reason incline me toward a God who evolved. So you need to resist the temptation to push Adventists, who question the traditional SDA interpretation, into any particular belief camp. I am by no means a Darwinian. I just don't believe in YEC or YLC; and I do believe in the Creator God of the Bible.
Assuming we were the product of evolution, why do you say there could be no Adam and Eve? Why couldn't God have taken a highly evolved hominid, and infused it with His Spirit and moral passion? Have you ever wondered why, if the world outside the Garden was so pristine and perfect, God needed to put Adam and Eve in a special Garden?
It seems outside of the biblical creation account one is left with speculative myths cafeteria style.
I am wondering how many theisticevolutions here (or others) would agree with which of the following:
Evolution as change over time = 'common descent' guided by 'front-loaded' genetic programs interacting with the enviromment through epigenetics and natural selection ??????
Evolution as change over time ='common descent' guided by mutations (Chance and Necessity) ?????
Nathan, you wrote: “Assuming we were the product of evolution, why do you say there could be no Adam and Eve? Why couldn’t God have taken a highly evolved hominid, and infused it with His Spirit and moral passion?”
Yes, he could have done it that way, but this negates what the Bible teaches: that Adam was the result of a special creative act of God. The creation through a long and protracted process of unguided evolution tends to demean the wisdom and power of God. If the best God can do is to create through suffering and death which lasted millions of years, then we end with a powerless deity more akin to the Devil than a loving and Almighty God.
If Jesus could turn water into wine in a split second, feed five thousand with a boy’s lunch, heal a man who was born blind, bring a dead man back to life. If he could do this in the blinking of an eye, how can I accept the long process of creation through evolution?
If the creation of the first homo sapiens took God millions of years, how long will it take him to bring to life–not a single pair or human beings–but rather millions of human beings?
Nic, I thought I sort of answered this. I agree with you that Adam was the product of special creation. I just don't think that belief is inconsistent with OEC/OLC. And I also agreed that God could have done it within the linguistic walls erected by fundamentalist Christians. It's just that neither my faith nor reason demand that. And since many features of YEC/YLC, as scientific fact, seem to me to defy reason and science, I am very reluctant to chain my faith to what I consider faulty reason and science.
You add a philosophical/theological element – "How could a kind loving God create through suffering and death over millions of years?" It's a fine question and one I can't answer, any more than I can answer how He has revealed His creative power through suffering and death over the last 6,000 years. I suspect the great controversy between good and evil predated The Fall. Philosophical/theological reflection runs the danger of reaching dangerous conclusions about impenetrable dimensions of reality, and anthropomorphizing God. The same kind of philosophical/theological arguments that you offer are used by many theologians, including Adventist theologians, to make a compelling case for Universal Salvation. "How could a kind God of infinite love eternally destroy creatures made in His image…?"
The possibility and nature of God's moral responsibility for things as they are, and have been, is beyond the pay grade of humans. But we still ask those questions. I have many times observed that God speaks to us not so much to inform us as to evoke a response. If, in our dialogue with Him and with one another, the questions to which we do not have satisfactory answers draw us closer to Him, without prompting us to nail tighter the lid of the theological box in which we may have put Him, we are asking the right questions with the right heart. If, on the other hand, the same questions produce distrust, and distance us from God, or lead us to confine Him in a concrete bunker, they should probably not be pursued, as they will in time harden our hearts, close our minds, and alienate us from God and His creation.
Well Nathan, I too wish to sincerely thank you for engaging this question in this forum without personally judging the questioners.
I recognize that this forum is not universally accepting of historical Adventist or dogmatically Christian fundamentalist perspectives; so I particularly thank you.
(Obviously, I’ll not be as quick to let you off the hook— although I hope that you do not consider it a ‘hook’—as Brother Campbell is.)
The Adventist perspective on creation, as you know, is not just the Adventist perspective. There are many other Christians who believe that God literally said that He created this planet in six days (Exodus 20:11); and that by “days” he meant days as we know them (evenings and mornings).
If God did not say this, or if God did not mean “days,” then it would appear we have no idea when He said anything, or meant anything.
Personally, I believe that the miracles in the Bible, particularly those performed by Jesus—and most particularly the resurrection of Lazarus—are recorded so that we would have reason to believe that our God can do absolutely anything; despite contrary scientific evidence.
Any way you cut it, if Christ could be conceived without human sperm, and raised from the dead, both of which defy (all) scientific (or known scientific) possibilities—then what literary or scientific evidence can convince us that He didn’t do what He has repeatedly claimed to have done?
I would imagine that perhaps you believe the creation narrative to be “qualitatively different” than the gospel narratives of Jesus’ incarnation at least in part because of the multiple accounts and various witnesses of the latter; certainly as compared to the former.
But no one witnessed Enoch’s translation. No one witnessed the war in heaven, or the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness.
You have indicated that your faith does not rest on whether what God said He did is literally true or not. Is it based solely on your experience?
I don’t need, and have no standing to demand, an answer; but am intrigued because I do not begin to understand.
Many comments on this thread are very insightful and make excellent points which should be pursued at length. I just wanted to remind commentators that the focus of the blog is on the question: "Why is it about the Adventist tradition, in contrast to many other Christain traditions, some of which are very conservative, that is making it difficult for 21st Century Adventism to deal realistically with the scientific evidence concerning evolution that is so compelling for so many other Christians?" Nate and several others have already made important points concerning this, but I just wanted to remind others of the focus.
Ervin,
It is the Adventist position on Sabbath which is the unique belief differing from all other Christian denominations that forces the adoption of the literal creation account in Gen. 1. Even to question that account would be self-destructive and Adventism would not longer have reason to exist. That is why the Gen. 1 account must be the ONLY one and no other. Where would sabbath be if the earlier story recorded in Gen. 2 was the foundation of creation?
Elaine points out the important point of how various sectarian denominational traditions, including Adventism, focus on different parts of the Bible, to the exclusion of others, to support their unique interpreations which provide validation for their existence. Our Catholic friends do it with their focus on the statement of Jesus concerning Peter and the Rock on which the church will be built. At least their key text on this is relatively transparent. Tradiitional Adventist key texts on the Investigative Judgement, for example, must be subjected to much theological "creativity" to make them say what Adventist tradionalists want them to say. .
Most Adventists I know will treat this occasion as a non event even if Darwin were to rise up from the dead. Note: Evolution in terms of origins was not discovered – it was invented. Surprising how some who are self-proclaimed progressives would still dwell in the wacko theories of the 1800's yet the same would call our traditional position on Creation outdated.
Oct1844,
You say "Evolution in terms of origins was not discovered- it was invented." To be fair "creation" as an explanation of origins is also an "invention" of the human cortex. Many evolutionists do not necessarily utilize evolution as a thorough argument for the origin of life.
"Why is it about the Adventist tradition, in contrast to many other Christain traditions, some of which are very conservative, that is making it difficult for 21st Century Adventism to deal realistically with the scientific evidence concerning evolution that is so compelling for so many other Christians?"
I thank "22Oct1844" and Mr. Law for their answers to the question of why Adventism has not adjusted its ideaology to evolutionary biology. "22Oct1844" believes that it is because evolution is a "wacko theory" and Mr. Law thinks that we are avoiding "bandwagon herd mentality." Never let it be said that Adventist Today does not allow all kinds of interesting opinions at every level of rationality to be expressed.
Dr. Taylor,
As I ponder whether to address your question as to what has happened in succeeding decades since Darwin to prevent Adventism from yielding on Darwinism, whereas some other Christians have sought an accommodation; it occurs to me to ask you if you can “handle the truth.” Since you are open enough to ask the question I know you fear no answer.
As Stephen Ferguson points out, it surely has something to do with the Sabbath. However I think that instead of a desire to maintain the Sabbath doctrine, it is the other way around. It is because SDAs make an effort to “remember the Sabbath” that they have not bought what Darwin has sold to many/most others.
In other words, they have not bought Darwinism because they are (largely) not in the market (as we say in the sales game). They are not in the market because the Sabbath reminds them how and Who created what; simple as that.
When we disregard the Sabbath, as many Christians have, we may find Darwinism plausible. At least it puts us in the market; not unlike Eve with the serpent.
(I know that type of Adventism is irritating, so I apologize for irritating anyone.)
I agree with Mr. Foster that the adoption of the Sabbath as an important element in traditional Adventist theology is certainly a factor in the resistence to accepting evolutionary perspectives. As many will know, the Creation narrative in Genesis is only one of two explanations for the Sabbath instiution among the Hebrews. The other explanation makes no reference to Creation, it sees the origins in the Exodus. But that fact is essentially irrelevant in the history of Adventist theology due to the fact that EGW adopted the Creation narrative as the reason for the Sabbath command. Since it was a popular view in classical Adventism that EGW and the Bible were of equal authority, at least within Adventism . . . But I'm getting ahead of our discussion..
Well, we don’t want to get ahead of where Dr. Taylor is headed in subsequent sequels; but in any case, the chronological fact of the matter is that the events of the Genesis narrative took place prior to the deliverance from Egypt.
That is to say, chronologically, God blessed and set apart for a holy or religious purpose the seventh day of the week prior to the deliverance from Egypt.
From a Biblical perspective, it is also a fact that God is quoted at Sinai as commanding the Children of Israel to “remember” something that He had done in blessing and sanctifying the seventh day of the week; which I believe implies that they had previously heard of that which they were now told to “remember.”
The fact is that the Deuteronomy 5: 1-21 version of the Commandments is a recounting of the original event that neither supersedes or negates that which God is quoted to have said in Exodus 20—and Deuteronomy 5:12 indicates that God had previously commanded observance of the seventh day.
In any case, while Ellen White may be accused of many things, she can’t be accused of inventing any of this. But, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
Sorry I don't understand. Even if we postulate that the Gen account is a non-chronological one, such as adopting the historical-critical method of JEDP, the fact is even according to that theory the Sabbath is the intended theological purpose or crowning objective of the authors. The same priests of the 'P' source who wrote Gen 1-2a, who specifically wrote God blessed the seventh-day and sanctified it, also wrote the 4th Commandment in Ex 20:8.
Thus, there is an undeniable link between the Sabbath command in Gen 2:1-3 and the 4th Commandment of the Decalogue in Ex 20:8. The link is there, whether the actual events of Gen 2:1-3 happened before Ex 20:8 chronologically as Stephen Foster says (and I personally believe), or not utilising JEDP.
The Sabbath command in Deut reference doesn't make any reference to the Creation account – that is true. However, it represents a different tradition, whether it be the Northern stream of Israel (as opposed to the Souther stream of Judah), as found by Josiah in the Temple (where the scroll was brought by fleeing Israelites after the Assyerian invasion), or whether it represents a pius fraud.
It doesn't negate the Ex-Gen link, especially if one adopts JEDP, because that link is a P link. If one rejects JEDP it doesn't negate the link either, but merely illustrates that the same theological objective can have different theological reasoning. We should remember that principle when we accuse each other for heresy for believing the same thing but use different reasoning to get there.
Very interesting observations, Stephen. Perhaps I'm stretching. But I find it fascinating that, if we look at the placement of the Sabbath as the 4th Commandment, we might be reminded that the creation of the celestial bodies which govern the natural cycles of the material world is tied to the 4th day of creation. Both are situated in the center of their contexts – creation week and the Ten Commandments respectively. The worship of the Egyptians of course centered around the natural cycles governed by 4th day of creation objects – not around the non-natural weekly cycle of creation, at least not that I am aware of.
Could it be that the God, who created the natural order, gave us the Sabbath to free us from that natural order nad remind us that we are not simply a part of nature? Could it be that, in placing the Sabbath Commandment as number four, God was reminding His chosen people of His Lordship over the fourth day of His created natural order? Could it be that the Deuteronomic rationale (freedom) and the Exodus rationale (creation) are completely complimentary? Just as God created the Sabbath to free humans from the natural order, and at the same time reminded them that He was the creator of that natural order, so He reminded the newly freed Children of Israel that they were no longer slaves to the quotidian demands of the natural pagan order worshipped by their masters. They were now subjects and dependents of the God above Egyptian gods. Through the Fourth commandment, perhaps God wanted to remind Israel, as well as us, that the fourth day of creation heavenly bodies, by which our lives seem to be controlled, do not define us; that we are in essence spiritual beings; and that, in the seventh day freedom from work each week, we celebrate and create anew a non-natural order. On the seventh day we can triumphantly proclaim freedom and creation, because we belong to the Creator who gave us the natural order AND who frees us from that natural order.
It's really pretty mind-blowing if you reflect on it. We don't need a literal 24-hour, seven-day creation to believe in the Sabbath. We need the Sabbath to remind ouselves of a Creator who isn't subject to the natural order He created.
Nathan brings up a good and redundant point. The first 3 days there are no frames of reference for a "day" as the sun is not "created" until the 4th day. I do not see how anyone can take the 6 day creation story literally. Echoing Ervs comment the intent of the narrative is not to "explain" creation. Instead it is a monotheistic recapitulation of the Babylonian creation story/myth.
From what I have gathered, the twenty four hour day is solely based on Earth's rotation on its axis in relation to a fixed position in space. The sun is not necessarily needed to measure this. Night and day also doesn't necessarily need the sun. It just needs light; and God provided the light [Gen 1:3-5].
"22Oct1844" says that "The Sun is not necessaily needed to measure [the 24-hour day]?? How would you know that the earth rotated in 24 hours without some specific reference point such as the sun? (The Hebrews did not count in hours, but let's not get into that). The point is that if the light does not come from a specific point, i.e., the Sun, how would you measure the length of the day? Would "22Oct1844" please explain that.
If Moses’ face continued to shine after coming down from the mountain, and if Paul was blinded by the light of Jesus’ glory on the road to Damascus, and if the wicked will be destroyed at the brightness of His coming, all of which suggests light brighter than the sun; why would Dr. Taylor think it difficult/impossible for God to have provided light to Earth prior to the sun’s creation?
Sir, I did say 'in relation to a fixed position in space' but not necessarily the sun. Stars also can be used for this. They only act as a fixed point of reference to determine the time taken for a rotation to take place. The rate of rotation however remains the same during this time and is therefore not dependant on the said fixed body for this. In other words the fixed body has no effect on the rate of rotation itself. It is just acts as a stopwatch. God is quite capable (to put it mildly) to determine a fixed position of sorts.
God also provided the light needed, right from the first 'day', which could very well have been from a fixed position thereby accounting for a fixed recurring 'evening and morning' operating right from the 'first' day, until Mr Sun was allowed to show his face. Hence the evening and the morning, night and day, which literally occurs almost every twenty four hours. The rest is history so to speak.
"You have indicated that your faith does not rest on whether what God said He did is literally true or not. Is it based solely on your experience?"
Stephen, I view this as a false, but honest question. It is false because it presupposes that we can don the filters of the culture and language in which God manifested Himself to actually know what He said and meant. The medium of language necessarily and simultaneously falsifies and reveals profound truth. How much is the problem compounded as we move through thousands of years of language and culture to find and recreate meaning! I think fundamentalists tend to underappreciate this reality.
As has been discussed on Andy Hanson's blog about The Fall, it is certainly not at all self-evident that what God told Adam and Eve about the consequences of eating the forbidden fruit was literally true.
So my faith always, and of necessity, rests on what humans have communicated about God's revelation to their time and culture. And by faith, I believe that God's Spirit will illuminate my 21st Century pathway through prayerful and humble study of that revelation. Believing that the Bible is God's Holy Word does not mean I believe it is God's dictation. I have found the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to be a very compelling model for keeping my faith grounded in revelation, reason, tradition, and experience. You say you do not begin to understand it, Stephen. Welcome to the club. I don't understand it either, at least not so that I can make an airtight propositional case for the Truth of my convictions and experience. But I can believe, even if I don't see God's lips moving, that He speaks to me, without having to go out and make sure that it is literal or True in any universal sense.
Nathan, you wrote: “Nic, I thought I sort of answered this. I agree with you that Adam was the product of special creation. I just don’t think that belief is inconsistent with OEC/OLC. And I also agreed that God could have done it within the linguistic walls erected by fundamentalist Christians.”
The Bible teaches that when God created life in this world, “it was very good.” This phrase is repeated several times in Genesis. This fundamental concept is contradicted by the theory of evolution which teaches that it was very bad. Darwinian theory claims that we have been evolving and Improving since the beginning, while the Bible tells us that the opposite is true: we started with a perfect creation, but our sins forced God to curse what he created several times–the curse following Adam’s sin, the one after Cain killed his brother, and the one connected with the flood.
I believe as Scripture tells us that God's creation was "very good," but it also tells us that it was not perfect. There were modifications made for "sin" and free choice in humans and "entropy" and free radicals in Physics.
There is an "earnest expectation" of freedom from "vanity" of death and predation due to 'free choice.' "For the earnest expectation of the creation waits for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." Romans 8:19-21
Perhaps it would be helpful for at least the blog writer to stipulate one point: When who ever wrote and/or edited the Genesis narratives, he (it was almost certainly a he in those days), and one would assume all of the people for whom he was writing, would understand the "days" of the creation narrative to be literal days. The Hebrew God created the stars, sun, and moon, and world and all animals and humans in six days. That is what they thought. They also thought that the earth was flat and that the sun went around the earth. The simple fact is that they were wrong about the physcial history and nature of the world. But to explain how the physical world was created was not the point of the narrative. The indiividual or individuals who put it together had a much more important set of ideas they wanted to communicate. Today, some of us have a need to have this ancient story answer questions that the individual(s) who wrote it and those who were expected to read it were not asking.
Well, not necessary true David about the 'days' because we have 'day' used in Gn 2:4 and 3:5 where it clearly is receding to long period of time. Context determines meaning!
In context you have the 7th day with no ending. Interesting!
You have 'evening and morning,' not morning and evening. Interesting!
You have the root meaning of 'evening' meaning disorder, and the rooting meaning of 'morning' meaning order. Interesting! The literary form is not simply prose.
Sorry Dr Taylor, you are not David 🙂
I like this explanation. "Morning" = order and "Evening" = disorder. Great interpretation. I wonder what a Hebrew scholar would say about such a suggestion? On the other hand, let's be creative, the Hebrews were certainly creative. They took a Mesopotamian myth and made it their myth and their myth is the one remembered..
There are no original manuscripts of the Bible. The organization now has no relevance to when they were written. There are good reasons to believe that none were written prior to 1000 A.D. including the Torah, which was an orally transmitted tradition until the time it was written.
We do not know any of the writers. There are many who have concluded that the priests wrote the creation story specifying each day's activities, and included God's resting on the seventh day (just as was recorded in the Babylonian creation story) to renew its observance which had been disregarded which the prophets were exhorting Israel as the cause of their exile.
As Erv has written, the writers were not given prescience to see the world as we today, but were limited by their knowledge and wrote accordingly.
I appreciate this explanation of Dr. Taylor’s perspective; but there are a number of things worth considering: 1) that God Himself claimed to have created the world in six days, or at least is quoted and reported to have said so; 2) that the writer(s) of Pentateuch knew the difference between a day, a month, and a year; and therefore could have used a different denomination of time to describe or define the chronology of creative activity; 3) if no one was asking, nor presumably interested, in how things came into being, why does the author of Genesis start with an itemized description of this?; and 4) didn’t the same God who created/inspired the Hebrews also create all Mesopotamians?
Just a short comment on Mr. Foster's suggestion that "God Himself claimed to have created the world in six days." Of course, God himself did not do the claiming as Mr. Foster notes when he says. "or at least is quoted and reported to have said so." Human beings said that God created the world in six days just as human beings said that God had ordered them to kill men, women, and children in their conquest of Canaan. if you believe that God really said that, that is your right, but it is a different kind of God than is projected in the words of Jesus.
Dr. Taylor should, in all candor, let us know what he means when he says, “of course, God himself did not do the claiming;” since the author of Exodus 20 (Moses or someone) says that “God spake all these words, saying…” which includes (verse 11) “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth…,” etc.
This is not a trick, Dr. Taylor, because for discussion’s sake, God conceivably or theoretically could have meant each day to have been representative of a billion years.
But do you think that God actually said what the author quoted Him to have said; or was He being misrepresented?
Yes, this was meaningful to me too–'Evening' meaning disorder, and the rooting meaning of 'morning' meaning order. The Hebrew commentators for this are Nahmanides, Maimonides and Philo.
These commentators go for a day/age view a thousand years before there was a scientific controvery regarding the age of the earth.
It is Christians who are fundamentalist, not the Jews who have thousands of years of reading and interpreting their scriptures. Christians are johnny-come-latelies who believe that they have the best interpretation of the Jewish Torah!
"Hebrews were certainly creative. They took a Mesopotamian myth, made it their myth, and their myth is the one remembered."
Erv, if you want us to stick to the topic – certainly a good idea – you need to resist the temptation to indulge in drive-by opinionating. I presume (hope) that you bring a different data set and metrics to your scientific conclusions than you do to biblical criticism. It is generally not a good idea to try and buttress an argument with premises and assumptions that are highly debatable, and weaker than the argument one is trying to advance.
One of the problems with devoting one's life to a particular discipline is that it heavily biases him toward viewing all of reality through his professional filters. This easily leads to insular thinking and a casual smugness about conclusions which the chosen discipline has inadequate epistemological tools to reach. These conclusions are packaged in intellectual jargon, and then bounced around in the echo chambers of academia until they become Truth by consensus.
I know, Erv, that you don't want to sound like religious fundamentalists, who arrive at conclusions by much the same processes as scientific fundamentalists. The best way to avoid that is to not offer, as fact, the consensus of the scientistic herd whose "objective" inquiries begin with atheist presuppositions, and – surprise , surprise – end up confirming those presuppositions.
If Nathan is going to begin a comment with a quote, he should at least address the content of the quote. Also, I would like to know what he considers to be a "scientific fundamentalist."
Nathan,
Amen!
My good friend Nate has such an excellent way with words and ideas that I never quite know where to begin. Taking just one small part of his comment: I would like to ask about what it is about my statement about the Hebrews and their creative way of taking a well-known Mesopoamian story (see, I didn't call it a myth) and infusing with moral qualities that has made such a well known narrative (see, I didn't call it a myth, again) to modern readers. In what way does this stray into the "echo chambers of academia"?
Erv, I think I quoted you quite precisely. Perhaps you said the same thing twice in different ways, but I was referencing your most recent response to Darrell's "morning/evening" comment. In that comment you used the word "myth" three times – not "story" or "narrative." The phrase "echo chambers of academia" is simply a shorthand way of describing the process by which the often speculative conclusions of highly specialized intellectuals, who have spent years studying the entrails of history through oblique magnifying lenses, become consensus tropes among the "knowing" class.
Demystification and discrediting of the Hebrew story of creation, by reference to creation stories extant in other contemporary ancient cultures, has long been accepted wisdom among non-observant theologians and biblical scholars. And I presumed, Erv, when you made the comment you did, that you were simply parrotting what your presuppositional mind set had led you to believe was the best thinking on the subject. And, of course, you love to tweak the piety of observant, conservative Christians almost as much as I love to tweak the smugness of those who "condescend" to trample on beliefs that are founded on faith in the transcendent, personal God of the Bible.
That's all I'm saying. I find it ironic that, if we could fast-forward a few thousand years in earth's history, we would no doubt find the echo chamber of academia in agreement that secular humanism took moral precepts and values which have their provenance and foundation in Judeo-Christianity, and turned them into pagan precepts and values, grounded exclusively in reason and science. So you see, just because it's an echo chamber doesn't mean it's wrong. It simply makes self-doubt and directional change rare commodities. And it makes it virtually impossible for the transcendent, creator God to enter human history or human hearts to alter the destiny of that from which He is excluded. But hey – no worries…we can still have faith in natural selection and random mutation…
There is so many excellent turn of phrases in my good friend Nate's comment that I really don't want to mention one so that I will not be thought missing another better one. However, I will relent with quoting: "sturying the entrails of history through oblique magnifying lenses." I wish I could write like that. I would like to read one of his legal briefs sometime. In any event, let me note that I was certainly not "discrediiting" the Hebrew creation narratives (there are really two of them: Gensis 1 and Gensis 2 are different stories). In my view, the Hebrew creation stories are vastly superior to those that inspired them in their moral force and may I say sophistication. You can't get much better than a philosophical talking snake. (So that Nate and others will not misunderstand, I am serious here). The dialogue between the snake and Eve addresses interesting moral issues. It seems to me that to take these stories "literally" misses the whole point of their message.
I was hoping to get some comments on my previous comment. I added some words in italics.
————-
The sun is intrumental in giving us our year as per Earth's orbit of it. The months are determined by lunar phases – at least they originally were and our Gregorian Calender tweaked to fit the twelve months as introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 as a reform of the Julian calendar. The day is measured by one full rotation of the Earth on its axis.
The week doesn't have similar phenomena to measure it except the literal seven day Sabbath cycle week as far as I can see.
God also provided the light needed, right from the first 'day', which could very well have been from a fixed position thereby accounting for a fixed recurring 'evening and morning' operating right from the 'first' day, until Mr Sun was allowed to show his face. Hence the evening and the morning, night and day, which literally occurs almost every twenty four hours. The rest is history so to speak.
I see: "God . . . provided the light needed . . . which could very well have been from a fixed position." Fine, the "light from God" was at a fixed position. I really can't get my mind around that. But, all that means is that I do not have the imagination of some.
22oct1844 made this statement:
"The week doesn't have similar phenomena to measure it except the literal seven day Sabbath cycle week as far as I can see."
Originally, the Israelites calculated sabbath by the new moon which is a 28-day cycle. We know for a certainty that the yearly feasts of Israel were timed by the sun and moon: Psalms 104 and Lev. 2-3 prove that the sole means by which the seventh-day Sabbath was calculated was by the moon. "The moon was made to tell the seasons."
2 Kings 4:23: Why are you going to him today? It is neither the new moon nor the sabbath."
2 Chr. 24:31: "And at every presentation of a burnt offering to the Lord on the Sabbaths and the moons and on the set feasts…."
2 Chr. 2:4: "I am building a temple for the name of the Lord….for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths, on the new moons…."
2 Chr. 8:13: "According to the daily rate, offering according to the commandment of Moses, for the Sabbath, the New Moons, and the three appointed yearly feasts….."
Neh. 10: "for the showbread, for the regular grain offering, for the regular burnt offering of the sabbaths, the new moons, and the set feasts.
Is. 1:13 and 66:23: "bring no more futile sacrifices, incense is an abomination to me, the new moons, the sabbaths…." "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.
Cunieform records disclosed the fact that the Babylonian shabattum fell on the 14th or 15th day of the month and was referred to as the day of the full moon. It became clear that in these biblical passages we have another survival of what must have been the primary meaning of the Hebrew term shabbath. The Babylon text specifically indicates the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days as those of Sin, the moon-god.
A calendar indicating the moon's cycle and sabbath shows that sabbath will fall on every day of the week, using the Hebrew calculation using the new moon. In Talmudic times, the day marking the New Moon was fixed by actual observation by at least two witnesses. As soon as the new moon was visible, the Sanhedrin in Israel was informed by the blowing of trumpets from mountain top to the next and Rosh Chodeh was formally announded. This sytem was later discarded in favor of the fixed calendar developed by HillelI (ca 360 A.D).
The actual word for "month" in Hebrew is chodesh which means "new moon." The International Date Line is man made, resulting in sabbath being observed on Saturday on one part of the Island and Adventists observe it on Sunday on another part. Man has desginated which day is the 7th depending on where he lives.
Erv, how do you explain the inclusion of the six days of creation in what
God wrote on tablets of stone with his own hand?
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy”.
Nic, if you are a consistent literalist, you will quickly run into philosophical and logical problems with your own conclusions. The Torah is full of symbolism. And Sabbath is a symbol that points to a transcendent God who stands above and beyond His created order; yet reaches into that order for covenant relationship with His creation. Adventist Sanctuary theology very much recognizes "typology" in scripture.
Would God's sanctification of the seventh day, and His command to keep it holy, have been nullified by a discovery that He didn't really need rest time, or that the creation cycle was not divided into seven 24-hour days? Was the command that Adam and Eve should not eat of the forbidden fruit nullified by the dubiousness of the rationale – by the reality that life would not, and did not literally end for them on the day that they ate of the fruit? Were it not for the Fourth Commandment, would you not believe that the earth and heavens were created in six literal days? It seems to me that you are letting the tail of the Sabbath wag the dog of Creation. If God's word is no better than your ability to rationalize it, you are very close to being a "progressive" Adventist.
A 6-day creation makes no logical or scientific sense, which of course does not make it impossible. But it seems highly specious to insist that something irrational and unscientific had to have occurred in order for a symbol to make sense. The Sabbath has profound symbolic meaning that penetrates much deeper than the ability to scientifically or theologically make the case for a literal 24 hour, six day creation. Jews have had no difficulty preserving the Sabbath and its meaning without hawsering it to nonscience.
Nathan,
“A 6-day creation makes no logical or scientific sense, which of course does not make it impossible. But it seems highly specious to insist that something irrational and unscientific had to have occurred in order for a symbol to make sense. The Sabbath has profound symbolic meaning that penetrates much deeper than the ability to scientifically or theologically make the case for a literal 24 hour, six day creation. Jews have had no difficulty preserving the Sabbath and its meaning without hawsering it to nonscience.”
How does a 6-day creation make no logical or scientific sense? I like to hear the scientific and logical reasoning for that statement.
Sure, Phillip. Because a 6-day creation requires a supernatural phenomenon. Supernatural events may be confirmed by the evidence of experience. But they are not subject to strictly logical or scientific proofs.
Nathan,
You are right that natural science confines itself to natural phenomena so Biblical Creation is outside the realm of natural sciences. However the logical consequences of Creation pertaining to nature can be studied by natural sciences. Logic becomes our guide or sole means to draw conclusions. The same may be said about Darwinian Evolution. From observations to Origin of Species requires the extrapolation out of temporal range and imputation of data gaps — two serious caveats of any scientific endeavor. This leads to the dilemma of dialogues between creationists and evolutionists. Both can be arguing outside the realm of natural sciences yet insisting they are engaging in scientific reasoning as evident from some of the exchanges along this thread.
To exclude 6-day creation from strictly logical and scientific realm may be logically consistent but to strictly exclude all supernatural phenomenon may land oneself in doubt even of one’s own existence. I am also interested in knowing the reason of your hedging for the possibility of the irrational and unscientific.
Sure, Phillip. Because a 6-day creation requires a supernatural phenomenon. Supernatural events may be confirmed by the evidence of experience. But they are not subject to strictly logical or scientific proofs.
Clearly Scholarship has recognized that Genesis is reflective of creation myths of its time for the simple reason that Genesis is attempting to correct the myths of that time. The late Dr Haszel at Andrews wrote a book on this fact. Genesis is not “borrowing content” but speaking to “the culture.” Notice the High View of Mankind in the comparison, and think of how the Genesis story also speaks against the modern low view of man in the myth of evolution.
"Viewed with respect to its negatives, Gen 1:1-2:3 is a polemic against the mythico-religious concepts of the ancient Orient…The concept of man here is markedly different from standard Near Eastern mythology: man was not created as the lackey of the gods to keep them supplied with food; he was God's representative and ruler on earth, endowed by his creator with an abundant supply of food and expected to rest every seventh day from his labors. Finally, the seventh day is not a day of ill omen as in Mesopotamia, but a day of blessing and sanctity on which normal work is laid aside. In contradicting the usual ideas of its time, Gen 1 is also setting out a positive alternative. It offers a picture of God, the world, and man…man's true nature. He is the apex of the created order: the whole narrative moves toward the creation of man. Everything is made for man's benefit…" (p.37, Vol. 1, "Explanation," Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 [Word Biblical Commentary, 2 vols.], Word Books, Waco, Texas 1987
A more interesting view is that the themes of ‘six days of creation and the seventh of rest, the fall of man and a flood of the known world,” are historical and /or oral traditions of real events that predate the writing of all that of Mesopotamia by thousands of years and from which their garbled redactions come.
Excellent commentary, Darrell. Thank you. I very much appreciate the perspectives you bring with your comments. Both you and Jack Hoehn do a marvelous job of bringing both empathy and critical thinking to the examination of our faith and its wellsprings, without trying to suck us into the dogma traps and fallacies common to both liberal and conservative fundamentalist thinking.
Nate's statements about "both liberal and conservative fundamentlist thinking" is great as a debating point, but a little weak when it comes to logic. Just for the record, I wonder if Nate would provide us with an example of "liberal fundamentalist thinking" other than his thing about global warming which is his favorate example.
There are many examples of liberal fundamentalist thinking. Of course global warming is a huge example, because it demonstrates fundamentalist thinking and behavior on so many levels. But it is not my favorite example. My favorite example is the liberal penchant for attacking and mocking the person rather than dealing with his ideas, and responding dispassionately to his arguments. I repeatedly see liberals assuming they have discredited I.D. by arguing that I.D. is just a tool to sneak God into the debate over origins. Attacking the motivations and world view of one's opponent, rather than dealing with his arguments is quite typical of fundamentalism. And I believe liberals are just as guilty of it as conservatives. Another example is frequent indulgence of the fallacy of the assumed premise. Yet another is the application of a standard to another's argument that one is unwilling to apply to his own (the double standard).
Nate does make some reasonable points here. However, may I suggest that attacking motivations and pointing out the effects of world views are different issues. I agree that attacking motivations suggests that you know what is driving someone to argue in a particular way. That is impossible unless the inidivdiaul tells you which in many cases is what happens. I hope that Nate is not saying that disputing world views is an example of "liberal fundamentalism." If so, that removes from discussion the foundations of why there are differences of opinion.
Ervin,
I think Nate observed that liberal fundamentalism has a tendency to do what you consider impossible with double standard.
Thank you!
"Genesis is attempting to correct the myths of that time" by creating it's own myth which advances a new set of ideas about the nature of mankind. Exactly!
"There is nothing new under the sun" is perfectly illustrated in the combining of Sumerian myths; each culture adds and adapts to the particular circumstance, as has been illustrated in several comments above. We especially owe much to the period of the Hebrews during their Babylonian exile where they were introduced to many new ideas they incorporated into Judaism.
When I say that 'God provided the light' for night and day to occur, I am referring to Him saying 'Let there be light' [Gen 1:3]. The verse then says 'and there was light' implying that light came immediately. This did not take millions of years to accomplish. God spoke and it it fast [Ps 33:6, 9; Heb 11:3].
Some of the comments above suggest that the Bible isn't the word of God as taught in its pages [Luke 5:1; Eph 6:17; 1Cor 14:36-37; 1Thess 2:13; Rev 19:13, 16; John 1:1; 2Pet 3:5; Heb 4:12; 13:7; Jer 36:6; 2Chron 34:21].
God spoke and it stood fast [Ps 33:6, 9; Heb 11:3].
May I say to "22Oct1844" that the Bible is a collection of testimonies of various humans about what these humans heard God say to them in their time and place.
True, the Bible is written by humans for humans. But do you believe Erv that God played a hand in it at all?
I tend to think of the Bible as a gallery of portraits of God through time. Given there are a multitude of artists, using a multitude of artistic techniques, viewing the same subject from different angles, we should expect different approaches. A Vangough, Di Vinci, Michaengelo and Picasso are all going to produce raddicially different portraits, but they are all 'truth' in their own way.
But I believe the subject matter, God, was really there for them to paint. I don't believe God was just made up, like Dawkin's flying spagetti monster or floating tea pot.
Do you see it the same way?
Elaine Nelson suggests that the week or weekly Sabbath cycle is measured by lunar means.
————
In [Gen 1:16, 19] we find that the sun and moon were made on the ‘fourth’ day. God took the seventh day rest ‘after’ the sixth day was ended which indicates that the moon was only in its third day when the first Sabbath was observed by God [Gen 2:2-3]. If the Sabbath is reckoned by lunar means as posited by some, then the first seventh day weekly Sabbath would fall on the tenth day of creation when the moon was on its seventh day – but this is not the case. The Lunar positions aren’t therefore instrumental in determining the weekly Sabbath and the seven day week itself. The literal seven day week is therefore marked by the Biblical Creation week found in the book of Genesis.
How do we know which day is seventh day in terms of the children of Israel being instructed to observe it? Before Sinai, God instructed them to keep the Sabbath when He gave them manna [Ex 16:22-23]. The weekly cycle was continued as such with Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath accepting and observing it [Matt 12:8]. The same weekly cycle continues today.
I agree.
The notion that the Sabbath is not weekly but merely a lunar cycle is a common argument against Sabbath keeping, and doing the rounds (especially in Australia) at the moment.
The easiest way for me to work out this issue is walk down to the local Synagogue. What day do the Jews keep as a Sabbath – the seventh.
And do they have other sabbaths based on a lunar cycle – sure – their Jewish feast days. These lunar sabbaths can be weekdays, such as Yom Kippur, which was on a Wednesday in 2012.
Ervin wrote
"Why is it about the Adventist tradition, in contrast to many other Christain traditions, some of which are very conservative, that is making it difficult for 21st Century Adventism to deal realistically with the scientific evidence concerning evolution that is so compelling for so many other Christians?"
