Science: What’s It Good For?
by Joe Erwin
So I just had a look at AToday again. I've been giving some attention to the religion and evolution thread started by Erv Taylor.
From time-to-time we get comments from "David," who seems to be an Adventist physician scientist for whom English is not his native language. He says what he has said before, that scientific evidence does not support evolution. He is especially dismissive of what he calls "retrospective" evidence. To him, science seems to all be about experimental replicability in the present. Since none of us was around six thousand or six million or six hundred million years ago, there is, essentially, no current evidence that can inform us about anything that might have happened.
Of course, I think many people would agree that the term "evidence" suggests a residual consequence of something that occurred in the past, from which one may be able to construct hypotheses of what happened then that persists into the present. Being able to detect evidence and evaluate it through careful, replicable measurement, and, in some cases, through demonstrations and reconstructions and experimental verifications in the present, all play roles in approaching authentication and understanding.
There is, I suspect, confusion over what constitutes evidence and what constitutes hypothesis or explanation or speculation–all of which have a place in science, as long as one does not mix them up.
Geological strata, fossils, bones, morphology of extant plants and animals, chemicals (including complex molecules like DNA), and genomics, all exist in the present. They constitute reality and tangible evidence. The existence of hominin fossils (not to mention other primates, other mammals, other vertebrates, etc.) is real, actual, tangible fact. That they are found in physical matrices that can be described, measured, studied, and dated, is fact. The structures and sequences of DNA and other proteins are factual in the present, and can be repeatedly measured and analyzed. If one does not like the measures and descriptions of a specific fossil tooth or skeleton, one may go and remeasure and reanalyze all the data regarding it independently. There is no need to just take someone's word for anything. Follow the data wherever it leads, and be as skeptical as you like of the explanations or speculations about the actual facts. But denial of the facts? Denial that evidence exists? Denial that the evidence spreads out across millions of years? That is denial of reality, and that is perilously close to insanity.
So, what is the "evidence" for "spiritual" interpretations of the real world? Well, there are relatively recent interpretations of ancient manuscripts, some of which are of dubious or doubtful origin and others about which we can make stronger guesses as to origins or authors. There are traditional beliefs and traditional "authorities." We can seek, and sometimes find some tangible evidence to corroborate (or not) the information in the old manuscripts. As to the "spiritual" bases of such documents, we really have no basis for evaluation except reports by others of their personal experiences and our own private and subjective experiences. If one accepts a spirit world, an unverifiable dimension accessible only through private experience—if then—where does this lead? It seems to me that it leads either to acknowledgement of the validity (or, at least, possible validity) of all private experience, no matter how disconnected it may be from anything tangibly verifiable, or the denial of anything not within one's own subjective experience, OR, pretty much anything in between. This becomes a wildly chaotic epistemology that has no anchor at all—unless one clings to some authoritarian spiritual fantasy, either traditional or of one's own invention. For those inclined toward paranoid schizophrenia, this should be familiar territory.
I can be quite tolerant of ambiguity. We seldom have all the facts or evidence we would like to form a complete and comprehensive picture of reality. When evidence is lacking, I often do not form a strong opinion. At the same time, while I am quite committed to making evidence-based decisions, some decisions must be made in the absence of adequate evidence. So, we just do the best we can. I suspect that many ancient manuscripts were generated in what were, essentially, evidence-poor situations. With few facts upon which to base explanations of origins or superiority, there was a vacuum in which wildly imaginative speculation ran rampant. To accept such fantasy as the ultimate truth and explanation of life requires quite a stretch.
Joe, you wrote: "Follow the data wherever it leads, and be as skeptical as you like of the explanations or speculations about the actual facts. But denial of the facts? Denial that evidence exists? Denial that the evidence spreads out across millions of years? That is denial of reality, and that is perilously close to insanity."
Yes, it looks like insanity. It may also look like insanity for a Christian to ignore what men of God wrote as a result of revelations received from above and to relegate to mythical garbage what we find in Scripture. If there is no God, then evolution might be a logical explanation for origins; nevertheless, if God exists, then all bets are off.
Jesus Christ claimed to have existed before Abraham. This means that he did witness the creation of our world and that of Adam and Eve. He did treat the story of creation as factual. This means that if I accept the theory of evolution, I must reject Jesus and his claims, including the testimony of many who witnessed that he was alive following his death.