Some of us we do not have any impediment to accept the reality of scientific evidence, (creditable scientific evidence is when an observation can be replicated over and over). Is not compelling when the data is only retrospective. Retrospective data has great limitations. The ones who were formed with the rigor of the highest level of science have serious reservation to any retrospective data.
Some of us we do not have any impediment to accept the reality of scientific evidence, (creditable scientific evidence is when an observation can be replicated over and over). Is not compelling when the data is only retrospective. Retrospective data has great limitations. The ones who were formed with the rigor of the highest level of science have serious reservation to any retrospective data. That is why the theory of evolution can not be accepted as proven fact.
I have not read where any scientist refers to anything in evolutionary biology as a "proven fact." That term is rarely used in the scientific literature I read. "Proof:" is a term used in mathematics. Sometimes the "fact" of evolution is used in the context that the current evolutionary model is currently the best scientific explanation of how biological systems move from one state to another. Remember, a scientific explanation can only use physical processes to explain a given set of observations about the natural world. If one wishes to state that, for religious reasons, he or she can not accpet the best scientific explanation, that, at least, is intellectually honest.
"Evolution is a fact. To be sure, absolute certainty exists only in logic and mathematics. But the notion that life evolved is about as well established as any fact of science" Stephen Gould p574 "A View of Life"
Nathan, you wrote: “A 6-day creation makes no logical or scientific sense, which of course does not make it impossible. But it seems highly specious to insist that something irrational and unscientific had to have occurred in order for a symbol to make sense.”
I agree! Jesus’ birth, his healing of the blind and lame, his turning water into wine, his resurrection and ascension, and his promise of a second coming do not make scientific sense either! If you accept only what makes scientific sense, you have turned science into the god you worship!
Hear hear!! Great point Nic. i agree fully
You don't understand my point, Nic. First of all, Jesus was not a symbol. His miracles had symbolic significance. I also happen to believe that they were true. They were, after all, witnessed, and they are related as history, not as poetry, heavily infused with numerical symbolism. My point was that fundamentalists make the same mistake as liberals when they try to harness the Sabbath and creation to logical and scientific necessity. And they have less evidence on their side. Because, as the Bible repeatedly and emphatically asserts, God is not bound by logic and science, and He confounds the wisdom of those who try to imprison Him within those walls.
But more importantly, I am not aware of anyone who claims that Jesus miracles, the virgin birth, or His resurrection can be scientifically proven. What traditional Adventism asserts is that the Sabbath makes no sense unless we believe in a literal 6-day creation. The Sabbath has no physical reality. It is pure God-infused spiritual reality. It does not prove a 6-day creation. Do you really think that if God had taken 10 days to create the world, He could not have taken the seventh day of an artificial weekly cycle, sanctified it, and made it the memorial of creation and symbol of liberation from the natural order that He had created? Why hawser the Sabbath to the demands of the physical universe from which it is intended to liberate us?
22 October, you wrote: “How do we know which day is seventh day in terms of the children of Israel being instructed to observe it? Before Sinai, God instructed them to keep the Sabbath when He gave them manna [Ex 16:22-23]. The weekly cycle was continued as such with Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath accepting and observing it [Matt 12:8]. The same weekly cycle continues today.”
Thank you for the clarity with which you support your argument. By sending the manna on six days only, God confirmed that fact that the weekly cycle had not been lost since creation; and by Jesus observance of the Sabbath, a similar confirmation was made two thousand years ago. There is no evidence that the Sabbath was lost since then.
The Christian Clergy Letters found in the Evolution Weekend link are loaded with the usual ambitious rhetoric: 1] only smart people believe evolution, 2] evolution is a scientific fact, 3] we need to teach it to our children, 4] unbelievers in evolution embrace scientific ignorance, 5] evolution is a foundational truth, 6] evolution has stood up to rigorous scrutiny, 7] evolution is a core component of human knowledge, 8] affirming the teaching of evolution preserves the integrity of the science curriculum. A self-confessed atheist like Richard Dawkins would readily join the same choir without any doubt. It doesn’t take long to figure out how fundamentalist they are about this worldview.
Christ is the Creator of all things. This denies any other form of origins including evolution as preached by the faith science community. In fact, I would say that the faith version of evolution is in essence anti-Christ (anti-God) as it denies his sovereignty as the sole originator of all life [Gen 2:7-8; Rom 9:20; Neh 9:6; Isaiah 45:12, 18; Jer 10:12; Deut 4:39; John 1:1-3; Rom 1:25; Eccl 12:1; Gen 2:4-6, 15; 1Chr 16:26; Gen 1:1; Ps 146:5-6; Acts 17:24-26; Ps 33:6, 9; Rev 14:7; Ps 136:5-6, 7-9]. A theological basis to support evolution in terms of origins is not found in the Bible and therefore isn’t a plausible model that compliments or supports Creation.
Evolution is used to describe or demonstrate the built in capacity of living organisms to adapt and change over time; but this same scientific model cannot be arbitrarily extrapolated and accepted as provable, observable, testable and one which meets the stringent requirements of a truly empirical scientific model, in terms of origins. One would at least expect the scientific community to be honest about things getting out of hand and caution against such fanatical beliefs being upheld in the name of science – but wait a minute, it’s the so-called Christians, like in this case, cranking it up.
May I ask "22Oct1844" to state why he (I assume he) thianks that such a large group of Chrsitians do not see the problems with evolution that he does? How does he or anyone else, explain this? Has "22Oct1844" some special insight that few other Chrsitians have? I will be interested in any and all explanations.
Erv, Jesus provided the answer for your question. He said: "wide is the road which leads to detruction" and the majority of people do like this wide road. Those who travel on the narrow road are few!
I am puzzled, Erv, by your frequent appeals to the authority of the majority – at least when you think the majority agrees with you. The assumption here seems to be that members of an identifiable group should be expected to think alike: "You, Erv, are a Christian. Could you please explain to me how such a large group of Christians does not see the problem with miracles and the Biblical claims about Christ that you do?" Can't you understand that appeals to the authority of the majority are elementary fallacies?
Ervin,
Could you give some statistics on 'a large group of Christians'? Number or precentage would do. Thank you.
Although I have stated it several times, it appears that I did not make myself clear, at least to Nate. The question is a simple one. Let me state it in again in more simple words: Why do a majority of Christian denominations see no contradiction between evolutionary biology and their understanding of the Bible? I would have to double check, but I do not recall stating that the fact that they are in a majority, demonstrates that they are correct in their views. That is not the thrust of my question. Also, I don't recall saying anything about what the members of these Chrisitian denominations believe or do not believe about the subject of biological evolution. That is another issue. The question is focused on the proclaimed stance of other Chrisitian denominations and the historical reasons why these institutional churches changed their views on this topic and the Adventist tradition has not, as yet, done that.
As for putting a percentage on how many individual members of American churche bodies agree or disagree with the positions held by their respective denominations, I am not aware of any surveys of that specific question. On the other hand, surveys have consistently determined that about one third of Americans do not accept the implications of standard evolutionary biology while about two thirds do. If one was to guess then the "large group of Christians" in the United States would be about two thirds of them.
Nic's response is the classic one: Almost everyone else is wrong and my little group is right. I'm not suggesting that this may not be true. I am just pointing out the obvious fact that this is the view often expressed by those holding minority views.
Ervin,
In modern business, the majority view is "the Herd". And interestingly, "the Herd's" views & speculations
are generally false. Hence, progress is profitable only to the manipulators & insiders, and the "lucky" few
contrarians. i believe this understanding of observation could be extrapolated to inclusion of majority views of almost any grouping.
Erv
The terminology “ proof of concept” is used in research (biology, medicine, physics). Usually in prospective studies to demonstrated the association between two or more variables. When this proof of concept is replicated over and over then we accept the high probability of association.
Evolution is based in possible explanations but not demonstrable facts. I’m honest and because my experience in research, I only give credit to observations that can be reproduced. If some day can be demonstrated and replicated that a microorganism changed to another one I’ll accept that fact.
Literally millions of dollars and pages have been used in favor of evolution but until now no one single evidence of reproducible fact has been demonstrated. So I give the proper value to the theory of evolution, just a theory, not a fact.
Many people accept evolution as a fact but when I ask the proof the answer is plenty of explanations some of the very elaborated other just inflamed imaginations. The reproducible evidence is absent
I don’t come from a religious background so when we talk about science I stick to trustable reproducible facts.
Erv, David, and all,
I'm concerned that we all-too-often find ourselves using a word or words that mean different things to different people in various contexts. It is not hard to find scientists who claim that the term "proof" has no place in science and should be limited to mathematics, and, perhaps, logic. Some scientists warn against anyone using the terms "proof" or "proven" in science. Their point, of course, is that nothing is absolutely certain, and that scientific methods only bring evidence to bear on various hypotheses in ways that support, or fail to support those hypotheses. There is, I think, some merit in this way of thinking, which promotes flexible probabilistic thinking over dogmatic absolutism.
Even so, I do not completely agree. I think some kinds of evidence can confirm one hypothesis and can "falsify" (essentially, disprove) other hypotheses. When I felt as if my leg was broken, a radiograph confirmed that hypothesis and provided detailed guidance regarding the management of the break. The hypothesis that my leg had only sustained damage to tendons or ligaments was falsified. Easy enough. No replication, no experimental leg-breaking or "prospective" study, was required. A careful, real world, technology-assisted observation was sufficient.
Now, "proof of concept" (also, "proof of principle," and "proof of mechanism") are terms used somewhat differently in different fields, but, in my experience, these are not used nor intended to imply anything as absolute as what you, David, claim is needed for "proof" of evolution. One sense in which the term is used is with regard to patents–essentially, the "proof of concept" is a working prototype (full-scale or not). I have encountered this in biomedical engineering applications and have been granted a couple of patents.
The other context in which "proof of concept" is most familiar to me is in drug discovery and testing, including assessment of safety and efficacy through a series of steps culminating in Phase III clinical trials in humans and FDA approval (or not) for manufacture and distribution, and beyond, to evaluate "off label" extensions. Despite the common use of this process, it is seldom regarded as "absolute proof" of safety or effacacy–and there are many demonstrations of failure of this kind of "proof" to detect problems that ultimately occur.
Now, I think the extremely abundant physical evidence (from geology, paleontology, morphology, physiology, and genomics) indicates that the world, and life as we know it, has been around much longer than 6000 years. The young earth hypothesis is false. The real, tangible, physical evidence indicates that life on earth is much older than that, regardless of what one may believe or wish to believe about ultimate origins. Many Christians have faith enough in God to continue to be devoted to Him even though the young-earth hypothesis has been falsified. That includes some Adventists–including some of the regulars here.
Ervin not need to teach the eagles fly. I know exactly the meaning of concept of proof by practice and theory. The mean purpose is to demonstrate prospectively what is intended, when other researchers replicate the same findings, then becomes credible. If you read carefully my statement I wrote probability, nor absolute.
May be this will help to differentiate the tangible and the explanation (speculation) of the tangible. In the Altiplano of Peru was found some giant seashells. That is tangible even to this day.
How got these seashells there?
Some evolutionist says, “The mountains are growing”. The problem, the mountains are far away.
The creationist will say that is the product of the flood; the problem is to proof the flood
Another will say that was the “game of the Incas” they went and dive in the cold and deep water of the Pacific Ocean, carried to the high planes (more than 16,000 feet high. The problem is to prove it.
Ever time I have conversation with my atheist and evolutionist friends and pears I ask then to show one example of reproducible evidence of evolution. They have been honest and say is not one. If some day there is reproducible evidence of one organism becoming to another one I will accept the fact. If you have that fact show us.
David’s point above is extremely important. At the very foundation of the evolutionary philosophical framework evidence is totally missing. Most work has be done on the origin of life by RNA world researchers, and it remains unsolved due to the interdepend systems involved for life. As two theorists observed in a 2004 article in Cell Biology International:
“The nucleotide sequence is meaningless without a conceptual translative scheme and physical “hardware” capabilities. Ribosomes, tRNAs, aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and amino acids are all hardware components of the message “receiver.” But the instructions for this machinery is itself coded in DNA and executed by protein “workers” produced by that machinery. Without the machinery and protein workers, the message cannot be received and understood. And without genetic instruction, the machinery cannot be assembled.”
So the author conclude: “New approaches to investigating the origin of the genetic code are required. The constraints of historical science are such that the origin of life may never be understood.”
J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel, “Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life,” Cell Biology International, 28: 729-739 (2004).
Many other authors have made similar comments. Massimo Pigliucci states: “[I]t has to be true that we really don’t have a clue how life originated on Earth by natural means.”
Massimo Pigliucci, “Where Do We Come From? A Humbling Look at the Biology of Life’s Origin,” in Darwin Design and Public Education, eds. John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2003), p. 196.
Robert Shapiro puts the problem this way:
“The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.” “A Simpler Origin for Life,” Scientific American, pp. 46-53 (June, 2007).
“It’s nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. … [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless.” Frank B. Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” American Biology Teacher, 33: 335-338 (September, 1971).
This fact, framed so well by Dr. Salisbury has not changed a wit to this day.
"At the very foundation of the evolutionary philosophical framework evidence is totally missing."
Darrel, how can you conscientiously make such an assertion? Nothing could be much farther from the truth! And your supposed "fact," per Dr. Salisbury, is merely an assertion made more than 40 years ago, during which period, the amount of knowledge regarding the functioning of DNA, the roles of enzymes, and other aspects of developmental and genomic biology has doubled and re-doubled many, many, many times. If only we could honestly commit to following all that evidence wherever it leads, rather than deciding ahead of time what the evidence means, no matter what it actually is. If you are just going to accept explanations that support what you already think you know, what's the use in examining actual evidence at all?
Erv, you wrote: "Nic's response is the classic one: Almost everyone else is wrong and my little group is right. I'm not suggesting that this may not be true. I am just pointing out the obvious fact that this is the view often expressed by those holding minority views."
Do not forget that it was Jesus the one who argued that the majority of individuals preefer to travel on the wide road, while only a few choose the narrow one. If you condemn me for believing this, you are condemning Jesus Christ, whom I cited.
Joe, you wrote: "Now, I think the extremely abundant physical evidence (from geology, paleontology, morphology, physiology, and genomics) indicates that the world, and life as we know it, has been around much longer than 6000 years. The young earth hypothesis is false. The real, tangible, physical evidence indicates that life on earth is much older than that, regardless of what one may believe or wish to believe about ultimate origins. Many Christians have faith enough in God to continue to be devoted to Him even though the young-earth hypothesis has been falsified. That includes some Adventists–including some of the regulars here."
Most Adventists I know do not share the theory that our planet–or the universe–is merely 6,000 years old. Why do we need to attempt to desroy what most Adventists do not beelieve in? Does it follow though that life on earth started millions of years ago? Do I need to conclude that my ancestors go back through apes and amaebas? The Bible traces our ancestry through Adam and Eve all the way to God! Do I need to posit the idea that future evolved apes one day will be able to build skyscrapers and write poetry like Shakespearee? Do I need to acdept the notion that some day viruses and bacteria will evolve into higher forms of life? Does science have better myths than those found in the Bible? Are scientific miracles like the Big Bang and Singularities more credible than the feeeding of the five thousand, the turning of water into wine, and the resurrection of Jesus?
Of course, Nic, you are free to believe anything you wish.
Your statement that most adventists you know do not share the theory that our planet or universe is merely 6,000 years old. Well, I'm very glad to hear that, because I think it may mean that more adventists now recognize that the concept of a recent origin does not align with real evidence. There was a time when affirmation of YEC was essentially a test of faith among SDAs. You are saying that is no longer the case. Is that the experience of others here?
So Joe, what you are basically saying is that the scientists in the field are wrong and that it is now known how self- replicating living things developed naturally from minerals and water and electrochemical sources. References PLEASE!
Darrel, no, that is not what I am saying. I'm saying that the tangible evidence indicates a long history of life that has involved biological changes across time. Descent with modification. You are apparently emphasizing the origin of self-replicating molecules. Because no one knows exactly how that happens you seem to think that in the absence of a comprehensive answer, you can just slip in your own explanation and expect it to be accepted. That really isn't the way it works. The most plausible suggestion I know of is that complex molecules built up and eventually some of them became capable of acting as templates for assembly of complimentary/mirror image molecules. How that happened I do not know. You think it took a Designer. I don't think it necessarily had to or did, but I could be wrong. Regardless of how it happened, it happened a very, very long time ago.
Joe will obviously answer for himself but may I suggest to Mr. Lindensmith that he and others of similar orientation are constantly asking about the origin of life from a scientific perspective whereas. 99.9% of evolutionary biology is dealing with how life changes once it is here. The origin of life is an interesting scientiific question.but remember if one is providing scientific answers, there can be no supernatural forces invoked. Sorry, that is how science is done. One might not like it but that is how science works. If one does not like it, you can address that question theologically, but please don't confuse that with science.
Dear Dr Taylor, do you not see that you are assuming the very thing your attempting to prove:
The origin of life is an interesting scientiific question.but remember if one is providing scientific answers, there can be no supernatural forces invoked.
Mr. Lindensmith's logic escapes me. What am I assuming other than science can not use supernatural explanations?. Mainline science does not address the existence or non-existence of supernatural focrces. Why is that so difficult to understand? If there are individual scientists who happen to be atheists, I'm not sure what the signficance of that might be since there are scientists who are also theists and scientists who are agnostics..
Joe wrote:
"If only we could honestly commit to following all that evidence wherever it leads, rather than deciding ahead of time what the evidence means, no matter what it actually is."
Joe that is exactly the way evolutionists think. They have already decided ahead of time that because 7 day creation invokes the supernatural it is not science, and because it is not science it is impossible and therefore the only possible mechanism is evolution. Then they try to bend all scentific facts to fit the evolutionary explanation.
Lets take the above logic a step further. 'Something that invokes the supernatural = not science = impossible'. Virgin Birth of Jesus = supernatural = not scence = impossible. Ressurection of Jesus = supernatural = not science = impossible. Second coming = supernatural = not science = impossible. Turning water into wine = supernatural = not science = impossible, and so on ….. Then I guess that makes Richard Dawkins and other atheistic scientists right and I might as well throw my Bible away.
Here's the thing, Peter. Scientific methods have been developed to study natural phenomena, not supernatural phenomena. The "supernatural" is off in some intangible and mystical and undefinable dimension. Science does not allow itself the luxury of just making things up. One can dwell in that dimension and make up anything one wishes to. Or accept any of various traditional authorities, mindlessly taking them at face value, or studying and debating them endlessly, or anything between those two extremes.
I suggest that you not throw your Bible away. You would probably feel lost without it. And science would not give you much comfort, especially if you were to discover how committed most scientists are to discovering how things really work, rather than being biased in the ways you think you know they are. In fact, many of us who are committed to seeking truth find that we only are able to get approximations of reality that are practically never complete. However, it is quite liberating to be able to change one's mind whenever evidence warrants a change, rather than being trapped in a corner where one must constantly defend against the threat of looming evidence.
Joe wrote
"Scientific methods have been developed to study natural phenomena, not supernatural phenomena."
I agree Joe, but does that make the supernatural impossible?
Absolutely not, in my view, though it is safe to say that opinions vary.
The supernatural is impossible to define as there are no scientific methods to apply.
"If you can't change your mind, are you sure you still have one?"
Darrel
You ask a very difficult question that even today honestly we don’t know. For the benefic of some people I’ll simplify (sometimes the Greco-Latin words intimidates).
My background in biochemistry helps me a little bit. Several years ago an authority in biochemistry stated, “ DNA could explain life”. For him live began with the formation of DNA, I was very impressed. The more I study; I became for skeptical of that statement. Is true that we need the information of DNA to produce proteins (some of them enzymes), but this is not that simple. We need more than 60 proteins for just for DNA replication. So in simple words we can’t have proteins without DNA, and we can’t have DNA without proteins. This not just a philosophical dilemma it is a great enigma. May be some the wise man of AT can explain….
Thank you for stating it clearer. My point exactly!
May be this will help to differentiate the tangible and the explanation (speculation) of the tangible. In the Altiplano of Peru was found some giant seashells. That is tangible even to this day.
How got these seashells there?
Some evolutionist says, “The mountains are growing”. The problem, the mountains are far away.
The creationist will say that is the product of the flood; the problem is to proof the flood
Another will say that was the “game of the Incas” they went and dive in the cold and deep water of the Pacific Ocean, carried to the high planes (more than 16,000 feet high. The problem is to prove it.
Ever time I have conversation with my atheist and evolutionist friends and pears I ask then to show one example of reproducible evidence of evolution. They have been honest and say is not one. If some day there is reproducible evidence of one organism becoming to another one I will accept the fact. If you have that fact show us.
"At the very foundation of evolutionary philosophical framework evidence is totally missing".
We are (especially the young) priveledged to live at this point in time relative to the advances in scientific discoveries in various disclipines, especially Medicine. However man has never created a living life form
without pre-existing matter; an egg, a seed, a spore, a protein, etc etc. The truth of creation of origins, is
totally unknown. Attempt to extrapolate backwards or forwards and state for a certainty the answer is
evolution, survival of the fittest, is pure speculation.
David, there are places all over the world where mountains are growing and the changes are measurable. I will not presume to teach the eagle to fly. You may enter the scientific geological literature wherever you choose and if you do so, you will find thousands of references to descriptions of real places that you can go and look at. You will find many places where seashells are found in elevated strata. It is evidence, but, of course, you may choose to ignore it or believe any of many explanations.
With all due respect, I think your friends and peers may be trying to avoid getting into an argument with you or are just unwilling to spend the time and effort trying to explain things to you that you are unwilling to hear.
Sea shells at 16,000 ft elev. hmmm, reminds me of Emanuel Velikowski's book on caves in England at
several hundred ft. above sea level, which has sea shells, bones of various animals not native to England,
tropical cats, and other creatures, all rolled up in an amalgam. Also a mountain top, in France, with the top sheared off, a piece weighing many thousands of tons, and a speciman found over a hundred miles away which has the exact measurements. Also other items supposed caused by hydralic action.
I think Joe is right about many knowledgable individuals not wishing to get into conversation with those who raise, shall we say, sensational questions about marginal observations, because it would take too much time to explain why such ideas have no credibility with those familiar with the field data. We can see that problem has aarisen here, for example, with the introducation of the name of the late Emanuel Velikowski and his views. .
Earl, you would find Ayers Rock (Ularu) here in Australia fascinating. It is effectively a 5 or 6 kilometer wide sandstone "rock" which has been tipped at 90 degrees to its original level, and now lies mostly submerged.
The rock was formed by sandstone fans/eroded silt being pressed under sea when much of Australia went under for a while. A rather ineresting sequence requiring much time, and which has implications for the flood.
Ervin wrote to me “ With all due respect, I think your friends and peers may be trying to avoid getting into an argument with you or are just unwilling to spend the time and effort trying to explain things to you that you are unwilling to hear”
And Erv follow with this comment “ I think Joe is right about many knowledgable individuals not wishing to get into conversation with those who raise, shall we say, sensational questions about marginal observations, because it would take too much time to explain why such ideas have no credibility with those familiar with the field data”
This just is remarkable!!! As far as I know nor Joe or Erv have ever been in the conversations that I have with my atheist or evolutionists pears or friends and have already jump to such statements. This is so far away from the facts.
Usually my friends and pears come to the table where I’m eating and initiate the conversation. They don’t avoid actually they like to seat and expend their lunchtime talking to me about these subjects. They know the conversation will be fun and intelligent. They respect honesty and knowledge. If I was an ignorant fanatic probably will avoid the conversation. They enjoy engaging in conversation with somebody who has solid background in nuclear physics and biochemistry, who graduated from medical school with the highest honors who during his post doctoral fellowship received awards for his research and has establish line of research that made already worldwide impact.
Sirs I accept facts, to unproven ideas, theories I just give the credit they deserve. So if you have a single evidence of reproducible evolution shared I’ll accept. My advice with all due respect, don’t write statement if you don’t know the facts.
Joe Erwin wrote to me “ With all due respect, I think your friends and peers may be trying to avoid getting into an argument with you or are just unwilling to spend the time and effort trying to explain things to you that you are unwilling to hear”
And Erv follow with this comment “ I think Joe is right about many knowledgable individuals not wishing to get into conversation with those who raise, shall we say, sensational questions about marginal observations, because it would take too much time to explain why such ideas have no credibility with those familiar with the field data”
This just is remarkable!!! As far as I know nor Joe or Erv have ever been in the conversations that I have with my atheist or evolutionists pears or friends and have already jump to such statements. This is so far away from the facts.
Usually my friends and pears come to the table where I’m eating and initiate the conversation. They don’t avoid actually they like to seat and expend their lunchtime talking to me about these subjects. They know the conversation will be fun and intelligent. They respect honesty and knowledge. If I was an ignorant fanatic probably will avoid the conversation. They enjoy engaging in conversation with somebody who has solid background in nuclear physics and biochemistry, who graduated from medical school with the highest honors who during his post doctoral fellowship received awards for his research and has establish line of research that made already worldwide impact.
Sirs I accept facts, to unproven ideas, theories I just give the credit they deserve. So if you have a single evidence of reproducible evolution shared I’ll accept. My advice with all due respect, don’t write statement if you don’t know the facts.
Dear David, I apologize for offending you. It was just a guess. The guess was based on many decades of direct experience with people ranging from those who are among the most knowledgeable about evolutionary biology to those least willing to learn about the facts. It is very common/usual for such challenges to be made (that is "give me even one example of one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal"). The usual response is sort of blank-faced astonishment and incredulity that someone would ask such a question.
Often the answer that is given is "Am I your tutor? Why don't you just go and read the scientific literature on the topic?" Or, the answer might be, "Go run a search and read about the evolution of horses (equids) or elephants or people or anything you wish." The scientific literature is full of reviews of fossil evidence, and, increasingly, of comparative genomics evidence. It is available for all to see and examine. It seems like you are requesting the equivalent of "proof texts" from the scientific literature.
Another suggestion would be to brush up a little on plate tectonics geology. I find the information on continuing tectonic uplift of the Himalayas fascinating–especially the apparent adaptation of plants and animals as the uplift gradually raises them to higher and higher elevations. I'm guessing that similar studies of the Andes are also both available and fascinating. But, I'm guessing (even though I often guess wrong) that none of that evidence addresses your challenge. You probably want an example in which one "kind" of organism changes into another "kind" of organism. And you are asking for a direct observation of that. Of course, no one can provide such an observation for any organism from a population that has a lengthy inter-generational interval.
Even though selective breeding was the basis for Wallace and Darwin suggesting the existence of an enormous reservoir of potential variation, the various breeds of dogs are all still of the same species. Not only that, but one might claim that all dogs and dog-like carnivores are the same "kind," and could share a common ancestor without having changed into different "kinds." And what of populations of animals that look alike but have different numbers of chromosomes (sometimes through polyploidy)? There are such examples, complete with reproductive isolation. You could find examples of Brazilian frogs or various populations of owl monkeys (Aotus, from Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, and elsewhere).
But (another guess), you would probably argue about every case, no matter how strong is the evidence is or which explanation fits best. But, then you might want to look at people who are doing experimental studies of evolution in populations of organisms with short intergenerational intervals. You will find evidence of biological change across time, including very specifically documented genomic changes and sometimes morphological differences. For non-sexually producing organisms, the speciation criteria of reproductive isolation changes, but you might not accept that criterion anyway.
Such changes are certainly important for medical practice as pathogenicity can change even from "passaging" a virus through a host. But, you would probably say, even though biological change has occurred, the organism is still a virus. If it was a retrovirus or lentivirus before, it still is. So, the arguments are endless, and they can be quite entertaining.
I think you might wish to take your own advice with regard to knowledge of the facts. You seem to have all the answers. I do not claim to. Even science does not claim to. Besides, much remains to be studied and learned, and I am quite open to following the evidence wherever it leads and to changing my mind as the evidence warrants.
Regardless of whatever we may disagree about, you have my sincere best wishes. I do not think you should wager your faith against the scientific evidence. No one is asking you to do that. I do not think any amount of physical evidence of evolution needs to threaten faith in Almighty God for those whose faith is strong enough.
So, David, I have taken the liberty of glancing quickly at recent publications regarding "experimental evolution," which seems to be the sort of thing you are asking for. This very quick and easy search revealed the following:
"Experimental evolution of multicellularity." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [PNAS]
published online before print in 2012, but available in full text online. Authors: Ratcliff, Denison, Borrello, & Travisano.
And perhaps an even better introduction to this area of study:
"As it happens: Current directions in experimental evolution." Being published this week in Biology Letters.
[23 FEB 2013] It is already available in full text on line. The authors are Thomas Bataillon, Paul Joyce, and Paul Sniegowski, and email addresses are available for all three if you wish to communicate directly with them about their work.
David, I expect that you already knew that the scientific literature on this topic were available. All you have to do is look and read. You need not believe or accept what you read to become aware that the information is there. I advise being quite skeptical and subjecting all you read to very critical thinking and interpretation within a broader context of evidence and opinion. I wish you well.
Joe, the question that David and others, including myself are asking, IS NOT regarding "multicellularity," but the origin of digital information in the millions of lines of code needed for the very minimal of anything that could be called 'life.'
Darrel, I will, of course, let David ask whatever questions he wishes to ask, just as you are free to ask any questions you wish to ask. But I do not (and should not) pretend to be able to provide the answers to you. I can only recommend that you carefully and critically examine whatever evidence is available, that you make an effort to distinguish between evidence and explanations, conjecture, interpretation, and speculation, and that you decide for yourself what information to hold tentatively, reject, or accept. You will, of course, just do as you please; but let me just urge you NOT to simply accept what you read from any source–the sorts of things you have listed below. I would be surprised if you came up with that list on your own, and I do not think your assertion that these items are supportive of ID holds much water. My apologies to you if this is your own original thinking.
Here are some of the Irreducibly complex machines, (irreducable meaning-all these and more must be up and running together for any "function" be realized).
If this list is taken from some other source, that source should be acknowledged. If it is something you devised yourself, Darrel, you should let us know that. You seem to think that all these are supportive of ID, but I would not expect much independent agreement on that. I can see that you could interpret these as supportive of ID, but only if that was an assumption you were committed to in the beginning–which seems to be the case.
Joe, you wrote: “You think it took a Designer. I don’t think it necessarily had to or did, but I could be wrong.”
My view is that it takes more faith to believe that DNA we find in living organisms is the result of undirected natural selection than to accept the evidence for a designer. The idea that billions of bits of information were arranged in the proper order to produce the variety of life forms blows my mind.
Suppose we would capture a radio signal from outer space with the entire DNA sequence, would you conclude that such communication was the result of chance or the evidence of intelligent activity?
Of course DNA is mindblowing! But what is the evidence for a Designer? I do not see anyone actually offering any evidence at all that there is a Designer. The strongest assertion, which seems very weak and certainly circular, is that if there is a design, there must be a supernatural Designer. A supernatural Designer is not the same as a natural process through which opportunistic emergent properties become self replicating. In any case, what we have to examine is what exists. We can attend to physical reality or mysterious superstition, or, I suppose, we can mix those all up together, just to be sure our minds are sufficiently blown!
Joe, evidently you avoided my question. My question was: “Suppose we would capture a radio signal from outer space with the entire DNA sequence, would you conclude that such communication was the result of chance or the evidence of intelligent activity?” What is your answer? Suggesting that the information contained in the DNA “emerged” without the input of intelligence makes no logical sense! A blueprint for a skyscraper will never emerge by the unguided operation of nature. Your answer must be logical!
My answer is I do not know. To me, that is a perfectly valid and honest answer.
My answer on the origin of DNA is that I do not know how it originated. It could have come from somewhere else outside earth, and some people suspect that is the case. But, as far as I know, no one knows. If it came from somewhere else, that just pushes back the question.
One can believe it was purposely created, and one can believe s/he knows by whom. One can believe that has somehow been revealed in credible sources. Or not. I think there is no truly conclusive proof either way. Perhaps if one CAN believe that, one should; but to claim that one KNOWS absolutely and definitely or that the conclusion is obvious really is not convincing, at least to me.
My best guess is that among a nearly infinite number of physical molecules, some accummulated with each other to form more complex molecules, and the some molecules attracted and grabbed onto other atoms and molecules and that some of those, through some sort of complicated process began to align complimentary structures, i.e., acting as templates for chemical assembly. As these molecules emerged they may have become functional in opportunistic ways. As more emergent properties occurred, they could have encountered more opportunities for functional consequences. And so onward.
Wait! Don't attack me yet! I said, it was just a guess. It is just speculation–a suggestion. I'm not insisting that you buy this concept. You are free to do as you please. If you can believe in ID, by all means feel free to do so.
Erv, you wrote: “The origin of life is an interesting scientiific question.but remember if one is providing scientific answers, there can be no supernatural forces invoked. Sorry, that is how science is done.”
Yes, that is the way science is done by those who accept the premise that we must keep God and miracles out of scientific discovery. The problem is that if we agree to do science that way, we will be forced to deny the evidence for a designer regardless of the strength of such scientific evidence.
The need to deny strong evidence contrary to our assumptions is unreasonable and a recipe for failure in our search for scientific truth.
Science has no tools for studying the supernatural in any meaningful way. So, maybe science cannot address the questions you want to ask. Exactly. Is there a supernatural Designer? We cannot know the answer using science. How can we ever know the answer then? We can't. We can believe it is so, and we can urge others to believe it is so, but we cannot honestly claim to have scientific evidence or verification. No matter how much you may want science to help you out with this, science has no capability of doing so.
Peter, you wrote: “Lets take the above logic a step further. ‘Something that invokes the supernatural = not science = impossible’. Virgin Birth of Jesus = supernatural = not scence = impossible. Ressurection of Jesus = supernatural = not science = impossible. Second coming = supernatural = not science = impossible. Turning water into wine = supernatural = not science = impossible, and so on ….. Then I guess that makes Richard Dawkins and other atheistic scientists right and I might as well throw my Bible away.”
I am glad you said this. Had I done it, Erv would argue that there is no way to argue with Nic! What a way to show the irrational logic evolutionists have boxed themselves in!
Joe, you wrote: “Here’s the thing, Peter. Scientific methods have been developed to study natural phenomena, not supernatural phenomena.”
If that is the case, then science should not attempt to solve problems related to origins. When science attempts to do this, it gets outside of science and moves into philosophical speculation. The tools of science are: observation, replication, and experimentation. There is no way to use these tools with the question of origins. Belief in the Big Bang, Singularities, the origin of DNA, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, are outside of scientific observation, replication, and experimentation.
David, you wrote the following: ” Is true that we need the information of DNA to produce proteins (some of them enzymes), but this is not that simple. We need more than 60 proteins for just for DNA replication. So in simple words we can’t have proteins without DNA, and we can’t have DNA without proteins.”
That was a great way of expressing the enigma we face. Science will probably never solve this enigma. This forces me to accept the need of intelligent activity connected with the origin of life. The evidence for a designer is overwhelming in my view. Of course, as long as scientists continue to stick to their erroneous premise based on philosophical naturalism, they will have no option but to deny what is patently clear to any unbiased observer!
Nic, don't throw your Bible away. I'm not sure what you would do without it. Science does not and cannot tell you that any of those assertions are "impossible." Science can, and does, indicate that all these things are unlikely. But you know that. Why else would these seem remarkable to you or anyone?
All these things have surely been presented as, at best, mysterious. Miraculous. Indications that God is not bound by what are regarded as the "laws of nature." Then, let's see, a virgin birth. Hmmm. How many times has that been asserted? "But we didn't really DO anything–at least, not that I remember…." And somehow, Jesus ancestry is traced through Joseph…. Or, what about the wild idea that God the Spirit could have inseminated Mary with God-sperm? Or artificially inseminated her with sperm of His choice. We do not know. We cannot know. We can deny material existence. We can accept supernatural forces on the advice of authority. We can live in our imaginations. All things are possible.
i'm beginning to believe, as said Nic, that as soon as ID is mentioned to evolutionists, the door SLAMS SHUT. !!!! ID ISN'T IN THEIR DICTIONARY!!!!.Yes, they are traumatized at the very thought. BOXED IN. No malice to our evolution friends, who can't consider supernatural mystical origens. With everthing we observe with the brain, of 6 senses, of life forms, of all man's manufacture; The evidence of infinite complexity is staring you in the face, and you are blind to it, you can't see it. God is able to confuse even great human intellectuals, because they refuse to believe in the supranatural dimension, blinded to where the answers lie. A shame that the energy, industriousness, dedication to theme, will never allow them to reach the unreachable goal they seek. The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that overreaches the throne of the ALMIGHTY GOD.
Any individual, scientist or not, is free to consider supernatural mystical origins. They just can't really use science to do so. When they claim to be using science, as is so common in the ID crowd, they quickly exit science into some speculative realm beyond science. The evidence of extraordinary complexity certainly is staring us in the face. It is not surprising that some people simply give up on trying to understand reality, choosing instead to abandon and ignore evidence in favor of just making up an answer to all questions.
Joe, the defenders of ID are not abandoning the evidence, but rather rightly interpreting it as favoring the most logical conclusion: that the information contained in the DNA was most likely the product of intelligent activity instead of the random action of natural forces. The probability that this is the case is billions against one.
You cannot reject this scientific reasoning as mere speculation. If this is non-scientific speculation, then the opposite conclusion is even more deserving of being labeled as fiction and unreasonable theorizing.
Earl,
Just lets assume for a moment there is ID in the origins of life.
Now: Tell me, without using the Bible, what kind of God that offers you?
Thanks
As an article in the recent issue of Adventist Today states it, whatever it is, Intelligent Design is not science. It is not a matter of believing in or not believing in the supernatural, the supernatural can not be invoked in scienctific explanations. A very simple principle that seems to be difficult for some to understand. .
cb25 asks: "Just lets assume for a moment there is ID in the origins of life. Now: Tell me, without using the Bible, what kind of God that offers you?"
————–
Intelligent Designer?
So, would the Intelligent Designer necessarily be a deity or a person? Could it be a force or influence or process? Who knows?
Yes, who knows? It could be the universe! After all, it is within the universe that intelligence exists, therefore the simplest answer for the source of or existence of intelligence would be the universe. Why posit a God behind the universe when that is the more complex explanation, and therefore the less likely scenario?
Joe, science leads us to an intelligent designer. Once this conclusion is reached, it is up to Revelation to tell us what kind of entity such a designer is. A natural force cannot be credited with a product as complex as the DNA! If you attribute this to a natural force, then you are forced to ask: Who designed such an incredibly intelligent natural force? You get into a never ending loop which will not solve the problem!
Nic, I believe that you believe what you are saying. I believe in your right to say what you believe. I disagree with your conclusion that "science leads us to an intelligent designer."
You seem not to be able to accept that non-living chemicals are able to increase in complexity through orderly processes. More orderly complexity can emerge from less complex and orderly chemical activity. Perhaps Dr. Kootsey could comment on the concept of "emergent phenomena."
Your conclusion about intelligent design seems to be based on the notion that orderly complexity and self replication COULD NOT be emergent phenomena. Now, I am not claiming to KNOW that they DID. I am suggesting that they could have, and that the "orderliness" (which I think you are identifying as "design") had to be imposed by God. I'm suggesting that some of the tendency toward orderliness was inherent in orderly physico-chemical structure, and that the environmental, including chemical, context probably imposed some limits on what could or could not occur in terms of chemical, and eventually, biochemical activity. I'm suggesting that the process could have been entirely natural. I'm also clearly stating that I DO NOT KNOW how the process occurred that resulted in replicating molecules. If I did, I'd be glad to share with you some of my Nobel prize award money.
Circular reasoning is so common, maybe that's why they call it "circular"–it keeps circulating from so much use.
It seems that a few are allowing a theological concern to restrict some openness to hard scientific look design–to say in effect "well, if true design is the case, what kind of Creator God are we talking about?" That is not a scientific concern strictly speaking, and shouldn't prevent one from following the dots.
I believe scientifically one can’t discover the identity of The Creator. I think we all agree that we need not know ‘identity’ in order to know ontology.
Modern cosmology confirms that what caused the universe to come into existence is more like a mind because of the well thought out fine tuning of the laws of physics and the amazing Genetic programs of life. These both reveal Intelligence beyond conception.
This we know: The Creator must be eternal because with the beginning of the universe, time itself was created. So we are talking “non-temperal.” Before the big bang there was no time. We are talking Non-physical as well as timeless, because matter and space did not exist before the beginning of Universe. So the Creator would be a transcendent Mind/Being, eternal and incorperal. We can know something of God through the scientific study of our own moral make-up as CS Lewis has well explained. Besides these we know nothing of God except what is revealed to us through Jesus Christ – the Word of God!
"…fine tuning of the laws of physics and the amazing Genetic programs of life." Incredulity.
"with the beginning of the universe, time itself was created." Really? Which universe? Which Bang? which anticendent? Which time?
"matter and space did not exist before the beginning of Universe." As above…
"….our own moral make-up" Yep. Great. Strange how people have spent days on my sin blog telling me how bad our moral make up really is! Does not the "moral make up" of this world have equall say on that point anyway? We've been there before: nature, red in tooth and….
"..what is revealed to us through Jesus Christ…" mmm back to the bible cicule again.
Darrel, all four of your points are based on theories about the universe, and reading into them seeking a desired outcome.
Your last one is dependent on a person who is historically unlikely to have existed in NT proportions.
cb25,at least you are clear about your position. You reject the evidence heaven has provided humans when God sent his own Son, who provided ample evidence that nature was his servant by the miracles he performed. You seem to reject even his own resurrection. Greater miraculous manifestations of his power will not be given. I do admire your sincerity in being open and clear about your position. There is more hope for you than for those who pretend to believe in God, but work as hard as they can to obscure his power and providence.
The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin proof shows that any inflationary modelof the universe will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe or any mulyiverse doesn’t exist infinitely into the past.
Thus a creation event is incredibly solid science.
An inflationary event might be science you mean?
I watched a YouTube debate between Bart Ehrman and a Christian apologist the other day. Every time the Christian guy spoke he opened with a quote, source, reference. I thought of you Darrel.
Bart opened every segment with reasoned evidence, research of his own, well analysed data.
I don't want to be disrespectful, but you are like a vending machine at times; push the right buttons and you dispense the "authoritative" data to match. Never mind that in reality it may not be valid, thought out, etc.
I really wish I had not contributed to the points above that got you on ID, because it is just so pointless. As I have said before, I have sympathy for ID, but I point blank refuse to take it beyond where its weak evidence leads.
Whatever makes you happy I guess:)
Well, thanks for thinking of me Chris 🙂
Hmmm, uh, eh, hmmm, mind boggling, wel-l-l-l-l, the grounded & the incorperal & the fence sitters. East is east, west is west, and never the twain shall meet. None know. O', we know nothing beyond what the Hubble displays, all else is speculative. The Big Bang or Bangs, is speculative. Space was not created, it is eternal, it has no barriers, it is infinite. Is space somehow divided into more than one "universe", by a method known otherworldly, into two, a hundred, a trillion? Perhaps surviving by ebbing & flowing, maintaining equilibrium, perhaps by "dark hole activity" exchanges? Conjecture you say? Sure? But who can deny the possibility? Only otherworld supernatural intelligences, or intelligence are aware of the infinite potential. Is there possibility of more than one God, in this, or other universes? If so, are some loving, and others evil, as we generally think of the terms here. Is what we refer to as God, in essence, a multi Spirit personality, that rules in our universe, and has infinite almighty power to operate at will, on Earth, in any form, as well as in all the rest of the godly realm with equal powers? There are probably other earths where intelligent life forms exist, we know of what we know, there are billions & trillions of other heanenly bodies, galaxies, worlds, & planets that are ruled by heavenly intelligence. Its out there. We can see it with naked eye. The heavens declare the glory. All is theory. Why is it "unlikely". Intelligence on Earth is not a drip in the bucket of otherly intelligence. How many other galaxies are populated with intelligences both much much higher & some lower than ours. They are out there in infinite space, there may be myriads of creatures unlike us. After all, eternity has provided endless time for an active eternal being to utilize its handiwork. We should not be smug or stuck up, we may be one of the smaller fishes in this eternal space. Does this answer your question, Chris?
I must note that anytime I have had the opportunity to listen to an entire exchange between a knowledable scientist in a relevant field and an apologist for YEC/YLC position, the individual attempting to support the YEC/YLC position always comes off usually not knowing the most recent data or does not understand it and says things that any first year graduate student in the speciality would know to be false. It does not have anything to do with intelligence and being generally educated. It just is that I know of only one or two YEC/YLC advocates who have specific research experience in the relevant speciality whether evolutinary biology or geochronology. The only time that the YEC/YLC position is supported in a public forum is when an YEC/YLC advocate is speaking to a YEC/YLC oriented audience and then, of course, he shines because there is no one present who can or wants to challenge his knowledge or understanding of the relevant data. The linking of Christianity and YEC/YLC arguments is one of the reasons that many scientifically educated individuals have such a negative view of Christainity..
Erv, you must be familiar with the following quotation from the writings of Ellen White. It is probably meaningless for you, but it might be valuable for other readers:
“Yet men of science think that they can comprehend the wisdom of God, that which He has done or can do. The idea largely prevails that He is restricted by His own laws. Men either deny or ignore His existence, or think to explain everything, even the operation of His Spirit upon the human heart; and they no longer reverence His name or fear His power. They do not believe in the supernatural, not understanding God’s laws or His infinite power to work His will through them. As commonly used, the term ‘laws of nature’ comprises what men have been able to discover with regard to the laws that govern the physical world; but how limited is their knowledge, and how vast the field in which the Creator can work in harmony with His own laws and yet wholly beyond the comprehension of finite beings!”-Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 114.
Doesn't evolution theory presuppose that our common ancestors originally came from inorganic matter at some stage millions (billions?) of years ago courtesy of Mr Big Bang? Did this inorganic matter therefore miraculously produce the necessary DNA for organic life to exist? If there was a naturalistic process involved back then – then to what do we attribute its first cause? In other words who or what rolled the ball? Who or what caused the first genetic code for the first cell microcosm that marked the first living cell. Can chaos or chance make credible inferences for consistent replicable design or intelligence? Doesn’t the existence of complex organic mechanisms, e.g. the human genome, make significant inferences for intelligent design in living organisms by virtue of such incredible mindboggling reproducible complexity even at microscopic and sub microscopic levels? Are humans not capable of comprehending the inferences for intelligent design found in complex living organisms? Are human beings able to identify intelligent design when it is inferred in one way or another? Or, do we just look the other way?
These are excellent questions 22Oct has posed. I am looking forward to the responses.
As a scientific rube myself, I have often asked/wondered who/what put/wrote the information into the genetic code. Obviously I don’t understand. (Frankly, I wouldn’t understand any explanation anyway.)
Some people believe that if SDA church adopts evolution more educated people would come to the church.
Already plenty of Christian churches openly adopted evolution. Are more people going to those churches? Not really, on the contrary that churches are dyeing.
To believe that a highly educated scientific person could not really believe in the content of the Bible is just an arrogant statement and shows a deep ignorance of the reality.
I think we have abundant evidence that intelligent people can believe almost anything.
Many commenters here are obviously bright people. Certainly David, Chris, 22OCT, Nate, Ervin, Earl, Darrel, Elaine, Andy, and others, are all capable and articulate people. Of course, we focus on different sources of evidence, and we evaluate evidence differently. I hope our discussions help each of us to more carefully consider evidence and opinions, and maybe we can each grow and learn in constructive ways that help us understand how the truth can set us free. Truth is not our foe. Ignorance is our enemy.
Now, for those who so often claim to know that there is not a speck of evidence on the topic, let me provide a link to a recent paper. I hope this link will work, and, if not, one can enter a manual search.
Perelman, et al., (2011) "A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates." PLoS Genetics
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001342
True in science? that is news to me. Usually we try to find the probabilities of associations, correlations and rarely causations
There is no doubt that most apologists for YEL/YLC position are not specialists in evolutionary biology or geochronology, or whatever other specialty that Dr. Taylor may deem relevant.
Here’s the intellectual integrity challenge/problem that Christians who rely on revelations from scientific observation refuse to confront: it doesn’t take a terminal degree in biology to understand that dead people cannot be revived by voice. What do they do with Lazarus’s resurrection? What do they do with Jesus’ resurrection?
Did these ‘events’ actually happen or not? If some scientific observing Christians believe that Jesus was just another dude; then they have some explaining to do—to themselves.
"Did these 'events' actually happen or not?"
Stephen, yours is a very good question. Some things are a lot easier to believe than others.
So, when a charismatic preacher from Texas claims to have brought back people in Uganda from the dead, in the name of Jesus, of course, is that believable? When a physician in Ohio pounds a person (who has apparently died, breathing and pulse seem to have stopped) on the chest and their heart resumes beating and they begin breathing again, all in the presence of witnesses, is that a mysterious miracle? Remember, magic and magicians and magical thinking were popular back in biblical times, and, of course, these are still with us to some extent.
Scientists and religionists all need to remember that their explanations of phenomena are not necessarily accurate. "Explainable" versus "unexplainable" doesn't give too much assurance of veracity. Many "explanations" are not valid. Of course you are correct that those folks "have have some 'splainin' to do." But don't count on the explanations being satisfactory or accurate.
But Joe, the particular Christians to whom I refer have much less, if anything, to explain to me than to themselves.
Are they adherents to an ideology or a religion; a philosophy or a faith?
If they adhere to a philosophy as opposed to a faith; would they prefer that it become a philosophy for all?
Dear friend, Stephen. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Sorry Joe, I should been more direct. Besides, since you are not one of the Christians to whom I referred, it is not surprising that you wouldn’t understand.
There are Christians who look to scientific observation to interpret whether what God says He did is literally true or not.
They have to explain to themselves how it is possible for Jesus to have been conceived without human sperm and resurrected from death, when scientific observation tells us that these things cannot be literally true.
Of course, the Christian faith is about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus—a philosophy of Christianity is something else.
Joe, you did question the resurrection of Jesus. You have the right to do this, but you need to admit that if Jesus is dead, then there is no hope for any of us nor for those millions of martyrs who chose death instead of denying the fact that Jesus did come back from the tomb and is alive. It would have been rather easy for them to admit that Caesar was Lord, but this would have been a recognition that Jesus was not the Lord of their life.
It is safe to say without a doubt that most of these so-called Christian denominations attending Darwin's mass aren't Sabbath keepers but Sunday Church folk. They will most likely not accept the catastrophic flood of Noah's day and will obviously give the literal account of Genesis the boot. Why? – Because evolution theory needs a very old earth to give it any credibility. The catastrophic flood in Noah's day gets in the way of evolution theory for obvious reasons as it affects the understanding of the fossil records. A Creator and the Sabbath is then quickly eroded. Worse still – the much needed Saviour – Christ Jesus – is banished into insignificance at this point. He is Creator and Redeemer after all. The mother church then has all its daughters coming home to roost and the sun's day is thus venerated. No matter how one spins it, Darwin's take on things is anti-God and anti-Christ or to put it mildly non-God, non-Christ. The miracle of inanimate matter becoming alive by unknown miraculous means is documented, believed and taught as a priori with the Christian church marching under the same banner as atheists and evolutionists. Now we also have Seventh-Darwinian Adventists and Sun-Darwinian Churches. Who'd have thought it?
By accepting the Darwinian model these so-called Christians have apostatised on this point at least by acceding to the false doctrine of 'death before sin' which is unavoidable in terms of evolution belief and unbiblical at that. It is also in effect an insult to Christ who died to save mankind and not some primordial soup.
I see that "22Oct1844" uses the term "so-called Christians." It must be very gratifing to be able to sit so high above and have the ability to determine the Christian character of someone else. Not having any qualifications in the field of psychiatry, I wonder if someone with some knowledge of that field might have any insights about what causes someone to think they have such an ability?
Sir, there is no Christ or God in evolution theory. That is a fact. When Christians embrace such beliefs like 'death before sin' then they aren't holding to biblical beliefs which determine the basis of our religion; but to atheistic creed which would qualify them as so-called Christians.
Science is not able to invoke spiritual explanations. If scientists do that, they are ceasing to use science.
Christians of any belief system (or non-Christians, for that matter), can examine objective evidence and are free to accept (or not) that tangible evidence in the real world may present a more accurate picture of reality than is provided by religious writings and traditions.
Joe, what you asserted is negated by the fact that many intelligent and knowledgeable Christians look at the same evidence in nature and recognize that there is scientific evidence for Intelligent Design in what we observe. There is no way to explain the DNA without the intervention of ID. It would be equivalent to winning the lottery several billions of times. It can’t be done; it is impossible for nature to perform such a miracle.
Jerry Coyne and the "Fact" of Evolution
Dr. Jerry Coyne is recognized in atheistic circles as one of, if not the, leading evolutionary biologists in the world. He has written a book, Why Evolution Is True, that leading atheists such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens have widely endorsed. Allegedly, Dr. Coyne has compiled an insurmountable case for evolution.
On closer inspection, however, one begins to see serious flaws with Coyne's "evidence" and his mode of reasoning. One of his most serious deficiencies is the way in which he equivocates the term evolution. Equivocation is a classic tool of dishonest argument in which a person gives a term multiple meanings and then uses the term in a different sense than is correct. For instance, suppose a person were to say: "I'm holding nothing in my hand, and nothing is stronger than God. So what I have in my hand is stronger than God." Anyone listening to the statement understands that there is some type of "sleight of hand" at play. The rub lies in the multiple meanings of the word nothing. In the first instance, it means "non-existence," and in the second instance, it means "of the things that do exists, not one fits the category." Thus, the logical fallacy of equivocation is one that often muddles the issue at hand.
Throughout Coyne's book he abuses the term evolution, defining it in multiple ways and equivocating it. For instance, he states: "Evolution is a fact" (2009, p. xiii). What does he mean by the term evolution? That is the question. In some places, he defines the term as the idea that all life arose by naturalistic processes from "a single naked replicating molecule" (p. 233). According to that definition, evolution most certainly is not a fact for many reasons, not the least of which is that life cannot arise from non-living "molecules" (see Miller, 2012). In other places, however, Coyne defines the term in ways that any creation scientist would freely acknowledge to be true.
For instance, on page 180, Coyne discusses experiments in which biologists force "animals or plants to adapt through evolution to different environments…. After a period of adaptation, the different 'populations' are tested in the lab to see if they have evolved reproductive barriers." Notice that in this instance of the use of the term "evolution," Coyne simply means a process by which organisms can change slightly to adapt to their environment. Few, if any, creationists would argue that animals do not adapt based on their environment and built-in genetic flexibility. The fact that animals can adapt and change to a certain degree is quite different from the idea that all life arose from a single molecule. Carefully watch the argument then. Evolution is seen in a lab (minor adaptations), thus we must admit that evolution (molecules to man) is true. Such equivocation from one of the leading proponents of evolution should alert the critical reader to a serious deficiency in the molecules-to-man aspect of the term evolution.
Again, on page 217, Coyne talks about human "evolution" that we can envision occurring. He mentions that one human allele called CCR5-∆32 "provides its carriers with strong protection against infection with the AIDS virus." He then states, "We can predict that if AIDS continues as a significant source of mortality, the frequency of this allele will rise in affected populations. That's evolution, as surely as is antibiotic resistance in bacteria." Notice again the equivocation. No creationist (to my knowledge) has any problem recognizing the existence of certain alleles that might proffer a certain benefit to those humans that have them. Nor would the spread of those alleles throughout portions of the human population militate against anything proposed by the creation model. By terming this process as "evolution," Coyne then says that we know evolution (molecules to man) is true.
At one point in his book, Coyne tacitly admits what he is doing. On page 143, he states:
While he does not openly admit to equivocating the term evolution, he does differentiate between what is actually seen in the laboratory (and in nature), and what we must "extrapolate" from what we see. In reality, his "extrapolation" of "big transformations" is the antiscientific idea of molecules-to-man evolution. Were he to stop where the evidence stops, he would be forced to say that small changes-about which both creationists and evolutionists agree-have not been shown to render "big transformations" (for more information on this fact, see Butt, 2006; Butt 2008; Thompson and Harrub, 2002; Thompson, 1994).
Coyne's use of the logical fallacy of equivocation belies the inherent weakness of the theory of evolution that he attempts to defend. No legitimate, factual scientific evidence has ever been produced that remotely substantiates the concept that a single replicating molecule evolved into a human over millions of years of mindless, materialistic processes. Were we to stick only with what we know to be fact, we would be forced to conclude, as the late atheist-turned-believer Antony Flew commented: "The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such 'end-directed, self-replicating' life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind (2007, p. 132).
REFERENCES
Butt, Kyle (2006), "What Do the Finches Prove?," Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1652.
Butt, Kyle (2008), "Mutant Fruit Flies Bug Evolution," Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2501.
Coyne, Jerry (2009), Why Evolution Is True (New York: Viking).
Flew, Antony and Roy Varghese (2007), There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper One).
Miller, Jeff (2012), "The Law of Biogenesis (Part 1)," Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4165.
Thompson, Bert (1994), "Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance-Proof of Evolution?," Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=572.
Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2002), "Fifteen Answers to Scientific American's Nonsense," Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1350.
I thought that even YEC/YLCs believe in microevolution, so even they "believe in evolution." Right?
Erv, Yes! This doesn’t mean that you can jump from micro evolution to macro evolution. The gap is too great for anyone to jump over this abysm! You need evidence to show that this can or did happen in the past. This is the reason evolutionists push such improbable events into the distant time. By resorting to such clever argument, they make it impossible for anyone to verify the accuracy of what they are trying to prove. This unscientific method of proving their theory can be used to support all kinds of crazy theories.
Scientists are not seeking to "prove a theory." They are seeking real evidence and attempting to make sense of what they find. There is no need to resort to paranoid suspicion of science and scientists.
Assertions like "no legitimate, factual evidence has ever been produced that remotely substantiates…," etc., are blatently and demonstrably false. It would be a big lie, except that you actually believe it! Perhaps you could tone it down with a more accurate statement, such as, "I am unwilling to accept that any legitimate, factual…." There are tens of thousands of peer-reviewed published scientific research reports that present and discuss and evaluate the evidence you claim does not exist. Denial of this fact in the name of truth is desperately deceitful.
David, I just have mention that experimental science is intended to nail down cause and effect relationships, while epidemiological evidence is mostly correlative. Of course, in epidemiology, multiple regression and other methods attempt to establish the variation in one variable that is "accounted for" by other variables. But, of course, you are correct that we attempt to identify the probabilities and levels of confidence of our results, rejections of null hypotheses, etc.
"I think Joe is right about many knowledgeable individuals not wishing to get into conversations with those who raise, shall we say, sensational questions about marginal observations, because it would take too much time to explain why such ideas have no credibility with those familiar with the field data."
"Nic provides a classic illustration of why many educated individuals take those speaking from what is insisted to be a 'Christian' perspective with such little regard."
"Nic's repsonse is the classic one: 'Almost everyone else is wrong and my little group is right.'…I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that this is the view often expressed by those holding minority views."
Thank you, Erv, for providing such excellent examples of liberal fundamentalism – adolescent, sneering condescension toward those who question the conventional wisdom of your scientist clique. I shall take great relish in trying to point out more examples as they arise, in the fervent hope that liberals, who presumably wish to avoid the fundamentalist label, might become more conscious of the ubiquitousness of the fundamentalist urge and, in trying to suppress that urge, thereby help to elevate the dialogue on AToday.
"…adolescent, sneering, condescension toward those who question the conventional wisdom of your scientist clique."
How does one appropriately respond to such an inspiring and elevated comment from a generous Christian gentleman?
Nathan, you said: “”Nic’s response is the classic one: ‘Almost everyone else is wrong and my little group is right.’…I’m just pointing out the obvious fact that this is the view often expressed by those holding minority views.”
If you think that I am wrong, why can’t you address the arguments I have been using in support of my position? Do you really believe that you can prove macro evolution from the evidence found in micro evolution? Do you believe that the complex information contained in the DNA is the result of mindless natural forces over eons of time? Unguided nature can pick the right choice a few times, but billions of times? Is this reasonable? Would it make sense for someone to win the lottery billions of times in a row? What evidence can you provide that all the billions of pieces can be put in the right sequence to produce the DNA of a human being, an ape, or even a virus?
Nic, you completely missed my point. I did not make the comment you attributed to me. I was quoting from comments Drv Taylor has made to demonstrate the nature of liberal fundamentalism. Such blatant misreading of my point may require that I reconsider my crtique of liberal fundamentalism.
Joe, you may not like to be confronted with the ugly truth about liberal fundamentalism, and its haughty dismissiveness toward those who are not members of the club. You again demonstrate liberal fundamentalism by snarkily implying that, because my comment is mean and unChristian, its accuracy is irrelevant. But another much finer Christian Gentleman than I once referred to those who sneered at His questioning of the conventional wisdom as "white-washed sepulchres;" "den of vipers;" and "children of your father, the Devil." Indeed, how does one appropriately respond to the mirror of truth?
So, it's "ugly truth," "haughty dismissiveness," "members of the club," "snarkily implying," it is all just so amazing! One can't make this stuff up…. "Mirror of truth?" Indeed.
Nic, just a question. How many molecules exist on earth? How many yesterday? The day before? And for thousands and thousands, no, even hundreds of millions of years. How many? How many chances have there been for chemical actions and interactions? Yes, billions and billions of possible interactions at every point in time, and any time even a very rare assembly occurs, that provides a potential progressive foundation for subsequent interactions and complex molecules. Maybe that incredible amount of complexity had consequences that we can continue to see today. But all that is just speculation on my part. Only that and nothing more. But please do not claim that I MUST believe whatever you believe because you have no more basis for your speculation than I do for mine (less, it seems to me).
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. You have every right to believe anything you can.
Have perused the plosgenetics.org article. In studies of primates,ie: lemurs, orangatans, gorillas etc. It
concurred that there were small adaptations in various species, because of environmental influences, and or specimens living on other nearby islands, some with red collar hair, others grey, and other small decifierable variations, but no big changes in the species, and certainly no large structural changes, and or dramatic species change. Lemurs were still lemurs, orangatans were still, yep, orangatans, etc etc, and this was studying these primate groups over a span of up to approx 200 million years.
Interesting, that it was thought these specimans were of Asian origin, whereas i thought the human species were thought to be of lower Africa, Lucy?
Thank you, Earl, for making the effort to look at the PLoS Genetics article. The oldest date suggested for primates was about 85 millions years–that is older than the 60 million years, or so, that has been a commonly held guess. Both a bit more than 6,000 years, of course. And, of course, much older than "Lucy" in Africa (less than 6 million years back.
One of the most interesting to me is the very long separation of tarsiers from other primates. They are now found only in Philippines, Sulawesi (Indonesia), and Borneo (Malaysia & Indoonesia), although fossils from about 40 million years ago are found as far away as southern Germany.
There is a lot there to digest, Earl. It is pretty cool that ancestral tarsiers and lemurs go back that far and are recognizable as similar to surviving forms. But also, the first specimens of each surviving lineage occurred mostly at different times, and some of the specimens are not like any surviving lines.
I think we just have to use whatever information that can be found to try to figure out when and where things happened. I think this paper gives a good glimpse of how that process works. Again, Earl, thanks for having a look at the paper. Similar papers exist for elephants, whales, horses, and many other vertebrates and invertebrates. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to consider.
Make of it what you will, but remember that it is there when someone proclaims that there is "not a shred of evidence."
To do honor to the title of this bog, this time I will approach from a “prophetical” point of view. My apologies to the experts and to non believers. I don’t come from a religious background and theology became to be a “hobby” latter in my life.
If I have to express in a nutshell the SDA believes I’ll use revelation 14:6.7. This text has been the cornerstone since the genesis of the SDA church, (few years before the publication of Darwin’s book).
Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”
The last universal divine message to mankind calls specifically to worship God not because is good, great or merciful redeemer, but because is the Creator. Intriguing indeed.
Furthermore the sentence “made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.” Is the longest sentence word by word barrowed from the Old Testament in the book of Revelation and is coming from the 4th commandment “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”
Is possible that God knew that His distinctive characteristic was going to be in question just before His second coming?
Is just pure coincidence the genesis of both movements appeared almost simultaneously?
Excellent point, David! Keep it up. I am glad you are not giving up. When I was baptized, nearly seven decades ago, all Adventists held tightly to the doctrine of creation. I never dreamed that one day there would be thousands of Adventists trying to prove that the doctrine of creation is a myth and that we can trace ancestry–not to Adam and God–but rather to an ape or an amoeba. The Devil must be having a field day with this great apostasy from the true faith.
Earl, and others who are interested, you might find the following paper interesting. I'll provide info for access to free full-text access.
Lindblad-Toh, Kerstin, et al. "A high-resolution map of human evolutionary constraint using 29 mammals." Nature (27 OCT 2011)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7370/full/nature10530.html
[more of the abundant nontrivial evidence]
Joe, you did question the resurrection of Jesus. You have the right to do this, but you need to admit that if Jesus is dead, then there is no hope for any of us nor for those millions of martyrs who chose death instead of denying the fact that Jesus did come back from the tomb and is alive. It would have been rather easy for them to admit that Caesar was Lord, but this would have been a recognition that Jesus was not the Lord of their life.
The faith of Abraham was not dependent on Jesus' death, nor were all the patriarchs before Jesus' time.
How did Jesus' death make it possible to save mankind? Does that not mean that all those before that time cannot be saved? And what about the millions who will be among the redeemed who never heard of a man called Jesus?
Nic, Elaine, and all. I must admit to being skeptical of what many believe about Jesus, his death, its meaning, etc., but an important part of my questioning and concern has to do with the story of "the fall," and the origins of mortality, the "sinful" nature of humanity, and on and on. I'm just not a very spiritual person, and, to me, the story of the life, death, and resurection of Jesus is quite mysterious.
One of my problems is with the various detailed concepts people have about this mysterious story–with the seeming to know things that they cannot really know. Much of the meaning people see in this story seems artificially injected, that is, made up. So, my attitude is this: Believe whatever you wish (you will anyway); but please don't tell me I "need to admit" something just because that is what you are able to believe.
Joe, you wrote: " I'm just not a very spiritual person, and, to me, the story of the life, death, and resurection of Jesus is quite mysterious."
Yes, the life and mission of Jesus is mysterious, but theologians have made it even more mysterious than is needed. I do not believe that God demanded that his Only Son die in order to grant the Lord the right to forgive sins. The Angel Gabriel predicted that Mary's Son would sit on David's throne forever. This evidently did not take place! Why? The answer is quite simple: There was another prediction stating that he would die. Both predeictions were contingent on human response. The future of Jesus was in the hands of the Jewish leaders, and they made the wrong choice.
Good points, Nic. Above all, it seems to me that people make Christianity far more complex than it needs to be. The message of Jesus must be, I think, simple enough to be appreciated at least as much by the poor and illiterate as by the wealthy and intellectually sophisticated. That message is, I think, "God loves you. You are free. Treat others as you would like to be treated." That is enough, and there is no need to over intellectualize the basic message of Jesus.
People will always "see" and interpret what they observe or read. This is what humans do: process new information and then determine where to file it or in the trash can, particularly, if it is contrary to their predetermined beliefs.
Joe,
The story of the "fall" is all part of the belief in Jesus as the One who can remove that curse. This is why both are intimately connected. Like you, I cannot believe in this concept but it is inherent in Christianity which is why discussion of mortality, the fall, and the need for removal of the curse is the essential story presented by Christians.
Rather than the depravity of man, I prefer to accept that the majority of people are living lives that are of service to others and exhibit that care. It is only the few that live life's of violence and depravity that sells newpapers and TV ads.
You see what you look for.
I wish to thank my good friend Nate for his interesting comments on these three quotations. It is not often that one gains insights into the thought patterns of someone by reading how they evaluate certain concepts.
First off, I’ve found that Nate’s sometimes lovable qualities are often shrouded over by his rhetorical gifts. I was going to say rhetorical excesses, but, of course, those excesses are what give them their most fascinating, if questionable, quality.
Nate suggests that these quotations are “excellent examples of liberal fundamentalism.” And then states his understanding of the principal characteristic of liberal fundamentalism. In his view, it involves “adolescent, sneering condescension toward those who question the conventional wisdom of your scientist clique.”
I must admit puzzlement with Nate’s comment in that he apparently has determined that the standard dictionary definitions of “liberal” and “fundamentalism” are inadequate for his purposes and thus he has determined to use this coined phrase to apply in a kind of generic sense to anything to which he takes an instinctive dislike.
This is an excellent rhetorical strategy since it provides an appearance of being balanced by opposing both “extremes” of fundamentalism.
I was going to cite the dictionary definitions of “liberal” and “fundamentalism” taken from some standard scholarly source. However, I forgot that, first, Nate has already decided not to use the conventional meanings of those words and second, I suspect that he would consider any scholarly source as being under the control of a “scientist clique.”
However, in the next segment of this topic, it will be instructive to consider the interesting point Nate has bought up about the possibility of there being “liberal fundamentalists” and what to reasonable people that phrase might mean.
I wonder if Nate may mean by "liberal fundamentalists" what I have sometimes called "reflexive" or "mindless" liberals. I have sometimes felt betrayed by people who professed to be proponants of environmental conservation or animal welfare or evolution, because, despite their support, they seemed to know so little about the topics and seemed unable to discriminate between evidence-based positions and unsupportable extremes. A colleague I admire urged that I not be too hard on those who were inclined to mostly do the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons. He had a good point, but it seems to me that those whose support for anything is mindless or reflexive leave something to be desired.
I'm trying very hard to find a way of making Nate's concept palatable, but he does seem to use "liberal" in some sort of pejorative sense that may rule out almost anything thoughtful, considerate, sensible, or evidence based, so I'd better let him speak for himself. I already seem to rub him the wrong way, whether I mean to or not. His rhetoric is so reminiscent or Spiro Agnew. I wonder if that is deliberate.
Joe and Erv –
No, "Liberal" is not necessarily pejorative, though "fundamentalist" is. "Liberal" has become a confusing term, because "liberal," in the sense of being to the left on the political spectrum, bears little resmblance to "liberal" in the classical sense of openness to new ideas and new ways of thinking. I am really indebted to Fritz Guy – hardly a conservative – for the term "liberal fundamentalist." He has observed that there are both liberal fundamentalists and conservative fundamentalists. And I think there is a cluster of similarcharacteristics associated with both. I have not heard Fritz Guy define either, so my characterization is largely intuitive.
By prescriptively using the dictionary, Erv, you definitionally render the phrase "liberal fundamentalist" oxymoronic. To me, the principle characteristic of a fundamentalist is reasoning within a closed world view, the limitations of which the fundamentalist is very reluctant to acknowledge. This tends the fundamentalist toward arrogance and dogmatism when confronted with challenges to his conclusions. He insists that his conclusions are based on universal reason and logic rather than on a priori assumptions. Fundamentalists often misrepresent the position of their opponent to divert attention and set up a straw man argument.
In fact, Erv, you just did this. You spun my words – "excellent example of liberal fundamentalism" – into "principal characteristic of liberal fundamentalism." Those are two very different things, as you certainly realize. But, by subtle morphing of what I actually said into something I did not say and do not believe, you attempted to render my statement an easier target. I doubt that you were even conscious of what you were doing.
In debate, conservative fundamentalists try to invalidate liberal positions by attacks on their motivations, piety and orthodoxy. Liberal fundamentalists try to invalidate conservative positions by attacking the motivations, intelligence and morality of conservatives. Both seem oblivious to the reality that personally denigrating one's opponent or the group with which he/she identifies is intellectually vacuous. You can readily see, Erv, that the three quotes from you that I used have absolutely no intellectual content and advance no substantive idea. Yet they obviously made you feel smug in your own world.
Of course we all regrettably do this from time to time. But for the fundamentalist, it seems to be an addiction – a habit of the mind. Somehow, denigrating those who are of a different "religion" makes the fundamentalist feel more secure in smug, knowing self-righteousness. And I don't see much evidence that liberals are less prone to it than conservatives.
Isn't it interesting that the ressurection of a person and the 'evolution' of the first cell both are very similar events. They both unvolve the conversion of non-living matter to living cell or cells. Yet one is deemed science and the other supernatural.
In my view they are both supernatural because the probability for both events (occuring naturally) is basically ZERO.
Thank you Peter! This is the point that I have been trying to articulate…or insinuate…in this forum for quite some time!
Nate says: "By prescriptively using the dictionary, Erv, you definitionally render the phrase 'liberal fundamentalist' oxymoronic" Precisely. I rest my case. Nate's phrase "prescriptively using the dictionary" is a dead giveaway. I thought that is what a dictionary is for, to be prescriptive based on the best usage in an educated population. But that won't work for Nate. I'm guessing that the views of an "educated population" are what he views as another example of an elitest "clique"
Peter and Stephen, from above:
Peter:
"the ressurection of a person and the 'evolution' of the first cell both are very similar events.
In my view they are both supernatural because the probability for both events (occuring naturally) is basically ZERO…
Stephen: "This is the point that I have been trying to articulate…or insinuate…in this forum for quite some time!"
May I suggest you are both falling prey to Hoyles Fallacy, and a false understanding of Borel's Law.
You should rather examine the Law of large numbers.
We have probably all seen the creationist maths sequence where they take the "chance" of the formation of the first cell or the like and work out its mathematical chance of taking place.
You will find they use the example, and give the answer to the power of 10 etc, as though "one" coin, or sequence was being "flipped" at a time. ie, one or two precursor acids, or whatever, in one puddle. Doing this they can end up with probabilities so low that people like Peter and Stephen can be sucked right in.
What they do not do, is calculate using a method that is more likely accurate: Millions or billions of "coins" being "flipped" at once!! If you want to get a highly unlikely sequence, requiring a vast number of flips – just get the population of China flipping coins, and you will have your sequence pronto!
May I suggest you two let this sink in: The Law of Large Numbers is important because it "guarantees" stable long-term results for random events.
To say the likelyhood of a resurrection and the first cell are equally near zero is absurd. The cell is not Zero, and LLN suggests an outcome can, perhaps, will happen.