I share the view of Paul who said that if we deny the resurrection, we are the most miserable among men. I can't explain why some fossils look rather old; the answer might be in the possibility of contamination, or perhaps nature clocks were altered as a result of Noah's flood. I don't know, but the Lord knows, and if this is crucial for our faith, he will reveal it to us!
If I "claimed to have existed before Abraham" would that mean that I "did witness the creation of our world?"
You are free to believe anything you wish to believe, and I am confident that you will. Making the case that fossils merely "look rather old" is a tough sell in the real world of tangible evidence.
Of course, there are many mysteries. One of them is how some people have faith that is sufficient to accommodate reality and some insist that reality is just not true.
Joe, you asked: "If I "claimed to have existed before Abraham" would that mean that I "did witness the creation of our world?"
Yes, given tjhe context! Because when he saiI: "Before Abraham, I am," he was identifying himself with the Great I Am of Scripture, the one who appeared to Moses in the burning bush.
There can't be faith without room for doubt; then it would not be faith. Faith in the Bible is belief in what we can't clearly see but know is there through experience and the experience of others; it is like "looking through a glass darkly."
Because I am not a science student or professional and only read it for interest, there is no way I could debate someone educated in contemporary science about the evidences for and against evolution. I suspect that is true for a majority of people. They only believe in it because scientists have told them it is true, so they must trust science's interpretation. Many would think the world to be flat if they didn't know others who had been around it.
Therefore, most of the non-science world accepts or rejects a belief based on trust, popularity, background, or personal experience. The scientist bases his belief in evolution on an additional concept he calls "evidence." What is it evidence of? He says the fossil record shows a long history of development of one speices into another. How does he know? Are there millions of transitional fossils being discovered? Even so, are they evidence that the current world evolved? Could there have been a former creation before this one? Doesn't the evidence show this creation was destroyed? Are there fossils everywhere on earth? If most planets have ice caps, why does ours show that it was once tropical?
If time differs in other parts of the universe, why not here in the past? Is science stuck in uniformity in spite of the big bang theory? What of the new theories in quantum mechanics and multiverses? How can they influence evolution?
"Evidence" seems a subjective word. To me evidence should appeal to all our senses and needs. What do evolutionary scienctists say about the evidence of "miracles"; strange personal events; spiritual visitations, etc. Even if we say some are ill, insane, hallucinating, etc. we are saying that much of the world lies and are passing judgment on them. There are millions who have experienced God (or Satan in many cases). There is little doubt that evidence exists for another reality beyond science. Why dismiss that evidence? Why dismiss the evidence of good vs. evil?
Too many evolutionists seem more interested in evil and blame believers for it.
For science to maintain that only this elite group has access to truth, seems quite arrogant–not unlike many religions. That is why many of us believe atheism to be a religion. Agnostism, however, can be an honest alternative if one is willing to listen to all explanations for life. I don't trust insignificant humans (when compared to the vastness of the cosmos) to interpret the evidence for life. One so engrossed in evolutionary science and its implications could easily ignore the spiritual and even mental and physical aspects of life on Planet Earth.
The only reason most Adventists and Christians believe the Bible is simply because they grew up in a family, or nation that accepted Christianity and its tradition. Born in Afghanistan, you would not believe in the Bible but the Koran.
Maintaining faith is always dependent on an accepting community. Few are able to withstand those vehemently opposed to Christianity if they were living in a very Islamic country. The Bible has been the exalted book for most U.S. citizens since they began to understand and read, so it is a most comfortable position to express faith in the Bible and the God that the Bible presents (simply overlook all the terrible deeds recorded as coming from God) as a loving God. Cognitive dissonance is a great help to ignore such texts and emphasize those that are kind and loving. This is much like an abused wife who, after the beating, describes her husband as usually generous, kind and loving–except for those occasional beatings.
Wow, Ella! That was quite an impressive response to those who doubt the testimony of Scripture and the power of God.
I actually recently had someone give me a bunch of stuff like this, and got reminded of this after seeing someone respond to an old thread that I stumbled across on Google. Apparently this is a common method of thought. It's a poor one. I apologize if going point by point puts me beyond "three modest paragraphs", but there's too much wrong here to do any other way.