Resurrection! Why do you put it above zero? You are saying that a simple cell, probably far simpler than we imagine, has the same chance as a complex organism defying all laws of nature and coming back to life is equall? Surely, there is an infinitely greater chance of the former than the latter! So, if you are going to put "resurrection" above zero, you better follow logic and put a simple cell way up the scale!
If you want a detailed read on these, look up LLN, and also see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Chris,
I actually understood Peter to be saying that the chances of non-living matter spontaneously converting into a living cell (or cells), as well as the chances for all of the dead cells of a totally dead human being revitalized (by voice command at that) are both “basically ZERO.”
It is apparent to me that you perhaps heard him say something else entirely.
Was it Humpty Dumpty who said that "a word means what I choose it to mean"?
During the Scopes Monkey Trial, H. L. Menken is reported to have said ""No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." A corollary of that is “Never underestimate the gullibility of the American public.” Many will agree with both of these statements. However, groups or individuals whose intelligence and/or gullibility is being questioned usually belong to a group whose opinions are different from the individual quoting and applying such statements. We are intelligent and not gullible. It is always someone else who is less intelligent and/or gullible.
mmm, and he had a great fall…
Here's a great link illustrating order from disorder..read down part way the paper clip and bolt experiment:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/design.htm
Spiro Agnew not in same um league as Chief Nate. Spiro, him speakum with forked tongue, Chief Nate, him have golden tongue.
Timo, perhaps Cain's problem with Abel was not just bringing the wrong sacrifice, but insane jealousy of a younger sibling being constantly praised, and him having to do all the heavy work. Similarly, perhaps Lucifer, being the gorgeous knockout, excelling in all the arts, able to sing all parts of music simultaneously, being lauded by all the lower class angels, jealously demanded a seat at the table. When refused, he silently brooded, and when the Father gave Jesus the authority to put Lucifer in his subordinate place, all hell broke loose, Lucifer sealed his doom, and mankind has been paying the price to this day. We find the probation period hard to understand, and the resultant carnage of billions of years, however, God being eternal, the time frame of man is almost no time in God's being.
Back to blog theme. If man is the result of a random quirk in space disorder, because a phylogeneous protein, somehow "miraculously" appeared out of the whirling, swirling primordial swamp, whoa-o-o-o, just a moment, did i say "miraculous"? uh, uh, that can't be, that would be supernatural, hmmmm.
Earl, you are a kick! It is really nice getting to know you. I agree with you that Chief Nate has a way with words. I often have the illusion of knowing what he means even without understanding the words he chooses. I want to thank Nate for contributing to my badly needed continuing education.
Earl, I'm more inclined to use the term "fortuitous" than "miraculous," but maybe there is not so much difference, other than whether scientists feel like they are following the rules of natural science….
I'm guessing that a very small minority of scientists, even evolutionary biologists, have read recent reviews of evidence and thoughts regarding pre-life chemistry as related to emergent life biochemistry. I'm recommending the following source not as something I uncritically accept or believe, but as an example of some current evidence and thought–to be read and given due critical consideration, not as some sort of "proof text." Once again, it seems to counter the assertions about there being "no evidence" to consider.
Irene Chen & Martin Nowak "From Prelife to Life: How Chemical Kinetics Become Evolutionary Dynamics." Accounts of Chemical Research 45(12):2088-2096, 2012.
You can google either author + publications and get a list of pubs, many with PDFs, including this one, or search the title or go to the following:
http://www.ped.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/publications_nowak/ChenAccChemRes2012.pdf
It is pretty interesting reading.
My view is that I need more faith to believe in the explanation for origins advanced by Darwin and his followers than what the Bible claims regarding the origin of life and the universe. I am ready to thrash the Big Bang, the belief in Singularities, the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy for which there is no observable evidence. All these theories are needed only if we ignore the fact that there is a Creator and Designer who is directly responsible for what exists.
Believe whatever you can. You probably will want to avoid reading anything that could threaten your faith. When you say "no observable evidence," of course, you actually mean that you are unwilling to observe or consider any evidence that might exist, especially if there is any possible conflict with whatever you already think you know. "There are none," it has been said, "as blind as those who refuse to see." [not intended as a proof text]
Joe, you wrote: " you actually mean that you are unwilling to observe or consider any evidence that might exist"
No, that is not what I mean. What I mean is that based on the evidence and the interpretation of said evidence pro and con, I lean towards creation instead of macro evolution.
"I thought that is what a dictionary is for – to be prescriptive, based upon the best usage of an educated population."
Erv, your fundamentalist proclivities are popping out all over. Now you muster them in support of regressive, authoritarian linguistics. At the risk of sounding dogmatic, Erv, you could not be more incorrect. You would find few lexicographers who agree with you, and no logophiles. You refuse the same evolutionary freedom to language that you dogmatically impose on science. What's with that?
Dictionaries are more useful for their descriptive insights than as prescriptive enforcers. Words are important, and become part of our lexicon because of the meanings they convey to listeners and speakers – not because someone decided to put them in a dictionary. We would have no Shakespeare had the bard viewed language as you seem to, Erv. This is really quite rich. Your comment suggests that you believe in intelligent design when it comes to language. I think you've got both your evolutionary theory and your linguistic theory backwards. Random mutation and natural selction is much more evident in language than in nature.
The "educated population" is not necessarily an elitist clique. I am very highly educated, and I disdain elitism. People only tend to form and join elitist cliques when they are seduced by beliefs and ideologies that are out of touch with common sense reality and experience, and want to use those beliefs to control the lives of others.
I seem to have touched a raw nerve by using Fritz Guy's epithet – "liberal fundamentalism." I realize that "fundamentalism" per se is not the topic of the blog. But it might be helpful for you why it is that labeling your comments "excellent examples of liberal fundamentalism does not reveal a truth that has merit, and should be taken seriously. Are you really trying to defend the three quotes I highlighted a couple of days ago?
This is where I must quote my old friend Ted Parks. Ted Parks says "They don't put all the words they know in the dictionary."
"I am very highly educated, and I disdain elitism." That, in itself, is rather rich…. The "logophile" part rings true.
Nathan, you said: " Random mutation and natural selction is much more evident in language than in nature."
That is a great statement I fully agree with!
[I didn'tmean to use bold type.]
Nate: "I am very highly educated, and I disdain elitism." I wonder Nate, if you would care to nuance that a little?.
Nathan,
"I am very highly educated, and I disdain elitism. …
People only tend to form and join elitist cliques when they are seduced by beliefs and ideologies that are out of touch with common sense reality and experience, and want to use those beliefs to control the lives of others."
I think it is possible to be so seduced within our own thinking that we cannot even see our own elitism. Similarly, we can rub shoulders so long with such types that natural selection and mutation within our thinking processes render self assessment impossible. In other words, we can be blind to what is clearly obvious to others.
Chris, you might want to substitute "intellectual inbreeding" for "natural selection and mutation within our thinking processes." It is ideological and intellectual inbreeding that makes honest self-assessment less likely. And of course, the fact that someone disagrees strongly with what seems obvious to you or me doesn't mean they are blind. It may simply mean they have looked at the evidence, assayed and prioritized it differently, and reached different conclusions.
Joe, this was interesting "From Prelife to Life: How Chemical Kinetics Become Evolutionary Dynamics." Accounts of Chemical Research 45(12):2088-2096, 2012, but offered no evidence of chemical kinetics producing a digital code with abiltiy to replicate.!!!! Not even close.
Joe thanks for you suggestion. I could write a long commentary but I’ll refrain my self to a few words:
So, the judgement is in from those who rapidly read the review and all the references it cited. Others I heard from disagreed with these assessments and found the piece interesting and useful. Ah well. Not surprising….
As alreadyu suggested by Elaine, it appears that Nate subscribes to the Humpty Dumpty School of Linguistics. As Humpty expresses it: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less." Thus "fundamentalist' and "liberal" — or any other word for that matter– can mean anything that Nate wants those words to mean based on what these words should, in his opinion, mean. No wonder Nate feels that he wins every argument!.
Isn't communication remarkable?
I don’t read that rapidly, but what I read carefully. I read some references. For example: “ the non enzymatic formation of nucleotides”. That was news to me; I have teaching biochemistry for last 3 decades and I was not aware of that. My question was if that really happens in the natural word? As far as I know. No! I could go on and on even with more complex molecular specifics but will be boring to the readers.
David, I'm guessing that you know more about biochemistry now that you did when you started teaching it. We live and learn, don't we?
I'm not arguing for the nonenzymatic formation of nucleotides, because I have no real relevant knowledge about that. I'm just advocating the consideration of evidence and/or ideas from people who do have detailed understanding of such matters. No uncritical acceptance, please.
David, let's not put ourselves in adversarial positions. We are both honest people. I'd be interested in knowing more about you and your life and experiences. I can't find out much about you, or read any of your publications, because I do not know your last name. Anyway, even though we are coming at a lot of things from different directions, I appreciate your comments and wish you well.
Joe 🙂 biochemistry: In some areas probably I know much less than before and another I hope a little more. It is a full time effort to keep up just in a small area of my interest.
The respect is mutual and maybe some day we will see each other.
David. Warm wishes to you. I hope we will have a chance to meet face to face at some point. Better sooner than later. I live in south-central Pennsylvania, but I sometimes travel. Where would I be most likely run into you?
I don’t read that rapidly, but what I read carefully. I read some references. For example: “ the non enzymatic formation of nucleotides”. That was news to me; I have teaching biochemistry for last 3 decades and I was not aware of that. My question was if that really happens in the natural word? As far as I know. No! I could go on and on even with more complex molecular specifics but will be boring to the readers.
Peter I saw your comment “In my view they are both supernatural because the probability for both events (occurring naturally) is basically ZERO” producing some lengthy replies.
Your point is valid because the key words “ the probability for both events occurring naturally”. Up today science can’t replicate neither of both the events.
David,
Are you saying that the probability of either evcnt (the ressurection of a person and the 'evolution' of the first cell) occurring naturally is equal?
Second question: Which would you say is most likely to occur, the evolution of a first cell from preexisting matter within the universe, OR the existence of a God with neither cause nor anticedent?
I’ll ‘play’ Chris. It is, in my admittedly theistic view, infinitely more likely that a preexistent Intelligence with neither cause nor antecedent would be a reality than that preexistent matter (by definition, without cause or antecedent) would evolve into the “fearfully and wonderfully made” Homo sapiens; that’s for sure. (Not to mention, the intricacy and complexity that we witness elsewhere in our world/universe.)
But then again, I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician (that’s for sure).
cb25
I see no basis here for assigning any probabilities. I'd guess that the odds of life developing on earth from any kind of origin, natural or not, are pretty long. And yet, here we are. That is about as certain as anything (P = 1).
What is the difference between zero and zero? The probability that a single cell came out of nothing is zero, and the probability of the resurrection is zero. How can we say that one zero is greater than the other? Can one zero be greater than another zero?
We have no basis for assigning such probabilities as you are suggesting. What is the probability that life on earth exists? P = 1.00 I don't really understand the concept of assigning probabilities in a spiritual realm in which we have no physical measures. At all. We sometimes have enough data on measurable physical phenomena to calculate probabilities. If we believe that there is nothing other than a physical realm, I could see someone asserting that the probability of something originating naturally if it exists at all would be P = 1.00, but all this is very speculative and I think the concepts of "zero" and of "probability" are muddled beyond recognition in your assertion. That said, it is fine for you to believe whatever you believe. Trying to cloak that belief in some sort of mathematical or science-sounding terms adds nothing.
"…it's fine for you to believe whatever you believe. Trying to cloak that belief in some sort of mathematical or science-sounding terms adds nothing."
And precisely what, greater than nothing, does that disdainful comment add, Joe? It is such a puerile, immature taunt! Third graders are more honest and direct. They simply say, "You're stupid!" One of the more remarkable features of the AToday dialogue is the reticence of conservative commenters to employ the snarky put-downs to which liberals incontinently resort. Such comments are usually appended to the end of otherwise substantive, interesting observations. It feels like the intent is to make sure that the reader understands that the relative convincing force of the argument is less important than the "obvious" superior intellect and/or moral development of the commenter.
Since the liberals are offended by Fritz Guy's phrase, "liberal fundamentalist," I wonder what phrase they might use to describe comments reflective of a mindset that cuts off discussion with haughty, dismissive contempt. Talk about adding nothing! What would your response to Nic have lost, Joe, had you simply shown the class and restraint to delete the last two sentences from your comment?
Nic,
Advice for a defense lawyer is to pound on the table when the argument is weak.
Also, do I understanding correctly that, in addition to pounding the table, a defense lawyer with a weak case needs to speak louder and use snappy (if irrelevant) comments?. This would also seem to be the case with a clergy person in a sermon with a weak argument. He will speak louder and pound the pulpit.
Ervin,
Can you not appreciate Nathan's frustration? The pride of a feeble mind wraped in consescending arrogance can be suffocatingly stiffling. Nate is feeling it.
Hi Philip, I should not take that comment personally about "The pride of a feeble mind wraped [sic] in consescending [sic] arrogance can be suffocatingly stiffling…," right? No problem. I have a thick skin and a strong stomach and am a grown up. Wishing you well. Nate too.
Hi Joe, I thought that Philip's comment was addressed directly at Nathan… I was trying to respect the blogging rules and resisting saying "amen", but maybe I got it wrong.
I should say, I don't think Nathan lacks any intelligence. I do think he risked self diagnosis with this from above as a possible possessor of:
"….beliefs and ideologies that are out of touch with common sense reality and experience, and want[ing] to use those beliefs to control the lives of others."
And now Mr. Schilt is advising me on restraint. But, I still think it is fine for Nic to believe whatever he believes.
Unless I missed something, I don't recall anyone suggesting that Nate or Joe had "feeble minds." I think it is helpful to recall that intelligence is not a good variable to use to explain why someone holds a particlar view. I know strict fundamentlists (using that word as defined in a standard dictionary) who are very intelligent. It's their assumptions and world views, not their intelligence, which is, in my view, highly problematical..
Nic,
You have apparently interpreted Peter’s observation in the same way that I have.
To Joe’s point, it seems to me there is a reason when things of zero possibility or chance nonetheless have happened.
We are here.
Has any resurrection occurred? That is, has a completely dead person (a corpse) ever been resuscitated and revitalized? If so, then ‘the case’ is closed.
I would think that by definition nothing has ever happened for which no possibility existed.
If any corpse ever was resurrected, then that phenomenon was possible, and might occur again.
Now, has that ever happened? Some believe it has and others don't. Some would require very clear documentation in order to believe, while others could easily believe oral or written reports.
But even if something has never happened in a way that is fully documented, we cannot be absolutely certain it would never happen. Something can be very, very, very unlikely without being assigned a probability of zero–tantamount to claiming it is impossible.
We are here. How or why we are here, we can guess and we can believe we are certain, but we cannot be absolutely certain in the sense of making a convincing objective case.
We are here, and there is not a real consensus as to how we got here; that much is a given.
What should also be a given it seems is that—whatever the chances that preexistent inorganic matter has evolved into us—there is no chance that a completely dead corpse can be revitalized by voice.
If it happened, and might/will happen again, it is only because a supernatural Omnipotence has and can perform the naturally impossible; and can do so by merely speaking.
The only question is has it happened? Christians believe that it has; and that this is/was the proof of God’s existence. It is ultimately a matter of belief.
But we should agree that if it has happened, this would represent irrefutable proof.
mmm… "whatever the chances that preexistent inorganic matter has evolved into us—there is no chance that a completely dead corpse can be revitalized by voice."
Take a 6 sided dice & roll it once, what is your chance of a 5? Do it six times, you'll have a good chance of getting a 5.
If there were a squillion places on earth where molecules were forming simultaneously, the chance of getting a good, protein-producing formation is dramatically increased. Of course, we cannot know the variables, volumes, etc, but neither can we exclude them.
What is important here, is that we do know many of the laws of nature, and, at least on the micro evolutionary level, no one denies that formation and change happens from within variables. Also the weight of natural selection favors certain outcomes over others, thus potentially reducing the odds yet further.
It's a fact of statistics that as the number of opportunities for an event to occur increase, the chance for even a highly improbable event can become a virtual certainty.
Now here's the point re your sentence above. Excluding your "voice" option: what variables do we know about the possibility of a dead corpse coming to life? Scientifically speaking, there appears to be none. The laws of nature dictate against it. Evolution dictates against it because evolution only ever suggests small changes over time. Changes effected, and affected, by the "weight" of selection and environment. To speak of a corpse coming to life is the exact opposite of suggesting a small protein chain, or amino acid formed.
Has the number of "oportunities" for a dead corpse rising increased? Yes! Every death does so. However, the variables have not increased. Not that we can ascertain anyway. Since the first person died to the most recent, there appears to be no change in the laws of nature, the environment, etc. Thus, the "chance" of a corpse coming to life remains the same as if one person or a trillion had died. It is like tossing a dice once and hoping for a 5. The difference is that the number you are hoping for does not appear to be on the dice!!
Yes, the "voice" could be the number you are looking for, but which way do all other indicators point?
Yes, if it were to happen, it would be fantastic proof. It is such a shame that to date there is not a shred of verifiable evidence that the laws of nature have been interrupted in such a manner.
As you do not consider Biblical/canonical writings to be evidence of anything historical or factual whatsoever, you have arbitrarily erected a personal bar; which is your personal prerogative.
In other words, that which is verifiable to you is completely up to you. You regard the Gospel narratives as fairytales; which it is your right to do.
The point that you seem to grudgingly acknowledge is that if a resurrection of a dead corpse (as if there is any other kind), by voice—as in those of Lazarus and Jesus the Christ—has taken place, it would represent “fantastic proof” (I take that to mean undeniable proof) of the existence of the Omnipotent; or at least of an Intelligence infinitely more knowledgeable about nature than we are..
(By the way, it isn’t my “voice option.” I did not write the narratives.)
Actually, I suppose we should be carefull as to what we interpreted such an event as "proof" of. There may well be scientific reasons/causes for such, that we are as of yet unaware of.
It certainly could be a pointer in the God direction, but it could also be the "God of the gaps". Thunderstorms used to be "proof" of God's existence and activity once! There may come a point in time at which even a resurrection can be explained with clear data. Thus, if someone did rise from the dead, what in fact does it demonstrate? It would certainly be "proof" it can happen, but how/why/what would be open.
As for the narratives. You didn't write them, but some other human did. Most of whom had relatively little scientific understanding, and thought the storm was enough to prove God was hangin around! Now you need a resurrection. (for example) What in 2000yrs time?
C’mon Chris! Dead is dead! Please understand, I’m not arguing that these resurrections occurred. I cannot persuade you against your will.
However an argument that the resurrections that are described in the gospels, if true, would not represent undeniable and irrefutable proof of God’s existence is itself not credible.
Let there be :)) Peace :)) in the valley :)) some day :)). Does God ever smile or laugh??
Earl, I love the words to that good old song. I can almost hear Red Foley singing it…. And I recall singing it as a duet in the little Prescott, Arizona, church, about 53 years ago (I was the teacher of grades 1-8 in the SDA school–and now this is triggering thoughts of the students and wondering how their lives developed).
Many smiles for you, Earl…. Also, David, Chris, Nate, Elaine, Stephen, Nic, Erv, and others. I feel and hope we are all friends, each in his/her own honest way.
Absolutely, Joe! I freely admit to being somewhat contrarian, and to loving robust exchange of ideas. I hope that the testiness I exhibit toward what appears to me as snarkiness or drive-by "shootings" is not off-putting. It is not intended personally. I strongly believe that ideas should be dealt with on their merits – not on the basis of who is advancing them (Believing the inverse is the hallmark of an elitist.). The need to remind readers of one's intellectual or religious bona fides, or to attack the perceived lack thereof in others, generally strikes me as a sign of exasperation – an expression of frustration that this format (blogging) sort of levels the playing field.
I appreciate that frustration. I generally find that the experts I utilize in trial – and even my physician clients – have far more impressive c.v.'s than those of experts retained by the plaintiff"s attorney. I often wish we could try the case by simply weighing the respective c.v.'s. But I can't do that. I hope that, when the jury sees the superior qualifications of my expert, they will be predisposed to give his/her opinions greater weight. But it is ultimately my expert's ability to persuasively analyze data and communicate complex information to an audience of lay jurors that will win the case. It would be unthinkable for a trial expert to display personal haughtiness or smug arrogance toward the other side, or to personally disparage the intellectual honesty of the plaintiff's evidence. That would be suicidal – at least if the goal is to persuade.
I am loathe to engage in the psychopunditry to which some folks default in order to avoid dealing with an argument. But I can't help wondering what motivates some commenters and bloggers to indulge in self-defeating comments, that only elicit cheers from the choir, and turn off any open-minded reader (myself, of course, being the prototype of an open-minded reader (lol)). And I am a bit frustrated that, rather than offering an explanation or justification for the comments that prompted my protest, Erv and others have attempted to divert attention to the issue of whether fundamentalism must be narrowly confined to a religious movement, or whether it might also more broadly connote a demand for strict adherence to any system of belief or ideology. If the latter definition is reasonable, then can't we all acknowledge that liberals, as well as conservatives, are vulnerable to fundamentalist temptation
Nathan,
Thank you for setting the tone for an honest intellectual exchange without skirting the issues or off-the- cuff [drive-by "shooting"] comments.
Yes, I agree Nathan. I can not understand how, regarding fundamentalism on both sides, how you were not just stating what obviously true. I can't see what the fuss is really about?
As an example of a "drive-by shooting" comment, may I note Nate's comment that he is "loathe to engage in the psychopunditry to which some folds default in order to avoid dealing with an argument." His example of "avoiding" and "divert[ing] attention" is my simple hope that we can use words which have some agreed-upon meaning in the way in which they are defined. I assume he would call that an example of "psychopunditry."
If Nate wishes for us all to agree that liberals as well as conservatives are vulnerable to the temptation of displaying "personal haughtiness or smug arrogance toward the other side," he certainly has my agreement. Now that we have that settled (I hope), what is the fuss really about?
Dr Taylor asks: "what is the fuss really about?"
———–
My answer would be that ‘liberals’ won't readily admit that they are often just as fundamentalist as some conservatives – and perhaps even more extreme at times in their rigid adherence to their beliefs and convictions which is largely governed and driven by their field of expertise or vocation and their socio-political standing. In my opinion they are constantly in denial of this.
Normal definitions of liberal and fundamentalist mean the term "liberal fundamentalist" is an oxymoron. Seems to me that Irvin is spot on: Anyone who has smug arrogance or the like toward the "other side" displays an anacceptable attitude, but I think those who want the label to beat their "liberal" opponents over the head should find a more defendable weapon. Reason would be good.
22, have you not shot yourself in the foot above?
eg "…their rigid adherence to their beliefs and convictions which is largely governed and driven by their field of expertise or vocation and their socio-political standing."
Wow, yes. Have you ever tried to argue with a mathematician that 2+2 does not = 4? Have you ever had them adhere rigidly to their convictions, based on the fact that it is their field of expertise, that you are WRONG? Ever called them a fundamentalist, simply for trying to point out your error? Of course not.
It does seem strange here on AT, that so often people who are experts in some field or another are howled down by those who are not expert in the field. And when these folk persist in reasons why they hold their conviction out comes the name calling: Liberal Fundamentalist!! blah blah ….etc.
No, seems to me the fuss is that you guys like the term because it enables people to look at the pot and call it black to deflect the need for self assessment.
Dear cb25, but if a mathematician who is correct in the 2+2 arithmetic stuff, as per field of expertise, would then go on and rigidly insist that his belief and support in something like evolution theory is the right one and extrapolates its many assumptions and non-empirical metaphysical views and philosophies as scientific fact, then that is as fundamentalist and one can get. I was not questioning the real science stuff of the experts. It is their assumptions that they are right on the non-empirical stuff too. They conflate both fact and fiction and insist that they are one.
You side-tracked in your argument by accusing me of questioning factual provable stuff like the 2+2 sum but failed to take notice that I wasn't talking about real empirical science stuff but the philosophical bias force fed into it.
For example: Let's get your mathematician out of the classroom at La Sierra who rigidly believes, teaches and supports evolution theory. He insists that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. He is aware of the fact that scientists have established that the Earth's rotation is gradually slowing down, even at a fraction, but slowing down nonetheless. If this rate of slowing down was constant for the 4.6 billion years, then a much faster rotating Earth would have had major problems with at least frequent daily catastrophic occurrences with regards to the ebb and flow of sea tides. Now I'm sure our mathematician will be very accurate (and correct) in his 2+2 calculation of the speed of Earth's rotation eons ago but to ignore the implications of such a calculation and holding to a philosophical belief does qualify him as fundamentalist in this regard. Thus their accurate mathematical calculations are marred by their fundamentalist worldview and belief which I might add is also largely due to indoctrination.
It is therefore the philosophical assumptions they believe and accept as fact which they are fundamentalist about. It is this belief system that is fundamentalist. They, of course, will religiously say that their beliefs are right. It is also an undeniable fact that evolutionists believe they are right.
Yes, I will admit getting shot in the foot; but it was from your drive-by.
What about the moon gradually moving away from the Earth? Yes, empirical science will calculate the distance and rate accurately (your 2+2 argument). Then they go and ignore the implications of noting that, at the rate they have calculated, the moon would have been dangerously close to Earth a couple of billion years ago. In denial again? Methinks so!
Oh brother, just go read some good scientific data on the moon, the theory of its origin, the evidence for it, how long ago, the implications of it being "dangerously close". How that may have affected earth, and so on…
"In denial"? where on earth do you get your information from? AIG perhaps? Or is it the All Bl**#!…Nonsense chanel?
Just because one can run a bunch of words together to sound like a good argument, does not make it so.
"…evolution theory is the right one and extrapolates its many assumptions and non-empirical metaphysical views and philosophies as scientific fact"
….?
Dear cb25
You are repeating David N's mistake. Evolution is not about abiogenesis. It is about how life has changed through natural selection over time since it arose.
Perhaps you can give a list of philosophical assumptions…oh, but hang on, those are "assumptions" about "origins", and evolution is not about that, so what is your point?
Perhaps I could begin to sound stubborn, frustrated, and authoritarian. Perhaps even arrogant. But let me, at risk of doing so, say it again. Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis. Did you get that, or shall I say it again.
Creation is a theory of abiogenesis. Evolution does not need such a theory. We are here; that is where it begins its work. It only sets out to explain how life has evolved over time.
….last line was intended to mean "we are here, as in the sense of "life is here, on earth."
….last line was intended to mean "we are here, as in the sense of "life is here, on earth."
cb25, you stated: "Evolution is not about abiogenesis."
Please read the following:
Pasteur and Darwin
Charles Darwin in 1879.
By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Louis Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."[11][12]
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[13] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[14] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Pasteur_and_Darwin
Nic, if you like wikepedia, read wiki on "evolution", and note that abiogenesis is a different subject. What you write above is a survey of that topic, not evolution per se.
Chris and Nic, there is a lot of interesting stuff on evolution and abiogenesis on Wkipedia. I recently read the entries and took note of what you quoted. I urge people to be careful about what they claim cannot be.
Dear cb25,
Ah, so evolution is not just about survival of the fittest: It's about arrival of the fittest too?
Perhaps I should express a few thoughts stimulated by the discussion above. My goal as a scientist has been to gain an increased understanding of the biology, behavior, and natural history of humans and other animals. I have especially focused on the primates and other mammals, but have worked some with vertebrates.
I do not see evolution as being very much about "survival of the fittest." That phrase seems to suggest a kind of perfectionism (and a level of combative competition) that does not seem to me to reflect reality. The reality, it seems to me, is that functionally adequate individuals and populations survive. Those that are functionally inadequate survive much less well. Sometimes relative superiority conveys some advantage, but other times, not so much.
It isn't all about competition. Cooperation can also be quite important. I see in evolution much more adaptation to environmental variation and opportunistic entry into, and exploitation, of ecological niches–and the consequences of such adaptations into niche separated populations, and eventual separation into populations that no longer interbreed, that is, are reproductively isolated from each other.
It seems to me that variation occurs at every functional level of organization, and, to the extent that is so, the potential exists for selection as adequately or inadequately functional (not to ignore that selection can be positive or negative, and even neutral).
Most scientists are not focused on evolutionary processes all the way from the beginning of what we might call "first life." Most of their efforts are on some era or some taxonomic group. Those who study the natural history of elephants of canines or primates are not likely to have a deep knowledge of the origins of single-cell life or thoughts and evidence regarding early multicellular organisms.
It probably is not quite accurate to draw a bright line between studies of evolution of DNA-based life and possible pre-DNA chemistry. The existence of an "RNA world" prior to the development of DNA-based life has been suggested and experimentally studied for more than 40 years–in which ribozymes, rather than enzymes, were critical participants.
And I think it is really misleading to think of the world and universe as totally chaotic prior to the origins of DNA or even RNA. Haven't chemicals always had some orderly physical structures and some physical characteristics that enabled nonrandom patterns of interaction? It would be inaccurate to say that nothing is known about how things might have been before life as we know it began. Thousands of experimental studies of these issues have been conducted and reported, and many are freely available on line.
Now, none of this needs to threaten anyone's faith, and I do not offer this information as a challenge to your faith. But I do think people of faith should not set themselves up for disappointment by specifying the way God must have, or must not have, done things.
We, who have been raised in the adventist tradition, should be able to appreciate, that, as a people, we have repeatedly set ourselves up for disappointment, and there is a sense in which disappointment can be a self-inflicted wound.
Sorry for the typo. The last word of the first paragraph should have been "invertebrates."
Stephen, you said: "Has any resurrection occurred? That is, has a completely dead person (a corpse) ever been resuscitated and revitalized? If so, then ‘the case’ is closed."
What is the probability that Jesus was resurrected? According to modern science: Zero! According to those who witnessed the event: 1.
Similarly, what is the chance that the universe, creating all energy, matter and laws of physics, suddenly came into existence out of nothing? To borrow an argument used by both atheists and deists alike, depending on the circumstance, there probably is no statistical analysis able to explain this remarkable event and the circumstances of it – we just know it happened because we are here.
What then are the chances of it happening again, in a new 'heaven and earth' (i.e. new universe), sometime in the future? We probably don't really know, but again both theists (think of Pierre de Chardin) and atheists (thinking of Dawkins and Hawkins and their multiverses) seem to accept the possibility if not probability.
So with these mysteries, of creation out of nothing, and a new future creation, why are we so dogmatic to outright reject things based on the little sandbox we live in here? No one is talking about the resurrection of old bodies in the way many might be thinking, insofar as the scriptures themselves make clear that the resurrection involves new 'heavenly bodies', as if a fish could understand the body and environment of a bird.
Science can't tell us about that future any more than it can tell us about the past re what existed before the Big Bang, because as science is based on observation, there was nothing to observe – not even time and space itself! Within that context the resurrection is not as crazy as it sounds – certainly no crazier than some of the last cosmological theories of award-winning atheist scientists.
I guess I would agree that we are pretty sure that we and our universe exist now, but I'm not so sure anyone really thinks that anything came from nothing, or that anyone can be sure that there was ever a time when nothing existed. I feel pretty confident that everything (or even something) did not come from nothing.
Name one person who actually witnessed the Resurrection.
You completely miss our point about the Resurrection, Elaine (which is unusual for you). The point is not to prove there was a resurrection, but that if there was—especially one wrought by voice command—we should at least agree that this would have constituted unmistakable, irrefutable, and undeniable proof of the existence of the Omnipotent.
Speaking life back into an inanimate corpse is something only the Omnipotent could/can do.
May I respectfully suggest that Elaine does not miss the point. It is interesting that there no eye-witness to the event recorded in any of the Gospels or the even earlier letters of Paul. One would think that if there was such, those documents would be the first to record it. I am not arguing for or against the Resurrection as a historical event. But it relevant that scholars who study Paul's writings (which of course are the earliest writings in the New Testament) note that Paul never argues that Jesus came back to life in a body that was like the body he had when he died. It is clear that Paul's vision of Jesus, the only time he says he saw Jesus, is not of Jesus in a physical body. Paul saw Jesus in a visiionary context. ..
With respect, Dr. Taylor also has conveniently missed the point about resurrections in scripture. For sake of this particular discussion, it is irrelevant if they occurred or not. The point is that if they actually did occur, we should at least agree that this would represent proof of an Intelligence and Power infinitely greater than ours.
If we cannot agree on that, then to Nathan’s point to Elaine below, it would not make a difference (to those who would not agree) whether there were dozens of eyewitnesses to these events or not; because nothing would suffice as evidence.
Ah, Timo. Great to know about your daughter's work and interests. Many psychologists are interested in cetacean mammals, and many marine biologists are also interested in psychology (especially neurobiology and behavior and cognition, not so much psychotherapy). Although, who knows what she is doing on purpose. Or did you say she works on invertebrates? That's fun and interesting too!
I suppose one can speculate endlessly about what existed before everything was spoken into existence, but if nonlife existed before life existed, does it not seem fairly likely that there was nonliving chemistry? I don't think I see anyone suggesting that everything came from nothing, or am I wrong about that?
In the absence of any witnesses, there cannot be evidence. So yes, if it was proved beyond all doubt that there was once aliens from outer space who abucted citizens, there would be more than claims. But for those who need no evidence faith is needed; and if there is irrefutable evidence, no faith is needed.
"But for those who need no evidence faith is needed; and if there is irrefutable evidence, no faith is needed." That is really not how Science or Spirituality work Elaine.
We have faith in the up and the down quarks, not because we have direct observation, but because of the evidential inferences are so strong that we know our faith is secure in there existance. The same is true with God and The Resurrection of Jesus. If God however, overwelmed us with evidence then there remains no room for choose. So the way God regulates the knowledge of Himself keeps us free, but provides enough evidence that if we are not affraid to believe then we can.
As Pascal put it, “willing to appear only to those who seek him wih a;; their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, he so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who don not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have contrary disposition."
Tennyson capures one way to understand the relationship between faith and evidence in "The Ancient Sage" 1885
"For nothing worth proving can be proven, nor yet disproven: wherefore thou be wise my son, cleave ever to the sunnier side of doubt."
If we abide by the strictist interpretation of the word 'evidence,' then the above is good advise, for for strictly speaking we can not prove anything.
I think this "critique of pure reason," unreasonable. I believe we really can know things, and somethings are logical extentions of what we do know–Faith!
Well, I reckon God needs a new "regulator" because there's a darn lot of people down here looking for his effects and finding none….
The answers to this, of course, are found in Jeremiah 29:13 and Hebrews 11:6.
Oct 22 1844
“Ah, so evolution is not just about survival of the fittest: It's about arrival of the fittest too?”
That is comical! I had a good laugh… Well don’t be surprise; some people will consider all possible alternatives how life began in earth except GOD. Already the most well know of them, the vociferous Dawkins, in one interview gave the credit to “green ET”. So what is next the “Grinch”?
Confusing subjective belief with objective evidence shows the paucity of logic in one's mental capacities. Or, is it a lack of studing logic and critical thinking?
Respect is due those whose belief does not demand others accept their subjective reasons. While those who expect others to accept their subjective beliefs as objective evidence for everyone are living in an illusory world.
Critical thinking?
Let see, miss using that umbrella, some people express a lot of thinking with paucity of been “critical” and others a plethora of criticism with little thinking.
Religious tenets are neither true nor false. They cannot be proven or disproven. Allegory and metaphor are the realm of religious discourse. Allegory and metaphor is how the unknowable and the unexpressable are addressed. Religious views are held not because they can be verified, but because the meet the needs of the adherent.
I am a believer in the story of Christ, his death and resurrection, and his teachings. Not because they are "true" in any verifiable sense, but because I like them. It's an allegory that reveals a concept of God that removes him from the realm of super dad. Christ spoke of God as love. In this chaotic universe where planets, stars and galaxies are continually being destroyed and created by the great mix master of gravity, there is a something that is not affected by laws of physics, gravity, or other forces. It is knowable in my heart and life
May I suggest that if the view of "Bugs" about he nature of religious concepts (i.e., they are neither true nor false in any objective or scientific sense) would be widely accepted, it would go far to reduce significantly a lot of unneccessary theological bickering that we see here and in similar venues.
How can something be "neither true nor false in any objective or scientific sense"?
In the sense, Stephen, that science has no tools to examine religious/spiritual tenets/concepts. Religious experience is subjective and cannot be forced into objectivity. Even events described as real in scripture are largely past verification. But if one can accept and sustain religious belief, even just because it fulfills needs, why would I object? I can't know what someone believes, and only object if their behavior is unacceptable.
In response to Mr. Foster, would he be so kind as to tell me if a Shakespeare's sonnet or Mozart's Requiem is true or false? When he does that, I might be able to answer his question.
The fact is Dr. Taylor it was your statement; was it not? I was simply asking for an elaboration on it, or an explanation of it.
While fictional literature is not objectively true; works of art are all true art, aren’t they? Is this what you intended to communicate?
Jesus is/was not a work of art.
"Name one person that witnessed the resurrection"
"In the absence of any witnesses, there cannot be evidence"
Am I missing something Elaine? Perhaps I've just spent too much of my life hearing juries instructed that circumstantial evidence is entitled to as much – often more – weight than direct evidence.
Would it make any difference to you, Elaine, if there were eye witnesses? Which of the many witnessed miracles reported in the Bible do you believe to be true?
By the way, in view of your new standard of proof – eyewitness testimony – I'm curious… just who has reported witnessing evolution?
"Respect is due those whose belief does not demand that others accept their subjective reasons."
Who do you know, Elaine, that expects you to accept their subjective beliefs as evidence? Now that would be illusory! The only ones I know are those who have political power. And last I knew, you love it when they impose their subjective beliefs on me (Oh yes, I forgot…my bad. There I go – "confusing subjective belief with objective evidence.") I'm beginning to understand, Elaine. Would it be fair to say that the best default position for us conservatives, if we want to avoid exposure of our mental deficiencies, is to accept what you, and other bien pensants on this website, say as objective evidence-based belief? If so, I guess it is perfectly reasonable for you to expect others to accept your beliefs, right? Makes perfect sense!
And why would you say that respect is due to someone simply because he doesn't demand that others accept his subjective beliefs? It sounds nice, but it makes no sense. Would you respect a racist or a sexist person simply because he didn't demand that you accept his beliefs? Do you really think that individuals should not try to extend their values – their subjective sense of truth, beauty, and justice – beyond themselves? By your broad generalization, everyone who votes is living in an illusory world. And to tell you the truth, I'm actually far more impressed with, and respectful of, those who are humble enough to realize that most beliefs are a mixture of objective and subjective evidence – of truth and error. It is those who do not accept this reality that inhabit an illusory world – a world that insidiously endangers freedom and tolerance in the real world.
i believe open space is eternal. Much of it empty, with no edges, and reaches outward from our galaxy in every possible moment. God has Almighty power, and forever, to create and manage, to experiment, with a never ending resource. Think about it, we see through the lens of the Hubble, awesome actions, reactions, constantly changing & reformulating, for what possible reason, as man thinks? It is impossible for man to have any understanding of the Creators thoughts or plans. What appears from what we see is chaos, raw awesome unspeakable power, power that contains the ingredients for the continued filling of SPACE, with myriad types of atmospheres, that make possible abodes for intelligences or robotic creatures that serve the intelligences, and of creations that only God can envision. Who knows? i don't, but believe all is possible with God.
"I believe open space is eternal"
Actually I believe it is finite in size, with finite time. It was actually created in a Big Bang.
The universe is just another creation. However, it was a 'supernatural event' because it was ultra-natural – outside space and time, because they did not yet exist. It was an event above science, because the scientific method could not be used to observe something that cannot be observed.
In fact, the singularity in the centre of any black hole right now is actually 'supernatural'. If we can observe supernatural events and places in the universe today, why do we limit ourselves in thinking them not possible elsewhere and in other times?
Those facts actually point to a Creator, and terrifies many atheist scientists so much that they come up with all weird theories about multiverses to explain the unexplainable.
I personally think there there is non-historical, wholly-philosophical case for Trinitarian Christianity. Whilst we seem to be caught up in historical-critical arguments about God and Jesus, they aren't the only way to look at this issue. People hold deep philosophical beliefs, and always have, which cannot nor ever can be 'proved' in a scientific sense.
Religion fulfills a deep human need. We can debae all we like where it comes from, but no self-righteous, self-important, professed enlightened-atheist, whether it is Richard Dawkins or otherwise, is going to remove that from the human condition. Like the 2 stories from the Life of Pi, we have two alternative narratives when it all boils down – one with a loving creator God and the other without one. We can't ultimately prove either so it is actually a choice.
If you want to chose the narrative without God, which I find as being without hope, and can live with that, then good for you. Just don't rain on my parade – even if you think it a delusion.
Joe: "I'm not so sure anyone really thinks that anything came from nothing"
Sorry, are you disputing creation ex nihilo? I thought that was actually scientific orthodoxy today?
"A widely supported hypothesis in modern physics is the zero-energy universe which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. That is the only kind of universe that could come from nothing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_ex_nihilo#Modern_physics
"I feel pretty confident that everything (or even something) did not come from nothing."
On what basis do you feel confident? Your own subjective belief perhaps, rather than objective evidence?
Stephen, to me Space is emptiness until filled with something. A empty bucket is full of space until filled with something.It could be full of air or inert gas, or solid objects, with a lot of emptiness, just as outer space appears, thanks to Hubble. Am i missing something? This is not illusionary, we are real, reality is not a vaccuum of nothingness, it is just infinite emptiness until filled. Also, i'm not certain there was a big bang, micro to macro, or the need for a big bang.
Stephen, I agree with Earl on the notion that space is eternal and endless. I came to that belief from conversations about God being eternal and everlasting and infinite with my older brother when I was about 7 years old. To some, it may sound like the concept of a seven year old. Others claim that the human mind is unable to hold such a concept. So, for me, the idea did not come from physics or philosophy, and nothing from physicists or philosophers has made more sense to me than that. I hold the concept gently and tentatively, knowing that I could encounter evidence that would falsify this concept at any hour of any day. I also see space as being occupied with matter when it is and having the potential of being empty. So, it seems to me that if there is an edge to space containing matter, beyond it is probably space not containing matter.
At the same time, the farther away something is in time and space, I suspect, the less knowable it is, and maybe also the less relevant. I imagine that there was a Big Bang, but I doubt that there was nothing before that.
So, yes, this is mostly just childish and innocent subjective speculation, and I have no interest in defending it as anything more than that. My original speculation was based on being told that God had always existed and always would. My brother and I wrestled with trying to understand that concept.
Critical thinking?
Let see, miss using that umbrella, some people express a lot of thinking with paucity of been “critical” and others a plethora of criticism with little thinking.
Is abiogenesis absolutely necessary for evolution? Or, are they just conveniently separated so that evolutionists can easier defend their position? Like blisters (natural selection) showing up 'after' the work (abiogenesis) is done? How convenient is this belief?
Here's a quote from Darwin's most high priest who is being reasonably honest and rational about this here. He makes no attempt to distinguish between the two (abiogenesis and evolution) in terms of evolution theory concerning origins:
I would posit that evolution belief is an acquired school of thought, yes, I agree, though gained through educational systems yet overtly propagated by indoctrination.
Evidence:
HH: Did you ever believe in God, Richard Dawkins?
RD: Of course, I was a child.
HH: And when did you put off your foolish belief in God?
RD: When did I put away childish things?
HH: Yes.
RD: At the age of about fifteen.
HH: And under who’s influence was it?
RD: I suppose it was the influence, not of Darwin directly, but of the education in evolution that I was receiving. Hugh Hewitt Interview October 21 2009
How does education, especially for those who brag about their educational prowess (which I find commonplace amongst evolutionists – even in their humblest of moments) give us a higher understanding and reasonable explanation in terms of the 'luck' that natural selection presupposes? Is that not evidence of being intellectually dishonest?
Here's what Darwin's most high priest has to say:
Are Christians who suffer evolution indoctrination or perhaps dabble with it in some enchanted way, (like those attending the Evolution Weekend celebration), more prone to evolve their belief in God and the Bible? Answer: the fact that they (Christians) are largely represented at this gathering speaks for itself. These have allowed force fed evolution indoctrination to evolve their belief in God. Many may eventually be led to embrace Atheism.
A good example of Christians migrating, is Dawkins – and someone like cb25. Churches which have accepted evolution in terms of origins as fact are in my opinion those who harbour an atheistic undercurrent or attempt to hide their [atheism] in brackets. In my opinion they have, or ascribe to, a ‘form’ of godliness; but deny the power thereof.
― Charles Darwin
— Charles Darwin, Autobioography, quoted from Nick Harding, How to Be a Good Atheist (Oldcastle Books, Herts: 18 October 2007), page 37
Earl: "Stephen, to me Space is emptiness until filled with something."
Joe: "Stephen, I agree with Earl on the notion that space is eternal and endless. I came to that belief from conversations about God being eternal and everlasting and infinite with my older brother when I was about 7 years old. To some, it may sound like the concept of a seven year old."
I think you'll find that modern science (upon which Christianity theology has agreed for the odd 2,000-years via the doctrine of creation ex nihilo) that the universe is not eternal and endless.
First of all the universe is not eternal. It had a start date of around 14 billion years ago to go with the latest scientific consensus. What was before that – nothing – no space-time itself! There was no time before time.
Secondly, space is not endless – not even the so called 'empty' space. There isn't just space that goes on, and on forever. The universe is finite size and is either growing or contracting (depending upon what theory you adhere to). Note, it isn't just the matter, light and 'stuff' that is growing and contracting, but space-time itself (i.e. including the 'empty' space).
As Bill Bryson explains:
‘Now the question that has occurred to all of us at some point is: what would happen if you traveled out to the edge of the universe and, as it were, put your head through the curtains?
Where would your head be if it were no longer in the universe? What would you find beyond? The answer, disappointingly, is that you can never get to the edge of the universe.
That’s not because it would take too long to get there—though of course it would—but because even if you traveled outward and outward in a straight line, indefinitely and pugnaciously, you would never arrive at an outer boundary. Instead, you would come back to where you began (at which point, presumably, you would rather lose heart in the exercise and give up).
The reason for this is that the universe bends, in a way we can’t adequately imagine, in conformance with Einstein’s theory of relativity (which we will get to in due course). For the moment it is enough to know that we are not adrift in some large, ever-expanding bubble. Rather, space curves, in a way that allows it to be boundless but finite.
The analogy that is usually given for explaining the curvature of space is to try to imagine someone from a universe of flat surfaces, who had never seen a sphere, being brought to Earth. No matter how far he roamed across the planet’s surface, he would never find an edge.
He might eventually return to the spot where he had started, and would of course be utterly confounded to explain how that had happened. Well, we are in the same position in space as our puzzled flatlander, only we are flummoxed by a higher dimension.’ (emphasis added)
http://www.huzheng.org/bookstore/AShortHistoryofNearlyEverything.pdf
Thus, the universe is no more endless than the surface of the globe is endless. The earth, like the universe is limited, of finite size and age, but of course in proportions that boggle the human mind.
If seven-year old Joe got this wrong, about the same time he gave up belief in God, then what other assumptions may he be mistaken of in his professed certainty about the nature of existence? Perhaps the god Joe chose to give up belief in is actually a lesser sort of god I don't believe in either?
Stephen, my mind is boggled! Thank you for the cosmology tutorial on theretical models of the universe.
But, seriously, the limitless mental model of the universe held by little "seven-year-old Joe" was inspired by belief in an infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing, creator God. And little Joe did not doubt His existence. In fact, little Joe became adolescent and young-adult Joe, and his faith grew and began to mature in many ways. He studied the SDA versions of religion and theology and science, and became a "literature evangelist" and an elementary school teacher. He met and talked at length with many people from various faith traditions. He attended religious services of many faiths around North America and Europe. And he came to see much more validity in a generalized Christian faith tradition than in a highly defined sectarian perspective.
That somewhat "more mature Joe" began to see the message of Jesus as a message of hope and liberation, and much more a message of love and tolerance of diversity than of narrow prescriptive dogma. He began to have a nagging suspicion that formal religion had become so institutionally compromised and fragmented that it no longer was a valid representation of the message of Jesus–that the valid message was pretty simple. That the true message really had to be simple enough for anyone to understand and accept if it was internally valid. That intellectualization, including reading and studying manuscripts in original languages, and such, was irrelevant to the basic message of Jesus.
Even so, the "maturing Joe" continued to have faith, and one of his favorite scriptural promises was that "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." It seemed to the "young adult Joe" that there was a sense in which giving serious consideration to all evidence that could serve as a window on authentic reality (i.e., approximation of "truth") should advance one's freedom in the sense promoted by Jesus. These thoughts were occurring within a context of returning from army service in Europe, marrying his academy sweetheart, returning to college, and generally confronting a much wider world than that of little Joe.
In the wider world of the maturing Joe, many earlier held concepts were falsified. Some of these were very personal. Some were emotional and others intellectual. But the landscape that emerged was one of diminishing trust in concepts and authorities that had been readily accepted by "little Joe." Learning more about experimental methods and science and statistical inference and probablistic thinking all added perspective on ways of evaluating the extent to which evidence adequately represented authentic reality. While all this did not result in a rejection of God, it did lead Joe to formally sever his relationship with the SDA church at around age 30.
Long before that, however, he became aware that theoretical physicists and cosmologists had proposed models of a finite universe of a rather specific configuration. He did not really reject that concept, and does not even now. It just seemed (and still seems) quite remote from anything that matters much to him. And "Old Joe" holds his feelings about eternal space quite gently and tentatively–in many ways, much as he holds the impression that there may well not be any such thing as a spiritual dimension or domain. The "Old Joe" recognizes that he does not know, and suspects that he cannot know, whether or not there is a God in any sense of the term.
Old Joe does recognize one sense in which God is very real. God certainly exists as a concept that influences the behavior of humans. S/He may exist in as many senses as there are people who harbor the concept. But in terms of objective and authentic reality, Old Joe doubts that the God concept held so long ago by Little Joe, has much validity. And yet, who is to say how valid any God-concept is for anyone else of any age? Old Joe's best guess is that all gods are inventions of the human imagination, but he is quite aware that he could be wrong about that.
Very interesting Joe. I was with you, including your leaving of Adventism, until right at the end you seemed to accept God only a some form of mass human God delusion. I am still fascinated though that you remain convinced that space it eternal, despite the scientific consensus saying quite the opposite, but then at other times relying on science to support your various ideas, including doubts about the existence of God.
For me personally, I don't believe in gods and agree they are mere creations of the human mind, because they are things that either do or do not exist in space-time. Even when you and I are long dead, we will still 'exist' in space-time in some sense – located in the past. But the thing we ascribe as 'God' is something raddically different.
'God' (and you can use a different term) in my view is the thing that existed before existence, was before there was time to describe a before, being before there was matter to allow anything to be considered a being. In that sense, God does not and cannot exist, because only things in the created universe can exist – including 'empty' space which is still 'something' of space-time. This is why ancient theologians of multiple faiths use to only describe God in the negative tense. We can speculate about what God is, but in reality we can never ever know. We are much better though as guessing what God isn't, rather than what God is.
Now can you be so certain that you don't believe in that God, which actually doesn't exist (being outside space and time) but is still real?
"Convinced" and "certain" are stronger words than I would use (even though I guess I have used those words in the past). It would be more accurate to say that I "suspect" that there is no end to space in any direction. It seems to me that "time" is just a concept that expresses changing relational spatial arrangements among two or more objects–so one could imagine "time" existing wherever more than one object exists. There is a kind of "unity" in black holes (as I imagine them without having much, if any, knowledge in cosmology or theretical physics). Anyway, without claiming to be CERTAIN there is no God, I am pretty certain that I do not believe in God–at least in the sense I was taught that he existed. Further, it is important that you understand I make no claim at all that you must, or even should, see things the same way I do.
So, I can sort of see why one might arrive at the idea that before God did anything at all, He existed alone in a vacuum or black hole, with time beginning when God allowed something other than himself to exist. That is sort an appealing concept, although it seems speculative, at best.
We certainly disagree about the "hard wired" belief in God or gods. I think that could be true only in the sense that our brains seek to relate various pieces of information to other pieces of information with attribution of causal relationships. While this is quite useful for many purposes, it also often fails to be accurate, leading to superstition and magical thinking–which are quite common elements in religions.
Thanks Joe I respect what you said and how you said it. This line of discussion may be exhausted, but I would only add:
'There is a kind of "unity" in black holes…'
The point of my comparison is to black holes is merely to note that there are a bunch of atheist scientists who don't believe in God, yet are happy to believe in black holes, which are effectively outside space-time, cannot be observed using the scientific method (rather only their effect can be observed), and are 'supernatural' and 'do not exist' technically insofar as they are places where the laws of physics cease.
And yet no serious astropysicist denies that black holes are real. Why then are people more certain (even if you are just suspect) that God doesn't exist? God is essentially 'OTHER', and black holes give us a real-life glimpse into that Other.
'I am pretty certain that I do not believe in God–at least in the sense I was taught that he existed.'
I wonder to what extent there are two separate concepts hear that people commonly confuse. There is a belief or disbelief in the God, being transcendant I AM, which is to say the OTHER, which actually can't by definition be defined, and which by definition doesn't 'exist' because it/she/he exists outside of the physical laws of the universe.
By contrast, there are human perceptions or descriptions of who or what God is like, which admittedly does exist in a large degree in the minds of human beings. Religious people argue that revelations as to who or what God is are 'inspired', but even if one rejects that, it doesn't necessary prove God doesn't exist. It only proves that perception or description of God is wrong.
Similar to that, we need to distinguish lesser deities, like gods, and the transcendant I Am, which is the OTHER. Paul tried to make this discussion to the philosophers in Athens, noting his God was not just another mere God but the unknown God. The Jews have not been the other people to come up with this same transcendant Other, but they described it best in the notion of Yahweh and their prohibition of graven images.
'He existed alone in a vacuum or black hole'
Yes but not exactly. Even an empty vaccum is 'something', composed of space-time and subject to the laws of physics. God was before even the empty vacuum came into existence.
Instead of saying God was in a black hole, one could say that a black hole provides a glimpse into the realm of God, which is outside the created universe of 'existence'. Funny enough, thousands of years ago, people use to see stars as gaps in the fixed, hard dome of the firmament, looking into heaven. In some ways, they weren't that wrong, with black holes being the real 'windows of heaven.'
Adventists might also find it interesting that Ellen White in vision saw heaven through a black hole! Obviously God was showing things her human mind probably couldn't fully understand, but it is interesting.
'That is sort an appealing concept, although it seems speculative, at best.'
That is the deference between science vs theology and philosophy. I obviously make no claims to scientific proof of God, what existed before and outside the universe, or what is on the other side of a singularity, because those places and events are all before space-time and the laws of physics, so the scientific method is completely useless.
These are 'supernatural' places, events and concepts, beyond science. Thus, it would seem more appropriate for those expert is metaphysics, rather than physics, to speculate about these things.
Funny enough though, atheist-scientists such as Dawkins, Hawkings and others have no problems with straying 'off their patch' into discussing these issues, even though they really are metaphysical rather than physical matters. Dawkins and Hawkings are happy to speculate that God doesn't exist because their is an endless cycle of Big Bangs through multiple universes. That would seem scientifically dishonest, in the sense of:
i) those are not 'scientific' questions;
ii) they are far more speculate than simply saying there is a God or Other that is the cause;
iii) don't adequately the origins anyway, because who then made the first universe and first Big Bang? Their multi-verses are nothing more than gods, where one asks, who made the first God.
The Jewish God I Am (with comparisons in Greek The Good and Hindu Brahman) isn't just a bigger version of us or a bigger god like Zeus sitting on a cloud. God is something entirely different, the 'Other'. That is why I said many theologians for thousands of years have only described God in the negative.
'We certainly disagree about the "hard wired" belief in God or gods.'
Yes we disagree. Without hardwiring, how do you explain so many deist people in the world? Why did the Soviet Union's decades of atheist propaganda fail? Why is it that even in secular countries in the West, where belief in organised religion is so low, that people still crave spirituality, which is often manifested in popular culture, whether it be in Vampires, Matrix, Superheros, Zombies, Witches and Wizards and Jedi Knights?
I am not making a moral judgment on that hardwiring. I am saying that even assuming religion is bonkers, you, Dawkins and other atheists are never going to 'win' the debate in convincing people to abandon religion, because it seems to be part of the human condition.
If you look Australian Aboriginal society, which is a link to our 'natural' pre-neolithic past as to the sort of environment we are adapted to live in, religion has an enormous part of their life and culture – the biggest part! God and religion is part of being human, even if you and a few other lucky ones have somehow evolved to a point beyond need it.
Stephen, with all due respect, it seems to me like you are over thinking a lot of this.
As you know, I do not label myself as atheist. Also, I am not in any way responsible for anything said or written by Dawkins or any other atheist (or anyone else, really). I do not have to believe what they believe or defend what they write. I admit that there is much I do not know. And I suspect that there is much I cannot know.
I feel suspicious of the claim that black holes are "supernatural." If the "laws" of nature do not apply to certain things, perhaps the status of those law concepts needs to be reconsidered. You know, the principles that are discovered by humans and labeled as "laws" need not necessarily be immutable. It seems wrong to claim that something is "supernatural" just because it does not conform with our concepts and understanding of what is natural.
But, it seems to me that we are way off in dreamland with all this speculation. You seem to be much more interested in physics and metaphysics and cosmology than I am. Not that there is anything wrong with that….
Joe, I would say that people (and I don't necessarily mean you) who are so quick to say there is no God, nor the possibility of metaphysical possibilities, such as God and afterlife, perhaps have not thought through these issues enough.
Using biology, psychology and evolutionary theory does not disprove whether a transcendant God created known existence, including the laws of physics itself.
I like cosmology and physics precisely because it doesn't seem to be as taineted by the culture wars as other areas of science. I also enjoy the nexus between physics and metaphysics that occurs in cosmology.
Again using the example of the black hole. You are in the realm of physics beyond the rim of the hole. When one passes the point of no return from the gravity well, the laws of physics, including space and time, start to break down. At the event horizon itself, nothing exists – not space, not time, not 'emptiness' and no 'laws' as you describe them – you are beyond science and in the metaphysical realm.
I am not saying God is exactly like that – just using black holes as a simple analogy to challenge preconceived notions that science can tell us all the answers. I also want to challenge the notion that people who believe in metaphysical things outside physical reality must be crazy or ignorant, because in black holes we have a real-life example of metaphysics before us.
Stephen, first of all, please note that I am not one of those who claims to know that there is no God. I wonder what "thinking through" these issues is. It seems to me that there is no end to the "thinking through" that can be done, but it also seems to me that beyond some extent of thinking through there are diminishing returns in terms of improved understanding–that it becomes vain.
Just a thought regarding "laws." I'm just making this up, not drawing it from a dictionary or textbook, so bear with me. It seems to me that a "law" of nature is usually thought of as a statement or principle that is both generally and specifically accurate. And often, it seems, that we may also mean that it is universally valid, at least in the natural world.
So, if it turns out that a principle is generally true and specifically applicable, and then we find that it is not specifically applicable to some circumstance or phenomenon, what do we make of that? Do we continue to accept that the "law" is universally applicable, or do we question whether what we thought was a "law" really is? It seems to me that we then would recognize that the assertion that the "law" was universally applicable (i.e., that it is really an inerrant principle) has been falsified.
What you seem to be doing is regarding iconic physical statements ("laws") as more authentic than reality, because you keep the law and discard the reality/naturalness of the phenomenon. You are imparting more power and authority to a concept than to something that seems to really and naturally exist.
I often see people challenging the notion "that science can tell us all the answers." But who in reality makes such a claim? I certainly don't, and I don't think scientists generally do. At the same time, just making up the answers is not a very satisfying exercise. It means that "there are more questions than answers," as has been stated often at the conclusion of scientific papers. It seems to me that we pretty much have to conclude that there will always be mysteries that have not yet been solved and for which no adequate scientific approach has yet been devised.
So, how can we know anything, and when will we know that we know? For myself, I am most satisfied with tentative answers based on tangible real world evidence. The more remote in time or space or theoretical speculation, without tangible evidence, the less applicable I find answers. But, maybe that's just me, and I'm quite confident that it isn't all about me.
God is like a black hole.
We know it is 'real' because of the effect it has on things around it. However, in some respect black holes do not 'exist' because they are places where space-time and the laws of physics break down, to the point that they no longer exist at the singularity.
Black holes are also 'supernatural' because they are outside of the physical universe as the laws of physics no longer apply. They are also supernatural because they cannot be observed using the scientific method, because there is nothing to be observed, and cannot be observed using the scientific method, as light itself cannot even escape.
The only thing we can observe in a scientific and physical sesne is the affect of black holes. In that sense, we can only really talk about black holes in negative terms. As to what might be at the end or at the other side of a black hole, scientists can only speculate, and they usually go from science towards subjects of speculate philosophy and theology.
And yet despite all that, who would today say a black hole is note true and real? Now how about the thing (I call it God but you can call it whatever you want), that was before the original singularity of the Big Bang itself?
Stephen,
There is some distance from the event horizon to the sigularity point inside a black hole. Black holes are of different sizes. Space-time is so warped around a black hole that energy [mass] cannot escape the event horizon but it does not suck in everything beyond its vicinity otherwise the whole Universe would collapse into a gigantic Black Hole. Physicists in general are more careful against extrapolation beyond ranges hence it is assumed that the Laws of Physics as we know them stop at the event horizon of a black hole. I hope other sciences show similar discretion.
Sorry yes. When I talk about non-existence of space-time in black holes, I was referring to the point of singularity itself. I acknowledge from the event horizon to the singularity, there is some distance, and space-time merely starts to be warped.
Your point might provide another interesting analogy to God – again I am talking about an analogy!
As you say, at black hole singularity, where the laws of physics stop and is outside of space-time. In the same way, God is actually transcendant, impassible and unknowable, as it says in the scriptures no one can know God and live (I'll leave Christology aside for the moment to avoid complicating things).
Things are past the event horizon but not yet in the singularity of the black hole are still bound by the laws of physics to a degree, but they start to break down. Things start to get weird and 'supernatural'. Time appears to stop. Observers see things differently from those subjectively experiencing them.
Similarly, being close to God produces a warping of our own physical existence. The laws of physics start to be warped, which people might explain in terms of miracles, whether it be say Christ's incarnation or resurrection. Time appears to stop in places. Observers see things differently from those who subjectively experience them.
Within that context, one can see notions such as miracles, like Jesus' resurrection, are not as crazy as they might first seem!
Stephen,
The Grand Theory that unites QM with Relativity has yet to be developed. Reality often are more amazing than fiction. Quantum tunneling allows particles to escape potential barrier higher than the energy levels of the ejected particles. Who knows physics as we know it might yet work out some 'tunneling effects' of black holes to allow the outside world to farthom the interiors of black holes. The knowledge of black holes are actually gaining grounds. Classical physics may 'breakdown' in describing phenomena near the speed of light but the law of physics extended to that realm in Relativity. To say physics breaksdowns at the boundary of a black hole is a cautionary statement that current laws of physics may not apply or need to be modified. I hope that discretion is observed by all branches of science.
'Reality often are more amazing than fiction.'
Thanks but I hope you are getting my wider theological as opposed to scientific point. It is that people are quick to say that God doesn't exist, and that metaphysical events are impossible, whether they be notions of miracles, life after death or Christ's resurrection.
But my point is your point – reality is more amazing than fiction. We should be careful in our arrogance in discouting belief in metaphysical events like Christ's resurrection as belief only for deluded luniatic Christian idiots. These same atheistic scientists want us to believe in thigs like black holes, worm holes, tacheon particles that travel back in time, the Big Bang and qantum physics.
As for your statement that the laws of physics extend to the boundaries of a black hole – ok. But what about at the actual point of singularity itself? Moreover, what about before the actual Big Bang – what laws of physics existed then?
This statement is false.
Roy, not sure which statement you referred to, are you speaking of "God is like a black hole"? If so, i agree with you.
Stephen, I can claim no expertise at all having to do with black holes or cosmology. I have a feeling that much of the information of such topics is highly speculative and that the realities are intelligible to only a few people. While I'm glad for you to find meaning in such things, I don't find much to latch onto there.
Roy, changing the topic a bit, do you have relatives in the Angwin area? I had a friend there long ago named "Cam" Campbell. who managed the college service station (Chevron) where I worked. I always wondered what became of him. It seems like he probably retired about 50 years ago.
Roy, which "false statement" are you referring to? Please let us know your understanding.
Are the attendees of the ‘E’ Weekend 2013: 1] Christians who accept evolution theory – or are they 2] Evolutionists who accept Christianity because they see religion as a natural product of human evolution? [Bold typeface taken from quote above]
The latter is what I think defines Theistic Evolution or Religion by natural selection.
An interesting question, 22OCT. Not one I can address, but hopefully someone can.
While there are some analogous parallels between the evolution of religions and biological evolution, there are probably very few really homologous parallels. But, think about how religions fragment and go off on tangents resulting in separate "populations."
Sectarian Christians leave their sects everyday. Some left Adventism other left 'Baptism'. Actually it is more serious than leaving the Baptist denomination if one does leave 'baptism.'
Stephen, do you mean spatial-time continum is all there to it in human existence? How do you account for other 'dimensions' of human exitstence? Do you mean Space-time is reality because the logic brain conceives and creates it in the same manner that man conceives and creates God?
Indeed Timo – nail on the head. I said God is 'like' a black hole, which is 'similar to but different from'. I am not saying God is a black hole – I was only making an analogy.
I find it interesting that people can so easily dismiss notions of 'supernatural' possibilities, whether it be say the notion of an afterlife or miracles, as outside known science and the laws of physics. And yet these same people have no problems admitting they acknowledge black holes, where indeed 'a black hole suggest that it is not knowable in conventional sense, as the nature of God is unknowable.'
Whilst Dawkins and Hawkings (and no, I am not necessarily putting Joe or anyone else in their group) are so certain in their disbelief of God, they are equally so certain as to the existence of black holes. I also totally agree with Timo's last comment. I think speculating about God is like speculating about what is at the singularity of a black hole.
We can't know for sure in a 'scientific' sense, because the scientific method can't work in those places, being places where space-time and the laws of physics break down. Speculation should and does occur, but such speculation is theological and philosophical in nature (i.e. metaphysical), not scientific. Again, I find it ironic that atheist scientists such as Dawkins mocks theologians as so much 'intellectual masturbation' but isn't his own speculations about multiple universes, what existed before the Big Bang, and what might occur at the singularity of a black hole, are not scientific observations but essentially his own metaphysial speculations.
All I am saying is if a rationale, scientifically-literate and sane person can believe in the possibilities of black holes without being accussed of a mental delusion, why should we not adopt the same openness to the possibility of other 'otherness' or 'metaphysical' possibilities, including God and resurrection?
There is some merit in being able to distinguish between objective reality and unproductive speculation. If we live in "castles in the air" some will have questions about our mental health. The next question is whether we pose a danger to ourselves or others.
Yes, there is irony in the world. At the same time, some people identify speculation as speculation. Others portray their speculation as fact. Personally, I don't think "mocking" anyone is very productive, even though it may be fun for the mockers. Ridicule is pretty much a critical strategy of last resort.
Joe: 'At the same time, some people identify speculation as speculation. Others portray their speculation as fact.'
Yes very true Joe. There are extremists in every group. I wonder if Dawkins, Hawkings and other scientists (which I know you are very different from you and your approach to issues) would consider their particular theories about multiple universes and the like as speculation as speculation or speculation as fact? It is one thing to speculate about God's existence or non-existence, but quite another to say the answer to that question, whether either in the positive or negative, is undeniable fact.
I am not 'certain' of God but 'suspect' there is a God in much the same way you seem to suspect there is no God but are not certain there is no God. When it all boils down to speculation, I personally choose to life my life by Pascal's Wager. I can't prove as fact God's existence or not, so I would rather live my life as if He does indeed exist, rather than the alternative.
Again, the message of the Life of Pi is pretty much the same, and I thorough recommend seeing the movie (or better reading the book) if one has not.
Yes very true and I agree.
Joe,
Falsification as a paradigm in science is a formalized show down of competing scientific theories subjected to the verdict of experimental outcomes. To falsify a theory is not to find fault with the theory but to force it to state the experimental outcome resulting from that theory contrary to the outcomes of competing theories. The verdict of the experiment(s) demonstrates which theory is supported by nature.
Could you explain how your young concepts were falsified? It is an interesting concept to apply a scientific paradigm to other areas of life. How is it done?
Sorry, could you possible translate this into English so some of us non-scientists might understand?
Stephen,
Joe should know what he was talking about when he stated his youthful concepts were falsified. When he answers my question we will both understand. Let us be patient.
Philip and Stephen,
This doesn't need to be made difficult or obscure. If we can just use the term "falsification" to mean "found not to be so" or "found not to be supported by evidence," that is what I meant. As an important example, I found that the stories of literal very recent origin of life (ca. 6000 years ago) and of a universal flood were not supported by abundant geological and paleontological evidence.
Although my first serious training in research design and experimental methods (under a bright young professor of experimental psychology) involved something close to indoctrination in the notion that we can only "know" things as a result of carefully (and, perhaps, perfectly) conducted experiments, it quickly became clear to me that formal experiments were not the only means by which knowledge could be gained, and that even "pre-experimental" measurements and observations and documentation provided bases for the hypotheses to be subjected to rigorous experimental testing. Further, it became clear that the extent varied to which various areas of science rely on formal experimental hypothesis testing.
I began to see that there was a remarkable array of evidence of various quantities and qualities (and apparent credibility) that directly contradicted (if I may say, "falsified") the "young earth" hypothesis (which had never been presented to me as a hypothesis, exactly–more as a statement of unchallenged and ultimate truth or dogma). At around this same time, I was learning about "authoritarian" belief systems and the epistemological problems of relying on "authorities" for information (in religion, politics, government, etc., as well as science). I began to develop a capacity for evaluating evidence on its merits, and to think in terms of probabilities, and, generally, to examine information without either accepting or rejecting it.
Across the years I have developed what I sometimes call an "evidence-based" approach to living and making decisions. This means to me, seeking information from all sources, experiments, surveys, observations, reports, opinions, whatever, and giving them due consideration. Lots of times there is not enough really strong information available, so one cannot have much confidence one way or another. Sometimes one has to make a decision anyway, so one just does the best s/he can.
I am pretty critical of scientific studies, whether they are pre-experimental observations, measurements, or surveys, experimental, quasi-experimental, prospective or retrospective, or epidemiological, in terms of the design, the selection of topics and contexts and materials & specimens and hypotheses and results and statistical analyses and discussions and conclusions and all that. Scientific research styles differ within and between disciplines and traditions.
So, anyway, it does not "take a rocket scientist" to see that the "young earth" dogma I was raised with is not supported by evidence. It is only supported by scriptural "authority," and even so, it is not even accepted as literally accurate by many otherwise religious people including their clerics–something I was also finding way back in the 1960s.
It seems to me that SDAs do themselves no favors when they insist that people accept concepts that are contradicted by essentially all the credible evidence. Many of the people who participate in AToday recognize that the "young earth" concept does not align with the evidence. In most cases this has not resulted in a rejection of a supernatural creator God. And I do not claim that God is falsified by evidence.
Philip, my apologies for the wordiness of this reply. I hope this is of some help. You are welcome to contact me directly by email if you wish to discuss scientific methods, and such. my gmail address begins with agingapes. Take care. Warm wishes. –Joe
Adventists on Darwin and Evolution, Part 1 [3-1-13 unable to post!]
Elaine, You wrote: "Name one person who actually witnessed the Resurrection."
I don't know their names, but there were soldiers guarding the tomb of Jesus. They were offered money to lie about what had taken place. Besides, Mary and the other women and Jesus' disciples did witness the death of Jesus and they talked to him after the resurrection. These disciples were so sure that he was alive following his death that they chose to die as martyrs rather than deny his resurrection!
Joe,
A scientific sounding expression does little to support one’s opinion. It is precisely to avoid cafeteria style of drawing scientific conclusions that the paradigm of falsification is most valuable although some sciences have difficulty with its rigor. It is only obscure when ignored.
Philip, you are correct that some sciences and scientists have difficulty with rigorous and formal hypothesis testing and really careful research design. Just because something is scientific, and done (or said) by scientists, does not mean that it represents some sort of ultimate truth (or even that it is meant as such by its author). We are all, in some sense, consumers of scientific information, and the expression "let the buyer beware" has some application here. We are responsible for evaluating the information we receive, but many of us are not adequately prepared to evaluate information.
To be fair, though, what one is studying has some influence on how it can be studied. Application of rigorous methods is easier in some fields than others, and what is acceptable within disciplinary traditions also varies. While rigorously designed experiments may yield very reliable and replicable results, those results may not generalize to the more complex and less controlled "real world." Some scientists opt for less precise and more generalizable study designs. We do not always (even often) have the luxury of randomly assigning real patients to experimental treatment groups. And the "participant observer" that is commonly accepted by anthropologists is often rejected by experimental psychologists as a "reactive arrangement."
One of my friends who is a PhD virologist/immunologist has several times confided in me that he never took any coursework in school in statistics or research design. Apparently, there have been many biomedical and other scientists whose training did not include this element, and the deficiency shows up when it comes to planning and evaluating hypothesis-driven research. Even so, this friend learned very rigorous bench procedures and laboratory notebook documentation.
One interesting window on this problem is the view from being a scientific journal editor responsible for conducting peer review of manuscripts from a range of disciplines. One quickly begins to find pretty big differences in the standards and methods of various fields.
One of my pet peeves is the conclusion reached by authors that the data "are consistent with" the hypothesis (even if they have failed to reject the null hypothesis of no difference between their hypothesis and an alternative or alternatives they may be seeking to discredit). Bah! And this is awfully common in fields like ethology, zoology, evolutionary biology, and "evolutionary psychology" (a subfield of anthropology rather than psychology).
Anyway, my point is that we need need to carefully evaluate what we read on its merits, and we need not (even, SHOULD not) embrace anything from any source too quickly or tightly. The quality of evidence varies dramatically. Examination of evidence from various sources can help us form a more complete and comprehensive understanding of reality.