Ella M said:
"There can't be faith without room for doubt; then it would not be faith. Faith in the Bible is belief in what we can't clearly see but know is there through experience and the experience of others; it is like "looking through a glass darkly.""
Mark Twain said:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
I said:
I think the two people are really saying the same thing. "Faith" is not a way to find truth. If I told you that I have something to sell you, and you're interested in buying, you wouldn't just send me money on "faith" (or at least I hope you wouldn't!). You'd require to see what I want to sell first and examine it, and to have some assurance I would in fact transfer possession of it to you once you paid me. "Faith" is essentially just saying "I believe this because I do", without any good reason to do so.
"Because I am not a science student or professional and only read it for interest, there is no way I could debate someone educated in contemporary science about the evidences for and against evolution."
I'm not a professional either, but I do enjoy science and am well aware of how it works. I could certainly speak to it. You could too, if you cared to learn–all the information is right here at your fingertips, since you apparently do have Internet access.
"I suspect that is true for a majority of people. They only believe in it because scientists have told them it is true, so they must trust science's interpretation. Many would think the world to be flat if they didn't know others who had been around it."
Unfortunately, that is true. And sometimes that leads to people believing in garbage that's dressed up to sound "sciency", like anti-vax or "alternative medicine". Yes, we need to fix that. But the answer to that is more scientific literacy, not more mythology. People shouldn't take -anything- on faith, be it from a scientist, a preacher, or a Bronze Age tale. They should take it only upon the presentation of adequate evidence for the claim.
However, the fact that many people believe something for poor reasons does not mean that the thing they believe is not, in fact, true. If I believe the world is round because I think it would be really cool if it looked like a marble, that is a poor reason to believe that, but the world is still indeed round.
"The scientist bases his belief in evolution on an additional concept he calls "evidence." "
Bingo. You use evidence-based thinking every day in your own life, too. So do we all.
"What is it evidence of? He says the fossil record shows a long history of development of one speices (sic) into another. How does he know?"
Well, you could, you know, always go read how the research has been done. Or you could pretend like that information is not available. But it was developed in the same way as all scientific theories. First, observation was done. Then a hypothesis was formed as to why what we've seen is there. That hypothesis had predictive abilities, as all scientific hypotheses do, and its predictions were tested. Everything we've found, from fossils to DNA, have corresponded with exactly what that hypothesis predicted should happen. Indeed, its predictions were so spot-on that we now consider it a theory–a well-tested working model that has been consistently correct.
"Are there millions of transitional fossils being discovered?"
What is this mythology of the "transitional fossil"? -Every- fossil is a transitional fossil. Evolution is a continuous process, not something that happens with sudden jolts and then stops for a while. Sometimes a large amount of stress in an organism's environment cause it to proceed more quickly than usual, but organisms are -always- adapting to their environments.
It's similar to the myth of "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Evolution is evolution. Over a small period of time it produces small changes, over a large period of time it produces large changes that are the aggregation of those small ones.
"Even so, are they evidence that the current world evolved?"
Yes, indeed, they are. Though they are not the only evidence, nor even the best. The most powerful confirmation of the theory of evolution by natural selection came when we sequenced the genome.
We could, indeed, have found that wolves are more closely related genetically to robins than coyotes, that a mackerel is more closely related to a clam than a tuna, or that an oak is closer to wheat than an elm. If we'd found that, evolution would've been falsified, right then and there. But that's not what we found. Everything fell into place just where evolution said it should. That's powerful, amazing predictive ability, and powerful confirmation that the theory is right.
We could have even found that humans have a genome unlike any other animal. That would be strong evidence toward some type of "special creation". But instead, our closest relatives are exactly who we thought they were–chimpanzees and bonobos, drifting farther through the rest of the great apes, then even farther through the remaining primates. Just exactly as predicted. And Charles Darwin didn't even know there was such a thing as DNA.
We have also observed evolution in process, with everything from our selective breeding of plants and animals to suit our purposes, to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. We breed bananas, and wheat, and cows, and corn, and chickens, that best suit our purpose of eating them. They, in turn, evolve to suit us, because that is a survival advantage for their species. Being a favorite of humans is a tremendous survival advantage indeed, in the Anthropocene. But that happens with many species which have symbiotic relationships, and protect and nurture one another, all the way down to ants protecting their aphids who in turn feed them honeydew. The difference is only one of scale and scope.