A broad spectrum of information from such fields as geology, paleontology, anthropology, and the biosciences can be applied to the hypothesis that everything was created 6000 years ago. That hypothesis, taught to me as fact when I was a young person, has been falsified. As a "null hypothesis" one could assemble an array of evidence regarding the statement "the evidence that life on earth has existed for less than ten thousand years is equal to the evidence that life on earth has existed for more than ten thousand years." The null hypothesis would be overwhelmingly rejected.
Does that "falsify" God? Not at all. There are no tools in science to address anything supernatural. Does it falsify scripture? Only in the sense that it shows that the Genesis stories are not appropriately applied to provide precise information regarding the timing of "the beginning."
So, it will come as no surprise that I think the church and its members do themselves no favors when they make claims about God and faith and science that suggest that God MUST have done something in a particular way and any evidence to the contrary must be wrong. That is "putting God in a box." Science is useful. It can be relied on, to the extent appropriate. It should not be given more credibility than it deserves. Evidence should be given due consideration on its merits. We should equip young people with methods of evaluating evidence, rather than insisting that they reject well established evidence in favor of unsupportable dogma.
Joe,
I am still puzzled at the way you use the word 'falsified'. I suggest you use ordinary word like finding fault with or finding something to be false. It is confusing with scientific sounding word saying ordinary things.
Scientific rigor gains credibility. Yes there are a broad spectrum of different degrees of rigor among different disciplines hence different levels of credibility.
Hi Philip, well, hmmmm. What more can I say? I probably would not have used that word back in the 1960s when I began to access the abundant information in geology and paleontology that was inconsistent with the story of a 6000 year old history of life. Perhaps you do not consider all the strata and fossils tangible evidence, and maybe you do not see the recent origin of life as a hypothesis.
I guess I don't really know the origin or history of usage of the term "falsification." I'll have to see what I can find out about it. It is not uncommon for words to take on special meanings in scientific usage than they have in less formal usage, but I don't entirely understand why this word bothers you, Philip. Perhaps we understand the meaning differently somehow.
Does it not seem to you that reliable, tangible, real world evidence can "falsify" a hypothesis generated by religious belief? If not, why not?
Joe,
“That hypothesis, taught to me as fact when I was a young person, has been falsified.” How was the hypothesis falsified? Did someone altered the hypothesis to make it to say something other than what it was saying originally? Or do you mean the hypothesis was found to be false?
Your explanation will help me understand better that word in the context in which you used it. I can understand if a person falsified a document meaning he doctored it with untrue content. But to use that word in reference to a hypothesis in a scientific context confounded me. I appreciate your clarification.
Philip,
The hypothesis was found to be false.
This is the sense in which the term is most commonly used in science, I think.
I checked into that usage a bit. It might be helpful to look at the ways in which
Karl Popper used the term "falsification" in scientific epistemology.
I hope this helps.
Warm wishes.
Joe,
Indeed I hope you think hard on Karl Popper's paradigm of falsification.
A hypothesis remains a hypothetical conjecture to be tested. It can be shown to be true or it can be shown to be false with evidence at hand and in the statistics sense depending on the probablity of the test statistics landing in the critical rejection region. A rejected hypothesis properly carried out signifies the result of due diligence, it certainly beats theories that ignore the minicule probabilties of their realization claimed to be laws of nature.
Philip,
As an observer to your sharing back and forth with Joe, I'm a little confused. For others of us who are trying to follow your points, can you perhaps put in simple english what you are driving at?
Hope you don't mind Joe, but I just don't quite follow. I totally understand your use of falsification, popper etc, but Philip, you're losing me on where you are confused when you came back with that last point?
“The hypothesis was found to be false,” was what Joe meant the hypothesis was falsified. When you reject a hypothesis (or disproving it ) you do not falsify it. You just do not have sufficient evidence from data to support its validity. The only way to make falsifying a hypothesis make sense is to say what the hypothesis does not meant to say.
An example:
Hypothesis X: Effect of A equals effect of B. If the hypothesis is rejected (disproved), it was not being falsified.
But if someone says hypothesis X stated that Effect of A equal effect of C or some other statements deviant from the original hypothesis then that person may be considered falsifying hypothesis X.
Joe stated a hypothesis was falsified to mean it was found false. It cannot be the sense the word is commonly used in science. That is where the confusion lies.
Dear friends. I'm not so sure we are discussing this at the level of discourse where it began. While I suppose we could go deeply into arguments about philosophy of science, scientific epistemology, decision theory, hypothesis testing, research design, statistical inference, and confidence intervals, my statement was not that complicated. And, I should point out, back in the mid-1960s, I certainly was not going through any sophisticated hypothesis testing.
Philip, I'm feeling uneasy about asking what I feel I need to ask, but I will do so anyway. I'm not quite sure whether you are a professional scientist who conducts experiments and tests hypotheses, or whether you are getting your knowledge and questions from Wikipedia and other on line sources. It could be either way. The reason I hesitate to ask about your background is that I do not wish to seem or be authoritarian or elitist. At the same time, I respect your right to be as private as you wish to be, so I would welcome direct email correspondence with you. My contact address is "agingapes" AT "gmail" DOT "com."
Chris, I expect you took my original meaning. Sorry about getting into the jargon.
I was just saying that it became clear to me that the evidence I became much more aware of directly contradicted what I had been taught as an adventist growing up and at PUC–that life on earth was less than 10,000 years old.
Stated as a hypothesis, that would be: "Life on earth is less than 10,000 years old."
Any instance of bones or artifacts (e.g., tools made by humans) or fossils credibly dated at older than 10,000 years would "falsify" that hypothesis–that is, would demonstrate that the hypothesis was incorrect. The credible evidence, even 50 years ago, clearly showed that life on earth existed more than 10,000 years ago. Even more than 100,000 years ago, or a million, or a hundred million years ago. The abundant credible evidence consists of millions of specimens.
What makes all this confusing is if someone is willing to deny all this material evidence in favor of believing that their interpretation is absolutely inerrant regarding some ancient writings. And if this denial is taught to young people as absolute truth, as it was to me, the result is much confusion about why abundant solid evidence is rejected.
Joe,
I am a statistician and a member of the Permantly Head Damaged (Ph.D.).
Hard science has enabled us to get to the moon and back. Unfortunately, the study of origins is not hard science, but rather science fiction and philosophical speculation. In contrast, the doctrine of Creation is solidly based on Revelation granted to God's prophet of old and the authoritative and reliable testimony of the only One who did witness what took place at the beginning, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. His testimony can be relied on without the risk of being deceived by God's enemy number one, the Devil who deceives the whole world!
Geological strata, fossils, and genomics are not "science fiction" or "philosophical speculation." You seem to be saying that this evidence was planted by Satan to deceive us. You can't be serious! Or can you? Yes, you can. After all, this is an adventist site, and that explanation has been around for a long time. Even so, that does not seem plausible to many of us.
Joe, I am not trying to deny the facts of nature, rather the interpretation of thosee facts. Genomics do not prove common ancestry, beause there is an alterrnative explanation: common design. The
Bible is very clear on this: We are the product of the creeative power of God. This rules out macro evolution and common descent. We find hundreds of biblical refereences to creation, while none to Darwinian evolution. We need to make a choice between human opinion and God's revelation through his prophets and through Jesus himself. I choose to believe the latter!
How can the "study" of origins" be science fiction? Now if the reality of life origins were stated by scientists to be fact, that would be science fiction.
Earl, the teaching of the theory of evolution is currently presented as the most credible explanation for origins, and this includes the way this is presented in many Adventist universities. Since this contradicts what has been revealed to us through God's prophets and Jesus Christ, I conclude that these erroneous teachings are the result of science fiction and philosophical speculations. Both claims cannot be right at the same time! Either God's revelation is in error, or else human theories about origins are wrong.
Another possibility: your understanding of God's revelation could be inaccurate.
Another possibility: The Holy Bible could be right!
… and yet another possibility is that the "revelation", is of no more consequence than that of Joseph Smith, or Moahammed, Or Buddha, or perhaps even myself claiming to have a revelation from god. So, imho its much wiser to decide on data what is and is not about this world.
Joe, yes I did take your original meaning, and it made, and still makes perfect sense. Like Stephen's point also below, I am still puzzled as to what Phillip was trying to get at, prove or disprove, about your comment.
Yes, you have several alternatives to choose from. I have chosen to believe what Jesus did believe in. When he was asked about marriage and divorce, he said: "In the beginning it was not so!" What beginning was he referring to? The Big Bang? No! he was talking about the creation of Adam and Eve. He accepted the story of the creation as valid and factual. I do the same! If Darwin was right, then there is no hope for you and me. The theory of evolution is inimic to the biblical story of creation which runs like a golden thread from Genesis through Revelation.
Phillip: '“The hypothesis was found to be false,” was what Joe meant the hypothesis was falsified. When you reject a hypothesis (or disproving it ) you do not falsify it. You just do not have sufficient evidence from data to support its validity. The only way to make falsifying a hypothesis make sense is to say what the hypothesis does not meant to say.'
Ok so to say a hypothesis is false merely means there is insufficient evidence to prove it as true, not that it is positively not true? So to say a hypothesis is false means it could still perhaps be proved true one day? Is that what you are saying?
Was what was the original context then of Joe's statement? How does this relate to the actual topic again exactly?
Stephen. Agree, obviously there is never a flat out dismissal of a hypothesis. There can be in one's mind, that there is currently no certain proof of such.
Joe. Abundant solid evidence is rejected because: Fear of changing horses in mid stream may collapse the
house of cards.
Stephen,
In the absence of a census, to make inference about a population on a sample one can only rely on the outcome of that sample to draw conclusion about that population. Hence there is always an element of chance (uncertainty) depending on the sample that was drawn. That is why conclusions are generally not stated in a definitive black and white manner.
But the points is re the discussion?
Earl, I suspect that you have something there regarding the changing horses.
Philip, there is, of course, plenty of uncertainty and very little absolute certainty. Much of what we say needs to be put in some sort of non-absolute probablistic terms. On the other hand, people do make absolute assertions. Such assertions are often easily demonstrated not to be true, at least, not true for all the cases they have attempted to include in their statement. Some statements can be rejected on the basis of evidence to the contrary. In such cases there is not really any need (or point) in invoking inferential parametric statistics or even levels of confidence.
We have all heard the statement "All generalizations are false, including this one" as a warning against over generalization, and we have also all been warned about the use of "always" or "never."
Think of the assertion: "Life did not exist on earth more than seven thousand years ago." That is a statement that begs for evidence to the contrary–evidence that does not just make the statement unlikely, or very, very, very unlikely. ANY shred of credible evidence might call this statement into question, but millions of pieces of tangible and highly credible evidence, often obtained independently by many people in many different ways from many different sources, show that this assertion is, quite simply, not true. It is not just "not verified," it is "falsified." Fifty years ago, the evidence was already abundant. During that fifty years, overwhelmingly moreso, not just quantitatively, but qualitatively.
The sad thing is that some people insist on interpreting their entire world and staking their eternal destiny on that statement, when they do not need to at all. And they use it as a basis for teaching vulnerable young people to mistrust science and scientists more than is really warranted, and to hold fantastic and even paranoid views of the world. It's sad. And saddest of all because it is so unnecessary. It is needlessly "putting God in a box."
There is a huge gap between questioning the accuracy of the 6,000 years claim for our world and the millions of years claim for life on earth. Neither assertion is strictly accurate.
While there is SOME gap, whether one uses 6,000, sixty thousand, six million, or sixty million, the evidence contradicts the assertion. When one is raised in a tradition that makes the 6,000 year statement a "test of faith" and one finds out that is patently false, one sort of has to begin to wonder what else the tradition did not get right. And, of course, how wrong did they get it? If 6,000 years was just a little bit off the mark, that would be one thing, but it is many orders of magnitude away from what is very clearly shown by tangible evidence. So, what else did the adventist tradition get wrong? Very much, it seems to me.
"…many orders of magnitude away from what is very clearly shown by tangible evidence."
Joe, you wrote: "If 6,000 years was just a little bit off the mark, that would be one thing, but it is many orders of magnitude away from what is very clearly shown by tangible evidence. So, what else did the adventist tradition get wrong?"
For me the choice is rather clear. If we evolved from apes and amaebas, then not only Adventists are wrong, but the entire Bible must be discarded, and this includes Jesus Christ, who did believe that Adam and Eve were the result of the creeative act of God. If we are the result of a protracted, unguiden, and non-directed action of millions of years of evolution and natural selection, then the doctrine of creation, the moral fall of Adam, and the plan of salvation make no sense. We must simply accept that this life is all we will ever get. Such a choice is unthinkable for me!
Philip: "What tangible evidence?"
Are you serious?
Actually you are correct regarding "Lucy." The Lucy skeleton is tangible evidence. What people
think about "Lucy" is certainly open to revision in accordance with evidence. In some cases, it
is possible that finding even one more bone or fossil could change some minds. I'm sure you
know the difference between hard evidence and objective data and discussion and speculation
about what evidence means.
Philip, I'm just dying to know more about you. I think knowing more my help us communicate
more effectively. Are you a science professor (e.g., psychology or physics)?
Philip, thanks for the info you provided–that you are a PhD statistician. Cool. Makes sense. I imagine you teach. In what sorts of programs and settings? My stats training was long ago, and my PhD is in biological psychology. I've taught statistics and research design, but not for a long time. How long have you been teaching, if that's what you do. I do continue to be involved in designing research and preparing reports for publication and presentation. I'm always looking to refine and improve my skills and would be grateful for your advice. Warm wishes.
Joe,
My graduate training was in physics and my Ph.D. was in biomathematics. Statistics is a hobby that pays for my living expenses. All my statistics courses were taught by statisticians. Design of Experiments turned out to be one of the most useful courses I took. Another useful course was Sample Survey Statistics. I work for a natural resources agency and most of my clients are biologists (at least 95%). I do in house training in statistics and participants are mostly with college, graduate and even Ph.D. degrees. I have fun interacting with biologists. My observation is that most of them take evolution as a given fact of nature but they do not have the enthusiasm to convert everyone to their belief. My biggest surprise is Catholics that talk evolution as facts. There seems to be little contradiction. I find it amusing every time when one says evolution results in such and such and many of their statements are very reasonable and agree well with observations in nature. But in every incident I could say to myself what a wonderful design. Whether it is innate or imputed it takes intelligence to recognize intelligence and design. ID most likely does not mean anything to a dog. Being created in God's image is my conviction and answer to Einstein's amazement that the Universe is comprehensible.
Philip,
This post is a simply profound. It’s telling that Einstein, of all people, found the comprehensibility of the Universe amazing. The design in nature is as apparent, or evident, or observable as anything else.
That Catholics regard evolutionary Darwinsim as fact is intriguing. But should it be surprising?
Phillip, you wrote: " ID most likely does not mean anything to a dog. Being created in God's image is my conviction and answer to Einstein's amazement that the Universe is comprehensible."
Thanks for this wonderful conclusion which is more valuable given your experience and training.
"…they do not have the enthusiasm to convert everyone to their belief." Nor do I.
When I was googling around trying to find out something about you, Philip, the person I most frequently found was probably your grandfather, Phlip Law, in or near Melbourne. Is there a connection?
In any case, yours sounds like interesting work.
"…they do not have the enthusiasm to convert everyone to their belief." Nor do I.
Dear Dr Law
Sir, I have come across many good learned men and women, who, without batting an eyelid, would readily accept the dating methods used by geologists and palaeontologists. They conclude that these dating methods are scientifically accurate and are undeniable evidence in favour of evolution. Dr Erwin and others regularly make reference to such dating methods as highly reliable and accurate and coax creationists to look at these ‘scientific’ studies to confirm what they believe. I have however, come across some good arguments questioning these methods of dating especially in terms of it not meeting the stringent requirements of scientific method employed in a priori science. What is your take on this?
I ask this also because I have come across an eye witness account posted on an internet blog of a geology student whose evolutionist Geology Professor in Australia made some remarkable statements regarding the process in which rocks are dated. The Professor strongly alluded that there were many assumptions and pre-determined aspects involved in the process, which includes the geologist's estimated date for the specimen. The lab would then test to determine if it falls within the estimated time-frame submitted by the geologist. In other words there seems to be some inconsistencies employed in these grey areas of geological dating which are candidly overlooked and accepted as the norm. This is what the student says regarding the lab testing:
What astounds me is that these grey areas of ‘science’ are blatantly flouted and accepted as norm by a majority of scientists. They talk of evolution as a fact and use the term interchangeably when referring to either adaptation within a species or the grey areas like origins and the decent of man.
22Oct1844, you wrote: "“The lab technicians reject as aberrations, artefacts or contamination all dates that do not fall into the pre-conceived time frame given by the geologist.”
I have heard Dr. Ariel Roth, the former Adventist Geo Science Researdh director make similar assertions on many occasions during his preseentations.
typo in last line – should be 'descent of man'.
There is nothing at all wrong with being skeptical about estimated dates of specimens and artifacts. We all should question the methods and results, within reason.
We have among us, in Dr. Ervin Taylor, someone who has made a life work of examining specimens and applying dating methods and evaluating the precision and reliability of various techniques. My impression is that he fould it necessary to personally assess the validity of the claims made by some of his professors that the methods of dating could not be trusted if they concluded that life on earth had been around for more than 6000 years. He can provide expert testimony to us on this issue. Believe it or not.
Looking forward to see some tangible evidences from Ervin.
Yes, Taylor is an authority in his field, and I heard him enumerate a list of around 20 assumptions on which the dating techniques are based on. Destroy some of those foundational assumptions, and the entire edifice of scientific dating will fall down like a house of cards.
Contrast this with the reliability of biblical prophecy and the sure foundation of the acts and pronouncements of Jesus Christ, the one who did witness the creation of our planet and the creation of Adam and Eve. When referring to marriage, Jesus said: "In the beginning it was not so!" I ask: Which beginning was he referring to? Did he have the Big Bang in mind or the creation of our planet and Adam, our common ancestor?
I cannot both believe in the Darwinian evolution and the divine creation described in the Bible at the same time. They are antagonistic by nature. If Darwin was right, the Jesus and the Bible are wrong. I have chosen to stick with the Bible and Jesus!
Please, Nic. Feel free to believe what ever your wish. You will anyway….
But some other people have faith in God that allows them to understand some things differently than you do.
Isn’t the larger point that people will believe whatever they wish to believe—anyway.
It is apparent that it is similarly impossible to prove that God exists as it is to disprove that He exists.
I have personally never understood how it is possible to believe that God exists but disbelieve any/all sources of that notion. On what is such a belief/faith based?
Those who don’t believe that God exists make more sense than those who believe; but only do so a la carte or for no discernible/explicable reason at all.
Stephen, you said: "Those who don’t believe that God exists make more sense than those who believe"
Should we conclude that you belong to the atheistic camp?
Nic,
Perhaps I should not have used a semi-colon, as you seem to have missed that what followed it was to have qualified or modified that which preceded it; or was meant to have, anyway.
Is this any clearer: “Those who don’t believe that God exists make more sense than those who believe but only do so a la carte or for no discernible/explicable reason at all”? I hope so.
Perhaps I could have said that those who don’t believe there is a God and those who do not believe that we can know there is a God make more sense to me than those who don’t ever offer a reason for their belief—but are clear as to their various reasons for disbelieving any and all sources of the notion of God.
"For no discernable/explicable reason at all."
There are equal reasons, or equal lack of reasons for proof or disproof of God.
Agnostics avoid such an argument by neither believing or denying the existence of God.
Speaking of discernible Elaine, frankly the more we discuss these things the less discernible difference I sense between agnostics and atheists. But in any case, it’s neither agnostics nor atheists who baffle me; it’s Christians.
Culture, yes the culture. From the Eden disaster until the 20th century, in the Western world, women "generally" were considered to be valuable slaves to satisfy the "needs of man". That is still the way
women are treated in the Middle East. In Jesus's days on Earth, recognizing that women had no status,
and the need for the Gospel to be spread to the known world, only men could challenge the extremely high risks of open travel, and would be able to deliver the gospel message. Women would have been raped & stoned. Even the apostles & travellers for Christ were traditional in the masculine supremancy, and couldn't have considered women as leaders, and this obviously influenced their testimonies.
Today, in the 21st century, WOMEN, are educated, and have proven they are equally as intelligent, and capable of excellence in leadership, when given the chance. i believe they are more dedicated & faithful, and thorough in their churches & homes than men. Men get the credit, but women usually do the work. Where would the cradle roll, primary, & junior SS be, without women. Where would the social aspect of the church be, without our dedicated women.
Please, lets move forward, the time is now. Lets welcome those women the HOLY SPIRIT is calling
forth. The Holy Spirit is GOD. Will you secod guess GOD?
And slaves being a comparable example. When Paul said, 'Slaves obey your masters', was Paul advocating slavery? Or was Paul working within the paradigm of the culture at which he lived? Gal 3:28 promises no difference between Jew and Gentile, slave nor free, nor male nor female. Funnily enough, it Gentiles are mentioned first, and it took about 2 centuries to remove that barrier of race (although vestiges remain, even in the Church). It next mentions slaves, and it took another 1600 years to remove slavery, even within the Church. It is beyond coincidence that Paul mentions females last, the last group still yet to receive substantive equality. I wonder how long that will take?
Steven, you wrote: "Is this any clearer: “Those who don’t believe that God exists make more sense than those who believe but only do so a la carte or for no discernible/explicable reason at all”? I hope so.
The fact that there is a fine tuned universe and life in it is sufficient evidence for me that someone must be responsible for this. Many years ago my father-in-law purchased a piano which needed a tuning job. I decided that I could probably tune it for him. Had I waited for chance and natural selection to do the job, I would be still waiting!
Fear of Design can be fear of its implications. For some, Design implies a god who is a projection of anger and rejection. (i.e. Dawkins) Materialism acts as a defense. For others Design implies order and meaning, love and hope. (i.e. myself) Or, conversely, it can imply the confirmation of their cherished bigotries. (i.e. KKK) To some, Evolution implies freedom from fear, and a sense of psychic peace from a supervising Spirit; thus, giving the individual the illusion of autonomy. (i.e. Hitchens)
If I may misquote Freud, but just a little: Materialism “is the process of unconscious wish fulfillment, where, for certain people, if the process did not take place it would put them in self-danger of coming to mental harm, being unable to cope with the idea of a god. . . .”
The “illusion of autonomy” often morphs upon reflection into the opposite: Absolution Determinism.
To quote Shaw: “Darwinism seems simple, because you do not at first realize all that it involves. But when its whole significance dawns on you, your heart sinks into a heap of sand within you. There is a hideous fatalism about it, a damnable reduction of beauty and intelligence, of strength and purpose, of honor and aspiration.” George Bernard Shaw Back to Methuselah 1921
As we discuss the ‘objective’ realities Genetics and Information Theory, we must keep in mind that the subtext of all we say reflects our, sometimes unearthed, spiritual psychologies, which are as real as any series of strata on the surface.
Darrel,
Could you show us some evidence from Dawkins that for him design (sorry, I'm not going to capitalize it for you!) implies a god who is a projection of anger etc? At this point it seems a rather unjustified assertion.
Re yourself. You openly admit design is appealing because it gives you meaning, love, hope etc. You did suggest you were misquoting Freud, but his original line was addressing your thinking. Don't you think you more than misquoted him, you twisted him into the opposite meaning.
Here's his more complete quote: "Religion is the process of unconscious wish fulfillment, where, for certain people, if the process did not take place it would put them in self–danger of coming to mental harm, being unable to cope with the idea of a godless, purposeless life."
Meaning, love, hope sound pretty much similar to the motivation Frued is describing.
Surely, recognizing these "psychologies", as you call them, is the first step to reducing their impact on our thinking and analysis of evidence? How do you actually know that poeple like Dawkins, etc have not reached their conclusions having understood these factors?
On another angle, you seem to be using these "strata" to invalidate conclusions people have come to, ie Dawkins, Hitchens etc, but that cuts both ways, your desire for hope, love etc equally invalidate your conclusions, if indeed these "strata" are valid in doing so, as you imply.
Darrel,
Maybe I can ask another question to simplify my drift above.
If there is a risk that I may "find something to be true because I want it to be true", How can we avoid or reduce this danger?
Hi Chris, yes there is a risk on both sides, recognizing this part of the answer to your question.
What 'need' is what we believe fulfilling? I have confessed, what about you?
Chris and Darrel,
I have indicated several times here that I try to live an "evidence-based" life. But I think there are also very important roles for intuition. While I especially intuition informed by evidence that is credible, I imagine that we often confuse intuition and biased values with our person impressions about credibility of evidence.
We tend to consider evidence to be stronger if it supports what we already think (or want to believe).
There has been a lot of consideration of how to get past psychological bias by designing research to eliminate subjectivity. One psychologist/epistemologist whose work is worth reading is Donald Campbell. Perhaps I've suggested him before.
Darrel, I don't think any of your "need" categories fits me. I like what Joe said above about an "evidence based" life. I must check out Campbell.
I would have to say, in following evidence, it has more often led me in unexpected directions, has pointed to conclusions I would rather not have reached etc, so to say I am fulfilling a need in your sense I think is off track.
I very much agree with the principle that we consider evidence stronger if it supports what we already think or wish to believe is so. I actually think this principle gives credibility to conclusions people have come to "against their wishes", so to speak. I suspect that is Dawkins, rather than the charge you lay against him. Not that I agree with his atheism, but the evidence he uses to get there is pretty damning of positions some of us hold out of desire for hope!
Now, I would really like your evidence for your claim about Dawkins. ie your psychological assessment/assertion about him.
…so Nagel speaks for Dawkins?
Nagel "I want atheism to be true…" And now you are using, Nagel's "..My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition…" As a fact to prove your assertion about Dawkins? Evidence please! From Dawkins.
Nagel may, though I doubt it, be right about this "fear" in general, but remember, just as your hope does not make your position "right", or "wrong", nor does fear make his so.
You haven't shared your met needs yet Chris by your worldview.
If God were real, I would want enough real world evidence in support to have confidence of that. I don't feel that I found that. I could be wrong, but why would an omniscient and loving God not make Itself more tangibly evident? Of course, the answer to that could be that It does to some but not others and why is a mystery. Maybe I should believe without or despite evidence or conflicting evidence. But then, what is this thing in my head for that is called a brain?
One of my guesses is that my rearing with such a literal and brittle view of scripture and of right and wrong and of young earth age so poisoned and distorted my view of God that I was damned to erroneous expectations of the Almighty. Perhaps if I had begun with training in how to hold knowledge more tentatively and gently it would have been less of a shock to find such a glaring contrast between what I was taught as a child and what I found in the grown up world of real life.
Committing to an evidence-based life (as a goal), with recognition that much is not known–especially by me–, and many things are unknowable, has changed my expectations. And, along the way, I learned methods of acquiring and evaluating evidence that gave me some basis for how confident of it I could be. There is pretty much a continuous range from pretty confident something is so, to being pretty confident it is not so. I still very much value intuition and imagination. Sometimes the evidence is comforting. Other times? Not so much. But, I can live with that, whether the answers are the ones I want or not.
I have to mention, though, that the most interesting evidence I have found in doing scientific studies has been the evidence that turned out exactly opposite of my expectations (and often, the conventional "wisdom"). There is a lesson there, I think, at least for me.
Evidence based life is not without pitfalls. If one invested strictly based on Standard and Poor’s triple A ratings a couple of years back one could end up with financial disaster. Evidence based living is often evidence as I see it. Filtering through one’s rosy glasses or preconceived mental screens one still can believe in anything he chooses. Often one substitutes the incredible with the absurd and extremely improbable.
Joe, you wrote: "If God were real, I would want enough real world evidence in support to have confidence of that. I don't feel that I found that."
Perhaps you need to seek Him on your knees! The evidence is all around you. Ask Him to open your eyes!
Nic, of course you cannot know, other than through my own report, how intently I sought Him, sometimes all night long on my knees. And, with many pleas to "open my eyes." I seem to have been seeking a "Damascus Road" experience. It didn't happen.
Was I somehow less than sincere? During those times I had not yet even begun to doubt. Ultimately, the closest thing I got to a personal revelation was an impression that the Holy Spirit was instructing me to grow up, be a man, and use the brain I was given.
Looking back, I suppose that was just a self-generated instruction provide by my own brain. So, for those who were chosen to receive a revelatory message, I'm happy for you–especially happy if it was a truly valid experience, not merely self-deception, delusion, or hallucination, but, of course, it leaves me wondering how you know it was valid, or how you can know about the validity of similar reports by others.
Since I don't know you, there is no way for me to validate your experience. I can only validate mine! When I seek the Lord, sometimes I get the answer right away; other times, I have to wait and be ready to get an either "Yes" or a "No" answer. Do not forget that even Jesus Christ did not get a yes answer when he prayed in agony on the eve of his death, but he was strenghtened for the terrible ordeal.
The Lord did answer my prayers with a yes many times during my 80 years of my life. Nevertheless, I had my share of no aswers as well. From the first day my children were born, I prayed for God's protection for them twice every day. The Lord did protect them for many years; nevertheless, when my youngest daughter was 20, she died in a car accident; and my son died of a stroke at the age of 51.
Should I question the love or existence of God? I don't think so! God did protect his Only Son for 30 years from the time he was born. Yet in the time of Jesus greatest need, God seemed to have abandoned him; nevertheless, he honored him on resurrection day. Take heart, my friend. Use your head, but do not forget to rely on the Lord even when the evidence seem to be temporarily absent.
In my youth I often cautioned others about expecting God to answer their prayers by fulfilling their wishes. I think it is still good advice. It is not that your prayer was not answered, it's just that the answer was "no."
You have my best wishes, Nic, even when we see things differently.
You haven't shared your met needs yet Chris by your worldview.
Darrel, have you not read me over the last year or two? To keep it simple, I am indebted to Joe, above for observations about his experience that I can say amen to!
My worldview has changed. Not because I "wanted" it to, but because evidence led there. I grew up an Adventist. And Adventists are "people of the truth". I took that seriously! Just so happens the answers I found made SDA "truth" look like naval gazing inside a fish bowl ignorant of the world around it.
I don't have all the answers, but I can absolutely tell you: The truth shall set you free. I don't think "freedom" was a "need", but is sure was a result. No longer the tyranny and burden of religion.
Like Joe, I spent my time on my knees. I spent years fine tuning my theology and understanding Scripture, but in the end, I simply followed evidence/truth out of the fish bowl.
Now, just quickly. I was looking up Dawkins yesterday after you made your swipe at him, and came across what he would say if he met God when he dies. He would ask him two things: Which God/god are you? And, why did you go to such lengths to hide yourself from us? Food for thought.
Do not forget that fish cannot survive out of the fishbowl for very long!
Hi Chris, I am puzzled at an offensive statement that I made toward Dawkins, you must be thinking of "a god who is a projection of anger and rejection. (i.e. Dawkins)" How one can read Dawkin's books or listen to him, and not see that his view of God is about anger and rejection, I don't know. Does he have another view of God ?
"The truth shall set you free. I don't think "freedom" was a "need", but is sure was a result. No longer the tyranny and burden of religion." Thanks Chris, this is your grid, and I have mine. Insight into what kind of glasses we are wearing as we look at the facts (empirical evidences around us) aids us to really see what we are seeing.
Darrel,
"Insight into what kind of glasses we are wearing as we look at the facts (empirical evidences around us) aids us to really see what we are seeing. "
Yes, I would suggest that "aid" should be employed to warn us to look more carefully for what we are not seeing. There is little doubt the hardest thing to find is what you are not looking for!
Re Dawkins, yes that was the comment that seemed to me to be an unkind, or unfair judgement. That is why I asked you to demonstrate its validity. You may well find him angry at times, but if so, what is he angry at? What are his reasons? Is it God, people, stubborn Christians, YECers? IDers? Society… what? Have you addressed any of that in making your assertion?
I have to repress feelings of anger when I watch people like Veith, Batchelor, etc. Is that projection of an angry God? Not.
Chris, the more we seek to gain knowledge to fortify our current pre-held views, the more we find, even
if we are recirculating that which we've viewed before. Believe we, all, consider, DOA, any alien views
out of hand, once the mind is set. Recall your earlier confession that you were content, and at peace, as
you follow your current outlook of deity/evo. i wish you all that you wish for yourself. Very few people
on Earth have peace and contentment.
On thing perplexes me, in the several references to Dawkings, is that often he posits anger and rancor
towards those who refuse to believe as he does. How could they be so stupid? How could he be so
arrogant? The quest for proof of the answer, for the masses, of the certainty of the origins of life, will never happen for the living. Why then the animosity of one belief system to another?Why the "moral"
outrage of one to another. Anger and pouting never is a placebo for action of the "love thy neighbor".
What peace and cotentment is possible for the Christian, if proved, there is no GOD? Distress, distress,
for most, would prevail. It seems that many can't stomach the annihilation of the masses as has happened over the ages, and who can? If there is a ALMIGHTY, contrary to the record of fallible OT scribes, no human intelligence can second guess the ALMIGHTY, of why He hasn't made an effort to give earthy evidence of His existence, or to allay the fears & questionings of His creatures. Being the Eternal, Earth Time may not be of significance in His eternal planning. That the Earth can't support all the humanity, if no strife, plagues, or death didn't occur frequently. There should not be a constant battle between those of opposing views, live & let live with benevolence & charity for all.
Earl, you are wise. There need not be a constant battle among those whose views are in opposition, as long as they live and let live, with benevolence and charity for all.
None of us needs to allow or support the claims of the angry and oppositional to be represented as our views. We can decline to let the hostile people with whom we otherwise agree to claim that we support them. We need not allow people we agree with to disrespect and ridicule those with who we differ, any more than we would accept the opposite.
There is, however, a possibility of opening one's mind to consider evidence (and ideas) without adopting or defending them. They can be considered as a point of view that need not be grasped tightly.
Darrel, and others…
Here is a small quote from something I came across while researching about Dawkins in response to your comment.
I suggest reading the whole article.
"…but perhaps most of all, I get angry — sputteringly, inarticulately, pulse-racingly angry — when believers chide atheists for being so angry. "Why do you have to be so angry all the time?" "All that anger is so off-putting." "If atheism is so great, then why are so many of you so angry?" Which brings me to the other part of this little rant: Why atheist anger is not only valid, but valuable and necessary…."
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html
Posting this does not mean I agree with all sentiments, but it should give pause for thought how our actions affect others.. note. This is in response to Darrel describing Dawkins and projection of anger etc.
Is this not proving my point Chris??
Darrel, I did not see "projections of an angry god" in that material.
I saw frustration. I saw response to people angry for their god.
It did nothing to justify your judgment of Dawkins or anybody else, but it did explain why they may be angry at people like you…
The Eastern bloc countries of Europe, during communism’s heyday (and even to certain extent today), were hardly the epitome of 'happy chappies’. Atheism is a gloomy and sad concept especially since it is almost always associated with evolutionism which again is also just as depressing. Are we just breeding lots and lots of godless angry people? We're talking doom and gloom all the way every day with no way out for millions of years. Is that a living hell or what? Americans and other First World societies are fast becoming like this since they too have gotten drunk with the primordial soup. Even with all the entertainment money can buy, there is so much gloom and angry people everywhere. One look at the quantity of prescription ‘uppers’ and ‘downers’ that are popped in the US alone, is a cause for alarm and a closed case at that. In my country too, I see kids and adults sitting and watching sitcoms where the background laughter is continually blaring throughout the show yet those glued to the TV will not even smile even though something supposedly funny is on. Is the road to Atheist City via the Evolution Street shortcut a road of doom and gloom? It would seem so, to me at least.
It was no atheism per se, but communism that soured eastern Europe. I traveled in eastern Europe when one had to pass through Checkpoint Charlie and the gloom was immediately apparent: shops were dingy and dirty, customers were treated badly, the wait persons were careless–all because they were owned by the government and free enterprise was not allowed.
I don't recall Christians wer being persecuted there. Today, most of the people in other countries report being much happier than those in the U.S.–a "Christian nation." Go figure.
BTW, you don't say in what country you live. Is it better or worse than elsewhere?
I too visited friends in Berlin two winters ago and traveled from Checkpoint Charlie East. There is still a contrast. Elaine, do you think there is no connection between Communism and Atheist philosopy?? You can't be saying such!
Thank you 22, a great book on this subject is Peter Hitchen's "The Rage Against God." Peter is brother of the atheist antagonist. Peter spent many years himself an atheist and communist. Very revealing book.
Speaking of Dawkins, The National Review just reported The atheist proselytizer claims on his Twitter that a pig is more human than a human fetus. From his Tweet:
Dawkins point is that a pig has more awareness than a human baby in its mother, so it is fine to kill it. This is an example of the loss of human value that evolutionism leads to.
For me the main difference betwen a human and a pig is that we were made in God's image! Pigs were not, regardles of their alleged awarenes. The problem and danger of the theory of evolution is hat it chooses to ignore this great truth. Evolution tends to demean our divine origin! According to the Bible our ancestry leads to God, while for evolutionists it is apes and lower forms of life. The Bible is unequivocal: We are God's children–not the descendants of lower forms of life.
Many infants emerge fully capable of maintaining their life with no help from the mother, just as pigs may indicate more awareness than human fetuses. But that does not equate to humanity with moral conscience.
So often, science and evolution and atheism are placed in the same box by religious believers and all are opposed as if they were all of a single identity–and, often, the presumption is that all three are spawn of Lucifer. This is untrue and unfair.
Further, no atheist speaks for me. I see no value in atheists being so strident or "evangelical" in criticizing or antagonizing believers. I can see them opposing efforts to teach religious dogma as truth in science classes in public schools, and I can see why atheists would be angered by such efforts.
At the same time, I can see why anyone, atheist, agnostic, or Christian would vigorously oppose efforts to indoctrinate public school students with any kind of religious dogma.
What we also see, though, is an effort by some Christians (including some here), to portray science as if it were an anti-God religion, and the scientific study of speciation as if it is essentially religious belief with no more evidential support than any other "opinion." This is maddeningly misleading, and it is not hard to see why people committed to evidence-based education would oppose–even angrily oppose–such positions.
Joe, are these the products of SdA education? Too have such an anti-science assumptions it must be taught.
My guess is that the indoctrination in SDA schools plays a part in this attitude to the extent that we see it here on an adventist site (with the exception of those who had "Damascus Road" conversion experiences). But the attitude exists elsewhere among fundamentalist Christians, especially the charismatic movements such as seen in Assemblies of God (especially noted for attracting vulnerable people).
In my area there are Christian charter schools to which children are sent to protect them from being taught dangerous ideas like evolution and to keep them from associating with children who are unlike them (in terms of religious tradition and/or ethnicity). In the south, when I lived there, it was very clear that private Christian schools were being set up to avoid racial integration, along with the fear that the children might learn dangerous things in biological science classes.
Obviously I have no issue with Science, the word I used above was 'evolutionism' which is a religion.
"Evolutionism" is a religion? Seriously? I suppose a religion could be constructed and call itself that. But biology is not a religion. It is not even a very clever or convincing point to argue from. You are just making up an "ism."
I do grant you that there are plenty of people who believe that evolution is real who are not very knowledgeable about it–not unlike anything else, religion included.
Calling every "ism" as religion dilutes the meaning and is only a personal opinion, not a correct definition.
Dr. Thomas Nagel, philosopher of science and an atheist (see above) speaking on "scientism and reductionism in our time," states, "One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind."
Dr. Nagel did not receive an Adventist or fundamentalists education. So where could he possibly get these opinions?? It's a mystery!!
Like I have said and still maintain; evolution is the monkey on the back of science. It got in by default only because it excludes God rather than any credible a priori evidence and is one of the doctrines intoxicating the Christian Church today. It is popular in academic circles only because it is forced on school kids at an early age by the secular state and is the opium of the masses today. The Catholic Church for example changed the Sabbath to Sunday thereby eroding the memorial of Creation. Now they embrace evolutionism as well and the world wanders after her wine.
"The Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday…..Now they embrace evolution."
Such statements are completely not history. The Catholic church did not change sabbath, although it is so often said within Adventism that many, if not most believe it. A good study of early Christian history will show this is completely erroneous. Even several SdA theologians have written that the early church began meeting on Sunday in celebration of the Resurrection, several centuries before there was a Roman Catholic church. The early Christian church was "catholic" (little C-meaning universal) as it was the ONLY Christian church for more than 15 centuries, and all were observing the first day of the week; not by ordering change from the seventh, as there was never such a command in the NT about observing either the first or seventh (unless you are able to furnish it).
22
"It got in by default only because it excludes God rather than any credible a priori evidence and is one of the doctrines intoxicating the Christian Church today. "
Oh dear…what can one say? Brother, just because you can write such a sentence does not make it true. The theory of evolution rests on a mountain of a posteriori evidence. Your statement otherwise is an incredibly a priori statement which is completely indefensible from evidence? I like Joe's word above "maddeningly". Maddeningly frustrating!
My freind, God got kicked out of the trenches of science because he was not there to defend himself. If he'd left even some tracks a posteriori methods would have found him, even if he was snoozing under a bush someplace. I would submit excluding God was NEVER the intention or desire of science. He is just absent by default of its methods, and the absolute dearth of evidence.
my, my, Joe/Chris, why should you two be driven to react to others view points, to the degree it is maddening to you? You are your own man, to thine "ownself" be true. Anger should not be in the psyche of men of your intelligence. i understand i can be disappointed if i do something stupid, but anger doesn't help me correct myself, only honest introspection leads to intelligent solutions. Dale Carnegie said "always give the dog a good name".
Earl, I did not say anger. I said frustration. It is not so much reacting as being unable to engage in open, fair, and honest discussion when people come out with statements that are in denial of reasoned argument. Statements that are using words wrongly, ignoring facts, and just build on ignorance or denial.
There is my friend a place for righteous indignation.
Earl,
While we are on it. Let me point out something else I find frustrating in this kind of discussion.
You have responded to my point about frustration to 22. You said nothing about the last paragraph of my reply to him. Now, you don't have to, but since you want to step into the topic, you should really have given equal thought to that last paragraph. It basically made the point why 22 was wrong in his statement about the "reason" evolution "got in".
If you had read and understood that paragraph properly, if I am correct, you may have understood why I viewed his comment with frustration. It completely fails to understand science, and the relationship it has "with" or "to" God.
So, next time, please, instead of latching on to one point, consider the whole. This is what frustrates here so often, people grab one point they can either argue against or criticise, and ignore the points they can't argue against, and that may in fact render their counter arguments DOA if they allowed the whole thing to impact them.
Dear cb25, let's be fair. If God gets kicked out of the trenches then so too must evolution. Sir, what may be causing some frustration to you (and I understand) is that for Creationists there is a distinguishing mark between faith and science. Evolution to me is on the faith side. By the way I wasn't talking about science in my post above. It was evolution. It is frustrating for us too you know.
22,
1. "If God gets kicked out of the trenches then so too must evolution" Why?
2. The theory of evolution is based on scientific analysis of the data of nature: Why and how is that on the "faith side"?
3. Yes, you were talking about evolution being the monkey on the back of science. A point neither lost, missed, nor ignored. The theory of evolution is the result of observations about nature and scientific study. It is not a monkey on a back; it is the result of science.
I would suggest that virtually nobody sets out to find excuses (evolution as you imply) for not believing in God. No. People make observations about our world, and the way it is, and "by accident" find out that the way this world is does not measure up with traditional beliefs in God. They don't deliberately set out to disprove God, he is a casualty of the enquiring mind and the facts of science.
As for the distinguishing mark between faith and science. That sounds cool. Why am I still waiting for a reasoned explanation of how and why that is true? No one has yet shown why it is not just an excuse to believe the "in-credible" and ignore credible science and observations about this world.
For many evolutionists (evos) the old controversy what came first, “the egg or the chicken” (DNA or proteins) has been resolved by “the RNA world hypothesis”. With my apologies to the experts, this hypothesis goes more or less like this:
Elemental molecules (purines, pyrimidine ribose, amino acids) were formed. Gradually the purines and pyrimidines bounded with ribose and phosphorus to form nucleotides. Nucleotides paired with other nucleotides to form Ribozymes. From the ribozymes (having the capacity of genetic information and enzymatic activity) RNA, DNA and proteins were synthetized and life began. So from RNA came the REST and BEST.
Really? No so fast
So the hypothesis “from RNA came the REST and BEST” does not pass the REAL TEST.
David,
With all respect, your neat little sequence above says nothing about the process of evolution after life began.
You are imposing on "the beginning" (ie what came first) the understanding we have today as being absolute and unchanged back then.
Have you never read all the creationist material about UNIFORMITY!? You are using an argument of uniformity to state precisely how it happened "back then". I happen to believe there is a reasonable case for things being uniform, but when it comes to the type of questions you are answering with it. Dream on, it is conjecture and theorizing at best.
In the "natural world" billions of years ago any concept of how sequences, attractions, forces, worked to bring simple life together is a tough question way beyond the simplification you suggest.
Origin-of-life theorists believe that the origin of life — entirely by chance — complex molecules formed until some began to self-replicate. From there, they believe Darwinian natural selection took over, favoring those molecules which were better able to make copies. Eventually, they assume, it became these molecules would evolve complex machinery of the cell, run by -the genetic code — to survive and reproduce.
Stanley Miller readily admitted the difficulty of explaining this in Discover Magazine:
“The first step, making the monomers, that's easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That's very easy,” he says, dripping in sarcasm.
“Just like it's easy to make money in the stock market — all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it's done.”
Stanley Miller quoted in Peter Radetsky, "How Did Life Start?" Discover Magazine (Nov., 1992).
The most prominent hypothesis for the origin of the first life is called the "RNA world." In living cells, genetic information is carried by DNA, and most cellular functions are performed by proteins. However, RNA is capable of both carrying genetic information and catalyzing some biochemical reactions. As a result, some theorists postulate the first life might have used RNA alone to fulfill all these functions.
But there are many problems with this hypothesis.
For one, the first RNA molecules would have to arise by unguided, non-biological chemical processes. But RNA is not known to assemble without the help of a skilled laboratory chemist intelligently guiding the process. New York University chemist Robert Shapiro critiqued the efforts of those who tried to make RNA in the lab, stating: "The flaw is in the logic — that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth." Richard Van Noorden, "RNA world easier to make," Nature News (May 13, 2009)
RNA world advocates suggest that if the first self-replicating life was based upon RNA, it would have required a molecule between 200 and 300 nucleotides in length. Jack W. Szostak, David P. Bartel, and P. Luigi Luisi, "Synthesizing Life," Nature, 409: 387-390 (January 18, 2001).
However, there are no known chemical or physical laws that dictate the order of those nucleotides. Michael Polanyi, "Life's Irreducible Structure," Science, 160 (3834): 1308-1312 (June 21, 1968).
To order nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10150 — below the "universal probability bound," a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe. see William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Shapiro puts the problem this way:
“The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.”
Robert Shapiro, "A Simpler Origin for Life," Scientific American, pp. 46-53 (June, 2007)
The RNA world hypothesis can't explain the origin of the genetic code itself. In order to evolve into the DNA/protein-based life that exists today, the RNA world would need to evolve the ability to convert genetic information into proteins. However, this process of transcription and translation requires a large suite of proteins and molecular machines — which themselves are encoded by genetic information.
All of this poses a chicken-and-egg problem, where essential enzymes and molecular machines are needed to perform the very task that constructs them.
It is as if you are reading about the RNA origins information without understanding it. It suggests, SUGGESTS, that simple molecules accummulated, with some accummulating into more complex molecules that began to have some emergent catalyzing properties like the many kinds of naturally occurring ribozymes and some of the artificially made ribozymes.
One of the errors made by those who claim to calculate probabilities of such things happening "andomly" or "by chance" is that they make the assumption that these are all independent events, when, in fact, they necessarily involve a dependent sequence of events in which molecular accummulations and metabolic changes build on one another. What exists both limits and enables what can follow. It is not a matter of independent atomic dice with a near infinite number of faces being rolled at each step of a process.
So, if you wish to evaluate the RNA origins hypothesis, just evaluate it with some fairness, not so much with an eye toward rejecting anything it suggests. Just give it due consideration, if you are going to pay any attention to it at all. Just because someone suggested this hypothesis and thousands of studies have been done that have refined it and added to its credibility does not mean that you have to believe it or disbelieve it. Just don't erroneously claim that there is no evidence nor any basis for the hypothesis. It is as if you think there is some great satanic conspiracy of Godless idiot scientists out there trying to disprove God. You can't be serious! (a little John McEnroe, to add a smile)
Chris, in the past few days there have been references to seeming anger by evos whose responses have
been fairly "heated", ie: Dawkins. You said you liked Joe's word above, "maddeningly", maddeningly frustrating. My dictionary describes maddeningly "become mad or insane, angry or wildly excited".
Interestingly, i didn't catch Joe's reference to maddeningly, just took your word that he said the word.
i was not giving any opposition to your ongoing dialogue with 22 Oct. i was concerned that your frustration was causing you anger, and hoping you were not having trauma over dialogue. As to "fair & reasonable argument", that could be claimed by both sides of the debate (arguement). Also doubt "righteous indignation" is possible with us Earthlings. Chris, i never intend malice.
Earl,
Thanks for the note.
I also intend no malice, but words are tricky things at times…:)
Cheers
1. "If God gets kicked out of the trenches then so too must evolution" Why?
————
Why not?
22
Because evolution is based on scientific observations, study, research etc. The theory of evolution rests squarely on the shoulders of science. (why do I think of Dr Carson when I write that:) In the trenches evolutionary theory, in its increasing complexity and understanding of life, is the result of hard won conclusions based on data from a scientific perspective. God, as a faith proposition, does NOT belong in the trenches.
IF, repeat, If data turns up that can apply scientific study to God, and that can be studied from a scientific approach, then fling him back in the trenches. IDers of course are trying to do this, but usually the only defendable place they can poke him is in the gaps. Even there he can only be defended by absence of knowledge, not the presence of knowledge. It would not be a "gap" otherwise. Big difference!
I figure you are trying to insinuate that evolution is a faith based thing, again. That is soooo tiring, and completely defies the fact that the theory of evolution is nothing more, and nothing less than explanation and understanding of facts, data and observations about nature. etc.
What data, facts, and observations about nature when applied to the theory of "God" would stand up to scientific scrutiny?
Instead of theorizing how life got started, why don't you replicate this in the laboratory? Until you do this, all your scintific jargon is merely science fiction and philosophical speculation.
Nic, Instead of making up challenges based on ignorance of what HAS been done in the laboratory, why don't you go and read the vast literature on on what has been done in the field and lab and connects? You and many others seem to mount criticisms while refusing to actually try to understand what they are criticizing.
But on another topic, can you give me some information on Andrew Jackson University and its online doctoral programs? Are they regionally accredited yet as a real university, or just as a national online institution?
I apologize, Nic. I should not have brought this degree thing up again. I'm sure it is a sore point. I see that you answered my question elsewhere.
I am glad that you got the answer to your question on another blog. I will simply say, for the sake of the other readers of theis forum, that Andrew Jackson University failed in its efforts to get the Ph.D. in religion acredited.
Neverthless, the acrediting agency did allow the school to grant the Ph.D. degree to me and to the other students who were in the program while they were seeking said acrditation.
In my case, I was not terribly disappointed because what I was seeking was training which would prepare me for doing my research on the issue of abortion. This the school did quite well, I believe.
From the remark about 'good joke' on another blog and the poking about accreditation of said university, I have reason to believe that Dr Erwin intentionally was unkind and sought to clearly hurt Dr Samojluk in terms of the Ph.D. issue in order to score points in his counter arguments by attempting to discredit and embarrass him. This in itself speaks volumes and is a common style used by many on these blogs who go for the jugular. It is just my opinion though and I do hope I’m wrong. Apologies to Dr Erwin in advance if he thinks I am seeing this the wrong way.
22, I think you are correct that my comment sounded and might have been unkind. Hence, my apology above. No worries nor apologies needed.
Elaine Nelson says: "The Catholic church did not change sabbath, although it is so often said within Adventism that many, if not most believe it. A good study of early Christian history will show this is completely erroneous. "
————-
What you are talking about here is that there were Christians who met on Sunday for whatever reason. That is not proof that it was changed by any official Church body. No one is saying that no Christians met on Sundays. What is being said here is that these Christians who met on Sundays made no official decree of such a change. It was the Catholic Church which did this. They are very keen to take credit for it too. There is also ample proof that this was done, by, I might add, a religious political power just like the Bible prophecy indicates. The timing of Constantine’s decree fits in perfectly with the other related prophecy of Daniel 2.
Show me Ma'am where a religious political power (other than Constantine) changed the day of worship from Sabbath to Sunday. There is no evidence of any instruction or counsel in the Bible in this regard. Not even Jesus Christ makes mention of a change of worship day especially since he is a Sabbath keeper and is Lord of the Sabbath too.
Prior to Constantine, there was much persecution on all sides and many did abandon the Sabbath for fear of being identified as Jews. Others made the resurrection a day of worship as you say. However, this was not any official Christian position taken by the Christian Church as a whole. Sunday was a pre-existing day of Pagan worship which was rife at that time. Constantine saw an opportunity to meld the two by forcing his Sunday worship decree for various reasons. This wasn't done by any religious political power before him. Even Jesus died before the Sabbath started, then rested in the tomb during its sacred hours and rose on Sunday morning, the First day of the week.
It is this official political religious power with Constantine the ‘Christian’ at the helm that made an official change to Sunday as a day of worship. Earlier Christians did not have a basis for this change as the Bible cannot be changed and makes no change in this regard. The Catholic Church made decrees that the Church has higher authority over the Bible (and Christ – and God) and therefore has by its own authority made the change.
You see Ma'am – there is a dragon (satan) behind the scene who has attacked God's Law since his stint in heaven. He has given power to a religious political power to make war with the remnant of the seed of the woman which is the church. Not surprisingly, it is this crowd that (guess what?): keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus. If Seventh-day Adventists are not represented by this remnant then who is? Perhaps your favourite historians may know?
"22" asked a Question:: "If Seventh-day Adventists are not represnted by this remnant then who is? Answer: No organized, insitutionalized church is envisioned when the writer of Revelation wrote the text to which you refer. Simple question. Simple Answer.
My view is that no religious oraganization is entitled to the Remnant label today for the simple reason that all Chrisians now honor only nine of God's Ten Commandment, including the Adventist Church. Rome replaced the Fourth Commandment with Sunday, and we Adventists replaced the Sixth One with our Guidelins on Abortion and our active participation in the protable abortion business.
The "remnant" is surely those who unto death have faith and believe the testimony of Jesus Christ; no established Earthly church, by name, is the remnant.
Cb25
With reciprocal respect:
In regards “from RNA came the REST and BEST” does not pass the REAL TEST”.
The “evos” are the one who are imposing the RNA world
The fundaments of the RNA world are unsustainable when are challenged with established scientific biochemical concepts. To believe in a no-enzymatic synthesis of purines pyrimidine in nature is not science, is science fiction! (speculation)
In regards to “simplicity”: Takes a comfortable knowledge to simplify a complex concept maintaining it deepness and a considerable talent to make it fun, of course only the ones with robust knowledge of the subject will appreciate this.
Chris, I continue to be curious about who David is. He seems to be someone, perhaps a physician or physiologist or biochemist, who teaches somewhere in Florida, but travels widely to lecture. His story about asking colleagues whether his BMW could self assemble, gives us a clue that he is probably more financially successful than either of us, and the latest note seams to assert some authoritative knowledge that is superior to those scientists who have suggested (hypothesized, not "imposed") an RNA world prior to the emergence of DNA. If David will not actually identify himself, publically or privately, how can we evaluate his claims to credibility? I am more curious than suspicious, and I realize that there can be quite valid reasons why some people choose not to identify themselves openly. And that should be a free choice, so it is not my intent to bully "David" into revealing himself to us.
Hi Joe,
Yes, it is interesting.
btw, don't tell David this, but my next task this morning is to go and wash and polish my BMW. However, mine came out of a different evolutionary branch – it is silver.
David, beemers are nice to drive, but just remember, they use them for taxis in Germany. That puts you and I in taxi driver status! Let's keep our attitude with a humility and respect suitable for taxi drivers.
Now, back to your comment. If you take a look at Joe's Blog "What is science good for", find the comment by Todd Allen, is is an excellent presentation of some points.
What strikes me about your approach David, is that you seem to think you have found a wonderfull hook upon which to hang your coat (faith). RNA and "show me a transitional fossil"! It is as if you have decided that these two things are "argument stoppers" for evolution, so you focus in on them and just keep hitting the same nail on the head assuming it is the last nail in the evolutionary coffin!
IT IS NOT the last nail. It is not even the first nail! My suggestion to you, after reading Todd's comment, is to vastly widen your research. Study the broad scope of paleontology, geology, etc and you will see that the RNA and "transition" issue are just a few missing pixels in a massive painting.
I would also, if I can say this respectfully, suggest that you do some work on your grammar / syntax. For some of us to whom words matter it would make your arguemnts easier to follow. I admit the last one was confusing in structure and lost impact because of this.
having said words matter I better correct that typo "arguments"! probably missed more:(
Chris, a mutual friend of ours sent me a link that is worth having a look at. It is http://www.astrophysics.org
It seems to provide much information on some of the topics we have discussed here.
There is a lot of interesting work reported there, along with full-text access to many astrochemistry and astrobiology publications.
Joe,
I just tried the link and got a dead end. It may not have copied/pasted right?
Chris, sorry, I gave you the wrong one. It is: http://www.astrochem.org
Joe
Thanks Joe, got it this time. Looks really interesting.
David, pay no heed to bullies!
Below the belt tactics are being used to brush aside Dr David's very logical and rational arguments. He is mentioned as part of the premise of this tribunal blog with Dr Erwin playing judge. Without duly considering that Dr David has already explained that English is a fourth or fifth language of his and noting that he is indeed a highly qualified academic who will easily match or even better most here in terms of qualification and prowess, he is being disrespected on the pretence of trying to better his argument. I don’t fall for it. I remember Dr Taylor, Mrs Elaine Nelson and others poking fun at someone who recently spelt a word wrong by using a [sic] way to ridicule him. I think it was a Mr Joy who spelt a word wrong. These are classic drive-by tactics they use.
Dr Erwin recently tried to taunt Dr Samojluk regarding his Ph.D. Now cb25 follows suite by picking on the grammatical eloquence of Dr David. In the very same note that Dr David gets advice to improve his writing skills, cb25 makes a spelling error. Surprising how perfectionist evolutionists are; but I can see that it is just side-tracking. I for one easily follow what Dr David writes on the boards and that he does so with integrity and passion. What they call a 'pixel' on the painting (a trademark of evolutionist's) regarding origins and a lack of any real evidence showing any real changes in the real natural world regarding speciation is really the flawed basis of the theory itself or the miracle belief of their ‘arrival of the fittest’ religion. Even if but a much exaggerated ‘pixel’ it may help distinguish an original from a forgery. Dr David has cut the argument down to the chase – right down to RNA/DNA processes not displaying any evidence for any evolutionary processes explaining the miracle existence and replication of these organisms.
When they fail show any significant empirical evidence for the ‘miracle’ of origins then the ‘Theory of Convenience’ is invoked which states that now that we are here by miracle, we can take it from there and explain away any possibility of intelligent design and therefore a Creator; but you have to believe our millions of years ago tale in order to appreciate it – otherwise we’ll indoctrinate you by force as early as junior primary until you start to believe all this happened by chance millions of years ago in order to prove the formula: [anything + chance + millions of years] = [extremely complex design in living organisms]. If this invocation fails they then try to dig up dirt and criticise, make personal attacks and perambulate peripheries. I am a witness on behalf of Dr David at this tribunal and find that his position is credible, logical and highly rational. All the scientific jargon and literary etiquette is but a smokescreen behind which lies intellectual arrogance propped up by the ‘look at the evidence’ if you’re educated. Well, Dr David is educated; he’s looking; and being an honest scientist he doesn’t accept that evolutionism meets the stringent requirements of what would constitute empirical scientific evidence. Dr David has stated on a number of occasions that E. coli is still E. coli after all: what part of still don’t they get?
P.S. – if their ahr ani speling errrors in mi kommentz arebove plez 4give mee.
Perhaps we should all just take a few deep breaths and calm down. Angry rants do nothing to advance the credibility of those who lose control.
There is no tribunal. I am not seeking to judge anyone. But I do seek to make evidence-based decisions. Nic was very forthcoming about his graduate program in a way that can be helpful to all of us. I think he understands that I was not taunting him. "David," if that is even really his name, has not yet chosen to reveal his identity to us–which is his own free choice and he is entitled to his privacy. But being a witness just because you agree with someone does not testify to one's credibility as a witness. Not that there is anything wrong with agreeing with someone….
Breathe in. Relax. Breathe out. Relax. Repeat.
Repeat. E. coli is still E. coli. Breathe in. Relax. Breathe out. Relax. Repeat. E. coli is still E. coli.
Chris, i am so surprised you would call out David on his grammar. Recognizing English is not his mother tongue, i've not had a problem with his offerings.
Earl,
People call me out here on my writing style plenty. No problem, I take it on board and if I need to change, I will give it a shot.
It was not intended to offend. Sometimes we do not know how we come across until someone points it out. At least David will know that one person does not find him easy to follow. Sounds like I'm the only one. That's fine.
Earl, I think the obvious fact is that there are no scientific or logical arguments from emperical or even imaginitive data to address David's findings, so what's left but to deflect attention away.
Chris, I'm glad you got the astrochem site. As reported there, pyrimidine and purine have been recovered from meteorites. That seems to bear quite directly on David's assertion that they could not have been synthesized, and it pushes back that aspect of the ultimate origins of life issue. David seems to continue to insist that ribozymes could not have predated DNA, or something of the sort. Of course, it could be suggested that God put the purine and pyrimadine in meteorites and thus implanted the precursers to life on earth. Once life emerged, a series of steps continued until God used humans to design and build black, and even silver, BMWs.
Joe,
Yes, that site has some great material. I'm part way through it atm.
I heard a radio talk here the other day about exoplanets/planets etc. They number in the millions both inside and outside our solar system. Combine this with the material on that link and who knows what is out there!?
Here's an interesting link that relates to it as well.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/wickramasinghe.html
The American Chemical Society's special issue of Accounts of Chemical Research is dedicated to chemical evolution. See our previous comments here and here. Now let's look at an article by Irene Chen and Martin Nowak that addresses the fundamental evolutionary step involved in making the transition from non-life to life ("From Prelife to Life: How Chemical Kinetics Become Evolutionary Dynamics"). The authors say that they are going to explain how longer RNA sequences arise from shorter ones and how the ability to replicate emerges.
“Monomers react to form polymers (this is a polymerization reaction), and monomers keep adding to polymers to make longer polymers. Monomers may also add to other monomers to make short polymers. Soon, there is a sea of polymers with varying components. In RNA, these would be different nucleotide sequences. You also have polymers with varying lengths within this sea of "options." Now the polymerization reactions occurring in this sea are occurring at different reaction rates based on length and sequence. The faster reactions are going to occur more frequently and, therefore, will make more of the polymer products that came from the reactants that have the fastest reactions.”
According to the authors, we must also assume that fragments and bi-products are removed from the system, somehow. They do not specify how.
They go on: "Let us now suppose that some prelife sequences have the ability of replication." Let me repeat this sentence: “Let us now suppose that some prelife sequences have the ability of replication." Wait, wait please! Can we now “suppose” the very thing we are trying to prove????
The authors set out originally to explain how replication arises, but when you read the article, there is no explanation of how exactly it did arise. Their example illustrating this ability to replicate doesn't help:
“For example, at an early stage of the development of the RNA world, many possible nucleobases would have coexisted. But not all of these nucleobases could support templating, which is required for replication. Some sequences would happen to contain nucleobases that could template a complementary strand…”
As you can see as you read this “research” that this is one long ‘thought experiment,’ which fine, but not science!
the nucleobases were selected because they happen to allow for template-directed replication, but we still have no idea how or why template-directed replication even arose in a pool of polymers of varying monomer identity and lengths. The authors have successfully appealed to chance to explain what they set out to explain, and covered for their assumptions by referencing articles that conducted those studies, without addressing some of the problems with those studies.
In the introduction to their article, Chen and Nowak describe the transition from non-life to life as a seemingly "impossible leap because so many transitions must occur to transform the jittery molecules into a living structure." Their solution to this problem is to break down the origin of life into smaller and smaller transitions and "look for simple ways that physical and chemical effects could accomplish each transition."
The problem is there is not a simple way to construct a cell, or a protocell, or a replicating RNA strand, let alone one with a meaningful sequence. No matter how small you slice the steps, there are still biologically (and chemically) impossible leaps from one slice to another and another.
What does this study actually prove? That material chemical processes (which are mindless) cannot write digital code or through together the protein machines read and execute the code. In genetic we find irreducibly complex systems, within systems, within systems. The obvious product of an ingenious programmer and engineer; otherwise known as The Creator.
"Can we now “suppose” the very thing we are trying to prove????"
That is precisely what people do with "God" and "Intelligence" behind "Design". In fact it seems easier for them to "suppose" this, than the infinitely simpler possibility of an RNA having an evolutionary origin!
This was sublinked from the page I pasted a link to above. Well worth reading for those doing research on themes above:
Link -http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/wick_hoyle.html
I get the impression that one person's "irreduceable complexity" is someone else's "emergent properties." One view is "top down," while the other is "bottom up." In a sense, perhaps, they are two sides of the same coin.
We have all heard that "the whole is more than the sum of its parts." Thus, when something is broken down into its component parts, it may lose some of its most important properties. There is an argument here against the simple reductionistic notion that we understand something by knowing of what it is composed. Of course, knowledge of the parts does add something to our knowledge of the whole, but such knowledge may not explain the emergent properties of the whole.
I find it easier to comprehend that there could be a progression from simple chemistry to more complex molecules than that extraordinary complexity suddenly (and supernaturally) occurred. But, that is probably just my "grass roots" mind set. If all this happened naturally, a "growth" model seems to fit better. If it happened supernaturally, who knows? It could have happened in any way–naturalistic or not.
So, if one is going to scientifically investigate this process, which means, among other things, one is limited to examining what CAN be examined, one cannot resort to explanations beyond the natural world. This does not mean it is IMPOSSIBLE for something magical or supernatural to happen. Who am I to say that something is IMPOSSIBLE? And yet, that is exactly what ID proponents are saying. "This is too complex. It is IMPOSSIBLE that this could have happened naturally. It MUST have been done by an outside force. It is too wonderful and too complex for my mind to understand. Therefore, it MUST have been created by a SUPER MIND. Who else but GOD could have a mind so great or so much creative power as to make such things?"
That seems to be the reasoning, and yet it seems completely unreasonable to me, and I do not understand how it can be thought by anyone to be evidence based. It almost seems as if the only way to reach such a conclusion is to start out with the answer one ends up with.
Would we agree that the materialist program is to falsify the positive appearance of design?
Certainly not, Darrel. Nothing could be much further from the truth.
The point is to try to understand what happened (or could have occurred naturally) without just making up an answer and accepting it.
I am reading a book by the famious atheist and philosopher of science Thomas Nagel of NYU. the book, Mind und Cosmos: Why The Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. It is excellient, couldn't put it down. Anyway, speaking of the logic of evolutionism
Ah! Of course you like what he writes if it agrees with what you already think. Is that surprising? Life is remarkable! Of course it is. But is that a reason to just give up trying to understand how it works? Not at all. Especially since, as we find out more and more, our understanding enables us to intervene effectively when living systems malfunction–as they so often do. Or, I guess we could just pray when someone needs a healing intervention. Why did God give us brains?
To the “believers”: (My apologies to the “evos”, they don’t understand or miss quote what I write)
In the natural world it is very difficult (impossible) is to explain the non-enzymatic formation o elemental molecules of life. So
The hypothesis of the “arrival of the fittest” was introduced since early 60ths and goes more or less like this. The meteorites brought the elemental molecules to aqueous solution, in this media gradually this molecules formed bounds to form more complex molecules and life started. These elemental molecules were amino acids, purines and pyrimidine.
Even hardcore biochemist “evos” recognize these tremendous limitations.
For now “hasta la vista amigos” (see you soon my friends) this one still has to work full time.
With all due respect, David, the concept of extraterrestrial contributions to prebiotic chemistry is apparently much more credible than you indicate. Just run a search for "Burton prebiotic chemistry 2012" for a tutorial.
I'd also suggest reading a research report by Michael P. Callahan, and colleagues, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences from 2011. The full-text is available on line at:
http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3161613
This goes far towards ruling out the "contamination" concept you brought up. That was always a concern of mine regarding the extraterrestrial origins idea.
Please understand that my presentation of very easy to find (on line) evidence is not meant to threaten anyone's faith in God the creator. I'm just saying, there is no need to put God in a box by claiming that he did not use natural processes to accomplish something. Taking hard line stands on things you think could not occur or had to occur leaves you vulnerable to disappointment, and even loss of faith, when more evidence comes along.
Of course, as we know, David has been innoculated against loss of faith by having a profound personal conversion experience. But even such an experience does not need to result in brittle insistence on any particular view of astrochemical evidence, in my humble opinion.
David,
In addition to Joe's suggestions, may I suggest another point or two?
You speak of the "arrival of the fittest". You focus your argument on purines and pyrimidine. The link Joe gave counters your argument.
In addition to this you may find this link (below) of value regarding cyanobacteria within the matrix of meteors. Keep in mind that cyanobacteria are everywhere and can live in vastly diverse environments from water, moist, hot, cold, frozen etc. One "creationist leaning" (believers to use your term) site I read dismissed these fossils as post landing invasions by cyanobacteria on the basis that they only live in water! Incredibly ignorant of facts.
You may also find it of value to research meteors and the suggestions of biotic life (cyanobacteria) in the meteors that fell in lake Tagish BC, in 2000.
I find the contamination argument may be too weak to dismiss this kind of data.
As for "believers". David none of us should be "believers". We should simply seek out evidence. The moment I lock in as a "believer", I reduce my ability to do science, evaluate evidence, and follow it where it leads. Bias becomes my perception inhibitor.
link: http://www.panspermia.org/hoover4.htm
Also of value: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20039658-501465.html
and…some links in this one work and are of value: http://www.science.gov/topicpages/t/tagish+lake+meteorite.html
Here's a link to the full Hoover paper: http://www.panspermia.org/hoovermeteorites.pdf
“Here we go again” RR
More to come after putting to sleep to my fours kids, well if I found the time. By the way I knew the suggested papers.
David,
There is something you need to understand here. I am not arguing for OR against biotic life (panspermia) on meteors. I am saying that the research on the matter does present a plausible argument for it.
You seem to exhibit the dismissive attitude of a "believer" in denouncing it.
In point 6 above you quote an "authority" to bolster your case, but seem unaware that his material is not directly addressing biotic life on meteors, but their role in possible adding of "ingredients" to the "soup" on earth. These are differnt foci.
In addition to this, you are quoting a person with whom virtually every thing else he says you would disagree with. He calls IDers IDiots! Pretty clever, but not kind. His argument is put in the negative in order to build his own case for a different theory. Sadly we see this kind of exageration of weakness in anothers argument often when people are trying to bolster their own view. It happens both sides of the debate. Does not mean he is wrong, but suggests caution.
Your points 1 to 5 miss the mark. The paper does address contamination.
As for thymine and cytosine being "absent". Do cyanobacteria require all 4? Seems not. To demand that they do may ignore that some places they currently survive on earth may not have all 4. I don't know. But, more certainly, you are demanding uniformity by assuming that a cyanobacteria from billions of years ago requires exactly what ours do on earth!
If you read the full paper, you would have seen that there are already differences in this area within the meteors. These differences are in fact a mitigating factor in suggesting contamination is not the cause of the bacteria.
Did you read the full paper in the last link I posted? I suspect not, but correct me if I am wrong.
David, here's a few links you may find of use. I just made a dimwitt of myself and clicked on the wrong workspace and pasted them on the wrong thread, but here they are:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2087758,00.html
http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/meteorite-amino-acids-101221.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite
Cb25, you wrote: “There is something you need to understand here. I am not arguing for OR against biotic life (panspermia) on meteors. I am saying that the research on the matter does present a plausible argument for it.”
In my view, all the theory connected with meteors and panspermia achieves it to push the problem back without solving anything about the origin of life. For this reason, my interest in it is very close to zero.
“Your points 1 to 5 miss the mark. The paper does address contamination”
Yes indeed Callahan’s paper does address contamination but does not rule out.
“Establishing an unambiguous extraterrestrial origin for any biological nucleobase in carbonaceous chondrites is challenging…finding nucleobase analogs not typically found in terrestrial biochemistry would strongly support an extraterrestrial origin for these canonical nucleobases because they are often produced concurrently in abiotic syntheses”.
It is possible to insert molecules of nitrogen in the carbon 2, 6 or 8 of the purines by heat? Yes is possible, so in order to rule out the earthly contamination another method has to be use. The one I suggested in point 3 is the best. At least 3 internationals teams think that way (USA, EU and Japan) and are planning to do that. So we may have to wait until that time.
“As for thymine and cytosine being "absent". Do cyanobacteria require all 4? Seems not”
A basic fact of biology: all living organisms including cyanobacteria have DNA and 50% of backbone is given by cytosine and thymidine. Do you have different information?
David,
Which one was Callahan's paper? Anyway, not ruling out does not destroy a theory. You cannot rule out that God exists, or that he does not either, but you can still choose a theory you think best fits the evidence.
Yes, point 3 would be the best way of ruling out contamination. Curiosity may assist in that. In the meantime, rather than dismiss a theory, we should give it degrees of validity based on the certainty of testing that can be achieved. There are other pointers within the tests themselves which can also increase this certainty.
As for thymine etc. read my next sentence. I said "I don't know", so why would you ask me for different information? I readily admit my lack of knowledge on that.
I think Hoovers full paper is the best overview of the data. I suspect table IV on p 23 has some data you may find relevant.
Nic, you don't want to push the problem backwards, but is that not what one does if they use God as the source of all?
I think there is relevance in looking outside of earth, after all we are part of a big cosmos, we are not isolated from it, and there is no logical reason we are the beginning of a process rather than an end of, result of, or a part of. it.
David,
Just a follow up.
The reason I made the statement/question about cyanobacteria requiring all 4 was a spin off from the fact that the "fossils" in the meteors lack a number of the 20 "essential" protein amino acids. They hold this in common with some ancient terrestrial fossils. If these cyanobacteria in the meteors are not contamination, how could this be so? Are these missing ones not essential for life? How do these relate to the absence of 2 of the 4 etc?
This is my point about "uniformity". Assuming these "fossils" are not contamination, it would suggest that the "requirements" for this form of biotic life, at that point in time (4 + bya), were not the same as today. Were they doing very well without some things we/you say are essential?
Of course, as noted earlier, this "absence" of key acids, argues against contamination. You cannot have it both ways. If they are contamination cyanobacteria, they should have all 20 acids. If the acids are absent, they are highly unlikely to be contamintion, and were doing fine without them!
cb25
The “Callahan paper” is the landmark paper that Joe and you were referring.
Following the evidence: On science going from the lower to the highest: expert opinion, retrospective, observational (present), prospective non blinded, prospective randomized experiments and the crown; the meta-analysis of the reproducible prospective trials. In my opinion the evidence will be incomplete if I ignore personal experiences that impacted me deeply. Once I was in the “atheist club” and now I believe in God and his Messiah. I had a “Paulist” conversion literally with extraordinary events (plural). I have no regrets for my decision my world did not shrink it expanded.
David,
Re Callahan, OK, I thought you were reffering to one I linked. He is quoted in one of them but none were his paper. I did read Joe's material. That is what got me checking out this data more.
Re evidence and science sequence. OK, but then you trump them all with personal experience? You are welcome to that personal position, and I won't try to argue against it, but I hope you equally respect that for people who like evidence, it is outside of the entire sequence of valid methods to determine facts/truth/theories.
It is also an irony, because you seem to reject anything not demonstrable by the "the crown" (meta analysis), but allow opinion about personal experience to trump them all.
I have to say, I'm glad you left the "atheist club". I don't actually think there is one, but if there were, having one less member can only be a good thing! Not that I have anything against atheists, but any group that gets a "club" mentality, as many churches do, can be a bad thing.
From the Callahan paper:
"The presence of extraterrestrial purines in meteorites has far-reaching implications. The first cellular systems on the early Earth were presumably assembled from three components: nucleic acids, proteins, and cell membranes (31). Potential molecular subunits for constructing all of these macromolecular species (e.g., amino acids, amphiphilic compounds, and from this study—a variety of purine nucleobases) have been identified in meteorites and appear to be indigenous. Thus, meteorites may have served as a molecular kit providing essential ingredients for the origin of life on Earth and possibly elsewhere."
Perhaps this quote provides a link between the two areas of thought we have running here: One that meteors provided building blocks/components for the early earth. And, two, that in addition to this they may have carried biotic life forms. eg cynobacteria. Bacteria which could survive without some of the 20 amino acids and were similarly assembled from similar components as the early cellular systems on earth?
The links I have been posting focus on the latter. A search begun by the former! I'm beginning to suspect these are complimentary, rather than exclusive possibilities/theories.
In my experience the scientific evidence and the personal one are not contradictory are complementary, they are not mutually exclusive. It helps to know the level of evidence and its appropriate value and limitations. Also helps to know the difference of hypothesis, theory, law etc. In science we talk about the possibilities, probabilities of associations, correlations and very seldom of causations of the observations.
And, of course, much of what these astrochemists are exploring is "possibilities," rather than accepting assertions that such things are "impossible."
cb25
Part of my academic activities involves reviewing research papers for publications or presentations, last year I reviewed around 80 originals works. I learned to be careful and pay attention to the purpose, design, methods, results and conclusion of the study. The main question has to be answered in the conclusion; the design methods and results have to be the adequate ones. The speculation and implications need to be supported with futures studies.
Lets assume that in the future purines and pyrimidines are found in a meteoroid in the space. What that it means? Just that! In space were found these elements. The next step will be to understand how these molecules are or were form there, because this is not the mechanism in the planet earth, here these molecules are only produced by a very complex system of information stored in the DNA and by the catalytic action of the enzymes.
If some body believes these celestial molecules were the pioneers of life in earth, it is OK, but is just a believe, a speculation. The burden is to prove it. And that is a completed different history
David, I continue to be curious about who you are and what you do. Apparently you are in academia in Florida. You publish, give presentations, review manuscripts for scientific/medical journals. Why can we not know more about you? This comes from a genuine interest, not an intent to try to harm you in any way.
Feel free to run a search for me at "Erwin GWU" for a bio and link to my CV. My life is an open book.
So long guys enjoyed the rest of the day. This one is going to participate in a very nice Sabbath School a live and refreshing worship service and then a very well anticipated spring break with my kids.
cb25 wrote: "Nic, you don't want to push the problem backwards, but is that not what one does if they use God as the source of all?"
Yes, but I provided an end point for this push back: God.
Yes, Nic, I realize that, but your point was that pushing it back does not solve the origin of life question. I'm just saying that either way you go, it is "pushing the problem back". Neither approach "solves" the question. However, one approach has real data to assist in the search. The other does not.
By going back to "God", you only move it back to a "chosen" source/cause, and then are faced with many more questions about "cause" (of God), with no data beyond faith. We've been there!
By pushing it back to matter outside this earth, there is added scope, added data, added sources material. All of it can be studied to some degree or another, and therefore can have a varying degree of "certainty" attached to conclusions about it.
Pushing it back to "God" makes it even harder to study scientifically. Why would we want to "bounce" from a Garden of eden story directly back to God and leave an entire universe/cosmos out of our study as to possiblities of how life came to be on earth?
Well, I guess we would only do that if "faith" in what the bible says is the ultimate "answer" for us.
I prefer to think.
The Neanderthal Lives on in Many Humans
By JOHN BERMAN (@johnsberman) and MICHAEL MURRAY
May 7, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/neanderthals-humans-share-dna-study-reveals/story?id=10587532#.UU0JIFfz59s
1999 ABC News Internet Ventures
http://media.isnet.org/iptek/Evolution/Neanderthals.html
“Radiocarbon dating on pill-size samples from two skulls put their age at 28,000 years old. The Neanderthal specimens had earlier been dated at 45,000 years using a less accurate method.”
Tuesday, 27 April 1999
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/04/27/23000.htm
Portuguese and American scientists claim they have found definite proof that Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) were in fact not separate species.
Neanderthals and Early Humans May Not Have Mingled Much
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: May 9, 2011
“But researchers report that tests using an improved method of radiocarbon dating, based on a new way to exclude contaminants, show that most, and maybe all, Neanderthal bones in Europe are or will be found to be at least 39,000 years old.”
Radioactive dating is no rocket science. The physics, chemistry, and math involved are covered in high school. Failure analysis is a good way of learning and gain insight into a subject. Ervin would do all a favor by explaining the large discrepancy in his area of expertise.
May I suggest, Philip, that you are welcome to propse more reliable and valid methods if you know of some.
Joe,
Just be honest and admit that it is unreliabble.
cb25 wrote: "Pushing it back to "God" makes it even harder to study scientifically."
You can set God aside from your scientific research, but you will not succed from getting away from him. When you are sure that you have gotten rid of him, you will discover that as you turn around you will be staring at his face. He is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega of life. You can do your science with God or without him, but if you do this alone, you will find out at the end of your life that you have wasted a lifetime of work and effort.
The basic premise of modern science is that God cannot interfere in nature. If he cannot interfere in what he has created, then he is not God, and if he is not God, then there is no such entity we call God. If we are alone, then there is no future for us. We will end where we came from: nothing. And, by the way, nothing will never produce something! If we have something, there must exist a primeeval cause for it. This is a scientific premise you cannot deny.
Science tries to explain the origin of the universe and of life without God and without his miraculous intervention in nature, and what does science end with: Miraculous events such as singularities, Big Bangs, and emergence for which there is no scientific explanation. A causeless event exists only in the mind of people who engage in science fiction and philosophic speculation. By denying the existencee and activity of God, they end by denying rationality and scienfific certainty.
Excellent summation at the end here Nic. I would add just one word [Evolutionary] "Science tries to explain the origin of the universe and of life without God and without his miraculous intervention in nature, and what does science end with: Miraculous events such as singularities, Big Bangs, and emergence for which there is no scientific explanation. A causeless event exists only in the mind of people who engage in science fiction and philosophic speculation. By denying the existencee and activity of God, they end by denying rationality and scientific certainty." Plilosophically speaking, this last sentence can not be forgotten.
Excellent summation at the end here Nic. I would add just one word [Evolutionary] "Science tries to explain the origin of the universe and of life without God and without his miraculous intervention in nature, and what does science end with: Miraculous events such as singularities, Big Bangs, and emergence for which there is no scientific explanation. A causeless event exists only in the mind of people who engage in science fiction and philosophic speculation. By denying the existencee and activity of God, they end by denying rationality and scientific certainty." Plilosophically speaking, this last sentence can not be forgotten.
Excellent summation at the end here Nic. I would add just one word [Evolutionary] "Science tries to explain the origin of the universe and of life without God and without his miraculous intervention in nature, and what does science end with: Miraculous events such as singularities, Big Bangs, and emergence for which there is no scientific explanation. A causeless event exists only in the mind of people who engage in science fiction and philosophic speculation. By denying the existencee and activity of God, they end by denying rationality and scientific certainty." Plilosophically speaking, this last sentence can not be forgotten.
Nic, with all due respect, I find your opinions regarding science very distorted and misleading. Science cannot and does not disprove the existence of God, nor should it in any sense attempt to do so. Science simply has no tools for investigating the supernatural. Science is limited to studying what can be objectively studied, including, of course, theories that have the potential of being objectively studied. Science is not anti-God.
Of course, scientists, like all other people, have the option of choosing to believe in a spiritual dimension, or not. Some are religious. Many are not. Some scientists even claim that evidence from science disproves the existence of a spiritual dimension or God. Scientific evidence certainly indicates that some things people believe about God or His activities are extremely unlikely–if not impossible.
Some of us feel that we cannot know or understand much, if anything, about God, and we may even doubt His existence–or, we may simply choose to believe He loves us and that the rest doesn't matter.
So Joe, do you disagree with Dawkins in the God Delusion, that “the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question” pgs. 58-59 ?
I disagree with Dawkins on many things. I think his whole approach is unproductive–aside from getting wealthy from book sales. And my cynical side suspects that is mostly what he is about.
I do not quote Darwin much–not being a "darwinist"–but, here goes.
"It appears to me…that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science." — Charles Darwin
To be fair to Dawkins and a number of other people from the "sociobiology" and "evolutionary psychology" tradition, I must confess to having some visceral aversion to them that may be motivated to some degree by professional jealousy or envy. So many of these people (e.g., Dawkins, Desmond Morris, Helen Fisher, Robert Trivers, et al.) have had enormous financial success with books that are considered, by some, to be brilliant. I find much of the work very speculative–not that there is anything wrong with that–; but even worse, there seems to be an attitude of thinking themselves so much brighter than the rest of us. And, I guess I resent that, not because I think I'm the brightest bulb on the tree, but because I'm afraid they may very well be brighter and more talented and less lazy than I am.
Some of these people are my peers, at least chronologically speaking. And I know some of them personally, or at least people who were their professors of classmates. Some of them are just as pleasant and down to earth as anyone. Others? Well, not so much. Many are elitists in the worst sense. Some are obnoxious. Even if I agree with them sometimes about some things, I'm not entirely pleased to have unpleasant people on my side. Their manner sometimes alienates much more than it convinces. That isn't good for anyone.
Nic,
The scientific side of your comment is wrong. As Joe noted.
You are also philosophically up the creek without a paddle.
First, your suggestion that if there is no God we end up as "nothing", appears to be used by you as a "reason" there has to be a God. The fear of a conclusion should never be the cause for us accepting an altnernative.
Secondly, you end that section with this:
"…nothing will never produce something! If we have something, there must exist a primeval cause for it. This is a scientific premise you cannot deny."
IF you are going to take this statement to its logical conclusion you must also be willing to insert "God" where you have "something". IF "God" can always exist, so too could "something". If "God" does not need a cause, neither does "something". That is a philosophical premise you cannot deny.
Thirdly, you are equally screwed up with this one:
"A causeless event exists only in the minds of people who engage in science fiction and philosophic speculation. By denying the existence and activity of God, they end by denying rationality and scientific certainty. "
If your point about a causeless event being fictional and speculative is correct: What about the belief in a "causeless God"? Is that fictional speculation? If you remove the "Bible", which declares it as fact, from the equation, you are indeed left with speculation which could equally well be fiction. It certainly is speculation which seems to falter under any scientific examination, given that it is even possible.
Scientific certainty is based on the laws of nature, and absolutely not on speculation about God. God, as a causeless event/being, may only exist in the minds of those who engage in religious fiction and spiritual speculation.
Nic, your comments are a two edged knife, and I suspect more likely to shave God out of the discussion as a rational topic of debate than scientifically determined data about nature and evolution. Darrel, I don't know how and why you can grab such speculation and endorse it as fact, and then even add your own bit of philosophcal nonsense to it?
As Joe says, science does not deny the existence of God, it just ignores it as a question. Such a position, I would suggest, increases rationality and certainty.
As Joe says and cb25 endorses, "science does not deny the existence of God, it just ignores it as a question." I was just wondering if it is possible for everyone on this thread to agree to the truthfulness of this statement. If so, it seems to me that this would help the quality of the dialogue here as we move on. Those who object will need to explain the basis of their objection.
The only honest position denies that no one can objectively prove that a god exists.
I certainly agree.
I think those like Dawkins who claim otherwise do a disservice to clear thinking.
(I do have some caveats to that view: specific claims about the *actions* of God, such as miraculous healing, are empirically testable.)
But yes, as an approach to moving forward, recognising that religious and empirical claims are made and supported in different domains, with different evidence, makes a lot of sense.
Correction on my previous comment:
Proof or denial of God's existence are only personal opinions which should remove it from objective discussions as uesless exercises.
I certainly agree.
I think those like Dawkins who claim otherwise do a disservice to clear thinking.
(I do have some caveats to that view: specific claims about the *actions* of God, such as miraculous healing, are empirically testable.)
But yes, as an approach to moving forward, recognising that religious and empirical claims are made and supported in different domains, with different evidence, makes a lot of sense.
(apologies for the double post)
The point cb25 made above seems to me to be both important and obvious, yet entirely missed by those who make the argument:
Saying 'nothing can exist without a cause' applies as well to God as to the universe. If an exception is made for God, an exception can be made for the universe.
It's not an argument that goes anywhere…
And, of course, few scientists would claim that "something came from nothing." Getting back to a place where there was demonstrably nothing has been pretty challenging.
I would not say that science has any option other than to ignore the supernatural. And even if someone investigates "paranormal" phenomena, one is stuck with using the empirical tools of science, and even if something seems not to be natural, or isn't naturally explainable, one is not free–as a scientist–to just specify a spiritual cause. One can certainly indicate that the cause is unknown. Of course, anyone, including scientists, can speculate, even wildly.
Thank you all for your comments. It is great that many here do not agree with Dawkins on some things. However, he must be correct that “the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question" because if we can not detect intelligence, then we can not trust any of our science.
Why must he be correct? And what does "if we can not detect intelligence," etc., even mean? Please clarify.
Again, given Materialism, how can we trust our minds to do the task of finding truth. Darwin: “the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” Darwin, letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd 1881. In the Life and letter of Charles Darwin. Editor Francis Darwin, 1887
"…given Materialism, how can we trust our minds to do the task of finding truth." I'm not sure why the "given materialism" part matters. How and why do you mention that? Then the rest: indeed, how can we expect our minds to find truth? It is a tall order, don't you think? It does not seem to me that our minds are very trustworthy as far as approaching truth. You can't really just make up the answers about reality, can you? Just by thinking about things, one is unlikely to arrive at much truth–at least, unless all of what one is thinking about is firmly anchored in objective empirical reality.
The quotation from Charles Darwin is interesting, but why is it especially relevant in 2013?
So, Nic's statement stands: "By denying the existence and activity of God, they end by denying rationality and scientific certainty."
I wonder if Mr. Lindensmith or Nic would please explicitly state who the "they" is/are in the quotation cited above. I think I know, but I would like it to come from the individual(s) who are citing it.
Darrel,
This point from above, "science does not deny the existence of God, it just ignores it as a question", is not the same as stating that science is silent about "statements" made about God. This is akin to the caveat David G noted, wherein if you are making some empirical statement about God's activity which denies scientifically observable data, science has a response: You are wrong.
For example: You can claim God sent a global flood upon this earth about 4000 years ago. Sciencific study of this earth is unequivocal there has never been such an event, and most assuredly not within the last 4000 years. So such a statement is within the realms of science. I believe it is in this type of context that Dawkins' makes his statement. If I'm wrong as to the focus of his statement, I'm happy to hear so. Science does not set out to prove or disprove "your God" who supposedly caused the flood exists – it sets out to tell you such a flood never happened. The god is your problem!
Science does not care about the question of whether or not God exists. It does care if, based on your belief in a God of magic, you make crazy statements/claims about how this world is that are in denial of scientific observations about this world.
Now, having said all that. Here is how Dawkins continues his point after what you quote, not the bold underlined word:
"….So also is the truth or falsehood of every one of the miracle stories that religions rely upon to impress multitudes of the faithful [a scientific question]. Did Jesus have a human father, or was his mother a virgin at the time of his birth? Whether or not there is enough surviving evidence to decide it, this is still a strictly scientific question with a definite answer in principle: yes or no. Did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead? Did he himself come alive again, three days after being crucified? There is an answer to every such question, whether or not we can discover it in practice, and it is a strictly scientific answer. The methods we should use to settle the matter, in the unlikely event that relevant evidence ever became available, would be purely and entirely scientific methods."
Note the last sentence. To Dawkins the question: "Does God exist" becomes a scientific question in precisely the same way as do the other empirically testable claims he noted above. He makes it clear that, in the unlikely event that relevant evidence ever became available, and whatever evidence that was, it would be based on purely and entirely scientific methods! The "Truth" of claims made about God's actions are scientific questions. Obviously, as far as evidence to answer the question "Is there a super – intelligence?" Dawkins believes there is NONE available at this time.
Now, as for your statement tacked on to Dawkins words: "…if we cannot detect intelligence, then we can not trust any of our science.."
You are twisting Dawkin's statement as if it read: "The question of whether or not we can detect a creative super-intelligence is …a scientific question." If that is not what he meant, as indeed I suspect it is not, based on above – your follow on statement is not only absurd, it is deceptive.
And, then you go on to use this absurd twisting of Dawkins words and meaning to justify Nic's nonsense statements.
Sorry to be blunt, but we need to think through the implications of what we say, and get the context of quotes if their precise intent is important.
Chris, I do not agree with everything you have said about science, even though I agree with you on many things. It seems like you are doing something that some critics of science do; that is, attributing "a mind" to science–perhaps even a unitary mind to a great unitary science. It is not that "science cares" about this, or "science does not care" about that, so much as that science has no way to really observe or measure things that are beyond natural.
If asked (or challenged) to study paranormal or supernatural phenomena, scientists can attempt to analyze the situations and circumstances and attempt to empirically demonstrate that the phenomenon could have been natural, or could be explained as natural. The thing is, no matter what a scientist may do empirically, one who believes an event or phenomenon to be paranormal or spiritual can go right on believing what s/he believed.
Being able to explain something doesn't mean the explanation is correct, regardless of what the explainer believes. Likewise, NOT being able to explain something does not mean there is no explanation–it just means no explanation has yet been found. Of course, very often, the tendency has been, with difficult to explain things, to assert AND ACCEPT a supernatural explanation.
In my opinion, there are some mysteries–actually, many things that are not adequately understood. I could even say that I think MOST things are inadequately understood. There are endless wonderful mysteries that inspire awe, and for some of us, attract our attention and challenge us to seek to gain more knowledge and fuller understanding.
There seem to me to be some parallels between "seeking truth" as a believer in God and the supernatural and "seeking truth" through application of scientific methods to the study of nature. It seems plausible to me that these are both expressions of a deeply motivated human tendency–near what Stephen sometimes refers to as "hardwired" or built in. While ID enthusiasts would claim this characteristic was implanted on purpose by a Designer, evolutionary psychologists would claim that this was an emergent phenomenon that had adaptive value.
The thing is, real world natural empirical evidence just doesn't have any bearing on spiritual beliefs, evidence is currency without value in the spiritual dimension. Anyone can assert anything s/he wishes as a spiritual explanation, then, other people can accept, doubt, or reject their testimonies. A commitment to follow empirical evidence leads to successive approximations of valid information regarding nature, without, for the most part, ever arriving at a comprehensive understanding (which doesn't keep people from attempting a "theory of everything"). Scientists who are obsessed with developing a "theory of everything" are, in my humble opinion, rather similar to those who offer God as their theory of everything.
Finally, as a biological psychologist by formal training and extensive experience, I am uneasy with the term "mind." It is a very slippery term that means different things to different people and is used as an explanation for things very much as if it were in a spiritual dimension. Surely some people are claiming that both human and divine "mind" are in the same dimension. It is used very much like "soul" by some. To some, it means "consciousness," and to others, "awareness." My inclination is to regard "mind" as an emergent functional consequence of the physically tangible structure we call brain. Like behavior, mind need not necessarily have a tangible and persistent trace in physical reality.
So, extension of the elusive concept "mind" to "Super Mind" is not very helpful to me. I think Dawkins goes far off track in speculating about this. We are able to detect some correlates of what we call "mind" in humans (as well as nonhuman animals), but the most sophisticated scientific methods barely scratch the surface in detecting or measuring "mind" or "intelligence." I think we'll have to get a lot better at behavioral and cognitive neuroscience of tangible and objectively real organisms before we will have a prayer of plugging into divine consciousness in the sense that Dawkins is talking about. It is a rather wonderful and challenging mystery, and claiming to "know" there is no God because the evidence is lacking, as Dawkins seems to, is to essentially make false claims about what science does or can do.
It is, however, "consistent with" a kind of distorted reasoning that is common among many "evolutionary psychologists," such as Robert Trivers (someone I personally dislike as a result of interacting with him–but to be fair to him, he has long had mental health issues that may have contributed to his bizarre and obnoxious behavior, as well as the unconventional ideas that some regard as brilliant).
So, to sum up my position: science offers no methods by which anyone can address the issue of whether or not God or a supernatural dimension exists. If a scientist claims to know there is no God, he is on his own, stating a personal belief, and, of course, he is entitled to state that he is an atheist because he sees no evidence of a God. And we do not have to believe his conclusion any more than we have to believe the conclusions of others who choose to believe God exists. I think we do not really know for sure one way or another, and I doubt that we can know (other than in the sense that Graham Maxwell used to call "knowledge by belief").
Joe,
I am puzzled. I've just gone through this entire thread, above this point, searching "mind", and I have not used it in the context you describe. Perhaps you can give me more details how I gave the impression about mind?
Anyway, to set the record or impression straight. I may have given the wrong impression by inadvertently "personifying" science? Attributing a mind to science is the last thing I would affirm. And absolutely not a unitary mind. I perhaps should use the word "scientists", or "scientific method", rather than science as a term, when talking about "its" interest or not in something. This may have avoided the impression of "personifiying" science.
I actually dislike the word "mind", but I sense Dawkins is using "creative super-intelligence" to avoid the word God, though I may be wrong. I also dislike how "mind" comes up so often with ID, and I only used it in discussion with Darrel below, not because I like the term, but to try to couch my argument in his terms.
I also think Darrel uses it as a synonym for "God", and apart from that, consider it a pretty meaningless and nebulous term in these kind of discussions.
I fully agree with your summary in the last paragraph, and do happen to think that people like Dawkins, who claim to "know" there is no god are off track.
My point in quoting Dawkins, is not to express agreement with his conclusion that there is no god, but to counter the way Darrel was using his one liner about the question of a "creative super-intelligence" being a scientific question or not. I do think he takes that quote out of context.
The area I may see things differently on this, is that I do agree with Dawkins that the presense of absence of "God" is a scientific one, and also that the answer is not yet decided. Note these quotes again:
“The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice – or not yet – a decided one. So also is the truth or falsehood of every one of the miracle stories .."
But, this must not be seen in absence of his caveat in the same context:
"….There is an answer to every such question, whether or not we can discover it in practice, and it is a strictly scientific answer. The methods we should use to settle the matter, in the unlikely event that relevant evidence ever became available, would be purely and entirely scientific methods."
As I see it, if God pokes his nose into this natural world there will be a ready and willing bunch of scientists who will jump in to measure it using scientific methods!
This may be semantics, but to me it does not contradict saying that the "scientific method" has no interest in the question of whether or not God exists. It does not by nature of its aims, purposes, methods, and controls. However, it does have an interest in any empirically observable evidence.
So, if the question is to be asked, "is there a super intellignece/God"? : It must/should be asked by science, even though scienctific methods have no interest in asking it. It should not be asked by theology. If one accepts that all theology is based on myth and illusion, asking the question from that end of the puzzle is a senseless and circular notion anyway. Therefore: The question which should be answered by scientific methods anyway, and not some mythical notion, is ultimately a scientific question, not a theological one. In the presence of true rational thinking and scientific methods – would theology even exist anyway???
As you note above: "A commitment to follow empirical evidence leads to successive approximations of valid information regarding nature…" So, if God pokes his nose in it will get measured!
I guess science was trying to do that with the "Prayer" studies I mentioned the other day. Sadly, the nose was conspicuous by its absence.
Anyway, that's a bit of a ramble in response to your points Joe. Some of these points will probably get me in more trouble with some:)
"science does not deny the existence of God, it just ignores it as a question", is not the same as stating that science is silent about "statements" made about God. Chris, this is not about "statements made about God."
You can't have it both ways! As if, 'popular evolutionary science can not say anything about God, except that there is not God.'
'popular evolutionary science' seems like a bit of an oxymoron.
Evolutionary science describes the diversity of species. It has zip to say on the existence of God.
To the extent that evolutionary scientists speak to the existence of God, they are not speaking as evolutionary scientists.
Before expressing an opinion on the topic at issue here, I would like again to ask Mr. Lindensmith if he would be so kind as to state explicitly and specifically who the "they" are in the statement: "By denying the existence and activity of God, they end by denying rationality and scientific certainty." I am just attempting to make sure I am addressing what Mr. Lindensmith is attempting to say, not what I think he is trying to say.
Now, as to Nic's nonsense statement 'By denying the existence and activity of God, they end by denying rationality and scientific certainty.' If we are here as a result of a mindless process of material formation, and not the produce of Mind, then the rationality that we think we see in biology and the cosmos is in question why would we know this. Or why could we truly know we know anything?
Philosophically, Epistemology at this level is unexplainable given material evolutionism. What Michael Ruse says below is very true of moral knowledge as well as any knowledge, given materialism.
“Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269). We are all “just dancing to our DNA,” as Dawkins love to say.
So, given materialism, what we think we are thinking when we are ‘thinking’ is simply a survival tool to create superiority over other gene sets. What we are ‘discussing’ here in this blog is simply attempts to dominate–a spin-off of our genetic struggle to survive. Our mind will tell us anything that will be helpful to this end. There is no objective reality beyond that to anything. Is this the problem you were thinking of Nic in your comment?
Two important studies on the above worth reading:
Joseph P. Natoli, Primer to Postmodernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 18. 5
Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity (New York: Cambridge Press, 1989), 4– 5.
Sorry Erv, I imagine Nic is refering to people like Dawkins and Ruse et al who are among the public dismenators of evolutionism.
Darrel,
You ask:
"if we are here as a result of a mindless process of material formation, and not the produce [I think you mean product?] of Mind, then the rationality that we think we see in biology and the cosmos is in question why would we know this. Or why could we truly know we know anything?"
We would know we know on the very same basis you claim to "know" we are the product of mind!
What basis is that? Reason. The assertion that we are the product of mind is precisely that. An assertion we/you choose to make. Having made that claim, you then turn around and use the result of that claim (Mind exists) to "prove" that we can indeed know anything. Do you not see this circular reasoning you are using?
Thus, if you can "know" enough about reality, nature, and matter to make an assertion that "mind exists", I also can "know" enough about reality, nature and matter to assert that we can know things. If we cannot "know" in this way, your "knowing", or "claim" about mind is exactly as without foundation or basis as you claim mine is, in claiming reason in the absence of "mind". Simply: you use reason to claim "mind", I use reason to claim "we can know". You prove my position by claiming yours through reason! I just don't use a circle.
The other difference is that your position then proceeds to make claims about reality, which become hard to justify, so your knowing becomes more suspect than mine.
Chris, thank you for your reply. Yes, I agree that you can know things. Truly know objective things. My point simply is that given materialism there is no reason or justification to think we can trust that fact.
I will ask it this way. To what degree would we agree with Richard Rorty thinking here in the following? “The idea that one species of organism is, unlike all the others, oriented not just toward its own prosperity but toward Truth, is as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human being has a built-in moral compass—a conscience that swings free of both social history and individual luck.” ”Untruth and Consequences,” The New Republic, July 31, 1995, pp. 32-36. For me, given materialism, his logic is solid.
Of making many words there is no end. I'm afraid we often do so in vain.
I'm confident that Richard Rorty is a fine and brilliant person, but the statement you quote from him, Darrel, is deeply flawed, and it makes almost no sense to me for several reasons. First, as might be easily predictable, I do not accept that humans are as unique among all living things as may come very naturally for some to believe. Second, given the slippery concepts of "mind" and "rationality" and applying them exclusively to humans (and God) doesn't help me understand much of everything. Humans have for hundreds of years debated about what is "Truth." I do not like "un-Darwinian" any better than "Darwinian" as a label for evolutionary biology. It does not matter much what Darwin wrote 150 years ago. The current state of knowledge about the brain and behavior is far more relevant.
A case can be made that many humans and nonhuman animals have some sense of "fairness" that is roughly related to a "moral compass," although who would claim that it ever "swings free of social history and individual luck," whatever that means. I suppose that is a fancy way of referring to "instinct" or an "innate" characteristic.
And the idea, popularized by Dawkins and others, to some extent, that all organisms are oriented exclusively toward their own prosperity, is such an gross oversimplification. So much of this sort of argument seems profoundly vain.
Well, I am glad you feel that way Joe. Sadly, Dawkins, Rorty, Ruse and many other public faces of evolutionism [the 'They'] are representitive of Evolution to the world, not us.
I am among the faces of evolutionary biology to the world. Just a small face and voice, but I've played a minor role. Those who have had literary success have sometimes achieved it by making sensational comments that have stimulated heated discussion–within and beyond biology. Perhaps this is not so different from other fields in which those who habitually overstate extreme views achieve notoriety. If you are tempted to think Dawkins speaks for all of biological science, be sure to read reviews of his work by other scientists. I'm just saying, don't believe Dawkins represents all of us any more than you believe what he says–which, I take it, you mostly don't.
I confessed awhile back to some professional jealousy of Dawkins and Morris and Trivers and some others. There is a style among a number of the people of my generation who did their graduate work at Oxford, Harvard, Cambridge, Yale, Leiden, and similar places. There is a kind of "celebrity science" that has come out of some of these places, and National Geographic has been complicit in some of it. The tendency has been to write books, sometimes including rather outlandish and sensational claims about the nature of humans and other animals. And, if the first book sells, one's career is off and running. If funding was a constraint, it ceases to be (although many of the people I'm speaking of were from families of means and social stature). So, I was one of the ones that struggled along. Although I published plenty (some said too much) in professional journals, I did not publish enough books, or sensational enough books, to become established as a scientific celebrity. Maybe I'm just too lazy, or maybe I'm not bright enough. However, I did have enough direct exposure to many of these people to form opinions about them. Some of them are really wonderful and down to earth. Others? Well, some are really obnoxious. And it doesn't improve my opinion if they have become wealthy by saying controversial things that I think reflect poorly on science generally, and, more specifically, biology and zoology and psychology and anthropology.
I recall a meeting in San Francisco in the late 1960s when Niko Tinbergen was asked about The Naked Ape, written by his student at Oxford, Desmond Morris. He said, "my professor once told me that a professor should never be held accountable for the writing of his students." My guess is that Tinbergen was embarrassed many times by the writings of his students. One of his best students, I think, was my friend Jan van Hooff of Utrecht, who has also produced a number of outstanding student (e.g., Frans deWaal). It bears looking at Tinbergen's students (including Dawkins). Tinbergen won a Nobel Prize (for physiology or medicine–but for his work in "ethology"), probably during the time Dawkins was his student (ca., 1970).
And, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Joe wrote: "Science cannot and does not disprove the existence of God"
You're right, Science does not attempt to disprove the existence an supernatural power of God. But modern science ignores both his existence and power. The moment you allow for the invisible presence of the Almighty and his power over nature, all bets are off.
No one can either prove or disprove the reality of God, but the evidence for a designer is overwhelming in nature and especially in the human DNA. Said designer acquires the identity of the biblical Creator the moment you recognize that this is the God of Abaham, Isaac, Jacob, and of Jesus Christ whose Son he claimed to be.
These claims are deeply rooted in biblical prophecy. This morning I re-read the prophetic prediction pointing to the role the U.S. would play as we near the end. This is found in Rev. 13:11-17. Read it and be amazed. This was writteen two thousands years ago, and the fulfillment is taking place today.
Anybody who dares to ignore this is doing so to his own harm. How can anyone deny the incredible accuracy of what was foreseen by a human being twenty centuries ago? This is not the result of human intelligence and wisdom but rather an evidence of divine revelation.
"…the evidence for a designer is overwhelming in nature and…DNA."
Science can study natural phenomena. Science cannot study nor inform about supernatural phenomena nor beings. Science "ignores" God only in the sense that it has no means of accessing or studying anything supernatural.
You can believe in God, as many people do, including some scientists–you just can't use science as the basis for doing so. That is the trick the ID folks try to play on people–the suggestion that somehow, there is such a thing as "creation science," where the conclusion dictates what the evidence means.
Please feel free to believe in devine personal revelatory experience, but do not claim that there is anything scientific about it.
"Science "ignores" God only in the sense that it has no means of accessing or studying anything supernatural." Joe please! "Science" makes pronouncements about God all the time. That's the problem!! You can not have it both ways.
Joe wrote: "Science cannot and does not disprove the existence of God"
You're right, Science does not attempt to disprove the existence an supernatural power of God. But modern science ignores both his existence and power. The moment you allow for the invisible presence of the Almighty and his power over nature, all bets are off.
No one can either prove or disprove the reality of God, but the evidence for a designer is overwhelming in nature and especially in the human DNA. Said designer acquires the identity of the biblical Creator the moment you recognize that this is the God of Abaham, Isaac, Jacob, and of Jesus Christ whose Son he claimed to be.
These claims are deeply rooted in biblical prophecy. This morning I re-read the prophetic prediction pointing to the role the U.S. would play as we near the end. This is found in Rev. 13:11-17. Read it and be amazed. This was writteen two thousands years ago, and the fulfillment is taking place today.
Anybody who dares to ignore this is doing so to his own harm. How can anyone deny the incredible accuracy of what was foreseen by a human being twenty centuries ago? This is not the result of human intelligence and wisdom but rather an evidence of divine revelation.
Joe wrote: "Science cannot and does not disprove the existence of God"
You're right, Science does not attempt to disprove the existence an supernatural power of God. But modern science ignores both his existence and power. The moment you allow for the invisible presence of the Almighty and his power over nature, all bets are off.
No one can either prove or disprove the reality of God, but the evidence for a designer is overwhelming in nature and especially in the human DNA. Said designer acquires the identity of the biblical Creator the moment you recognize that this is the God of Abaham, Isaac, Jacob, and of Jesus Christ whose Son he claimed to be.
These claims are deeply rooted in biblical prophecy. This morning I re-read the prophetic prediction pointing to the role the U.S. would play as we near the end. This is found in Rev. 13:11-17. Read it and be amazed. This was writteen two thousands years ago, and the fulfillment is taking place today.
Anybody who dares to ignore this is doing so to his own harm. How can anyone deny the incredible accuracy of what was foreseen by a human being twenty centuries ago? This is not the result of human intelligence and wisdom but rather an evidence of divine revelation.
Joe wrote: "Science cannot and does not disprove the existence of God"
You're right, Science does not attempt to disprove the existence an supernatural power of God. But modern science ignores both his existence and power. The moment you allow for the invisible presence of the Almighty and his power over nature, all bets are off.
No one can either prove or disprove the reality of God, but the evidence for a designer is overwhelming in nature and especially in the human DNA. Said designer acquires the identity of the biblical Creator the moment you recognize that this is the God of Abaham, Isaac, Jacob, and of Jesus Christ whose Son he claimed to be.
These claims are deeply rooted in biblical prophecy. This morning I re-read the prophetic prediction pointing to the role the U.S. would play as we near the end