"Could there have been a former creation before this one?"
There is no "creation". But in regards to answer if life itself has started and stopped on Earth many times, that is conceivably possible, but the evidence we have indicates it is not in fact the case.
"Doesn't the evidence show this creation was destroyed?"
That life on Earth was destroyed? No, it does not. It was subjected to radical changes many times, including the extinction of the dinosaurs which allowed the mammals to rise and eventually become us, but no evidence indicates it was ever completely snuffed out.
"Are there fossils everywhere on earth?"
Yes, though some places have conditions more favorable to their formation such as the proper type of minerals or prolonged and extreme cold and so have more of them. Fossilization is a -rare- event and requires a very specific set of conditions. The vast majority of plants and animals that die do not fossilize, they simply decompose as they become food for other organisms.
"If most planets have ice caps, why does ours show that it was once tropical?"
Most planets don't have ice caps. Most are not in their star's temperate zone, and so if they had water present, would either see it all as vapor (if hot) or all frozen (if cold). Our planet is in our star's temperate zone, and so has undergone temperature shifts over time, both hotter and colder than we now experience. As an aside, if we keep spewing carbon at the rate we are, we're going to learn all too personally how that works. That process has already started. And if that happens, our planet too may no longer have ice caps. But if that happens, at some point in the future, the planet will again cool and the ice caps will form once again.
"If time differs in other parts of the universe, why not here in the past?"
Time only differs if speed differs. An object moving at half of lightspeed in the Milky Way is affected by time exactly the same as one moving at the same speed in Andromeda. The Earth's speed is primarily influenced by the gravitational influence of the Sun and the rest of the Milky Way, and that would not have changed significantly.
Objects moving as slowly as the Earth do not experience significant time dilation in any case; you must get up to high fractions of lightspeed for that to matter. The Earth moves at a tiny fraction of lightspeed.
"Is science stuck in uniformity in spite of the big bang theory?"
Huh? Some things are uniform, some things are not. What would the Big Bang theory have to do with that?
"What of the new theories in quantum mechanics and multiverses?"
Hypotheses, not theories. To become a theory, a hypothesis must be demonstrated to predict correctly, time and time again. "Theory" doesn't just mean a supposition, it means something that's worked, worked for a long time, and worked very well.
If one or more of these does turn out to work, and becomes an established theory, well then, we know a little more about the universe than we did yesterday. If they all turn out to get falsified, we also know a little more–we know those -aren't- the way it works. That's how science works.
"How can they influence evolution?"
They wouldn't, really. Even if they're correct, they're too far removed from it to have a measurable impact on it, just like, as above, time dilation does not affect it. It's a real phenomenon, but it doesn't occur to any significant degree in the context of life on a relatively slow-moving planet.
""Evidence" seems a subjective word."
That's because you're looking at it subjectively. But in the context of science, no, it is not.
"To me evidence should appeal to all our senses and needs."
There's the subjectivity you're inserting into it. Evidence is not in any way required to appeal to your needs, and it can be detected in far more ways than just the senses.
"What do evolutionary scienctists say about the evidence of "miracles"; strange personal events; spiritual visitations, etc."
What is that evidence? Someone said so? They'd say that is not sufficient evidence for such an extraordinary claim. I'd tend to agree. When I've asked people to provide -actual- evidence of a god, or psychic abilities, by posting hashes of strings I type on my computer and telling me what I typed, they can't provide it. If you have such evidence, James Randi has a million dollars for you, and there's also a Nobel in store. But no one's ever claimed it.
"Even if we say some are ill, insane, hallucinating, etc. we are saying that much of the world lies and are passing judgment on them."
I wouldn't say they're lying if they genuinely believe it. If you genuinely believe that hydrogen has two protons, and you say so, you are not a liar. But you are still mistaken, and it still only has one. The sincerity of your belief has no bearing on what the reality actually is.
"There are millions who have experienced God (or Satan in many cases)."
There are millions who have experienced -what they state to be- such. There are also millions who have "experienced" Buddhist transcendence, Krishna, Zeus, and the list goes on and on. If you say we must accept experiences of your god as true based upon that, you must accept that as evidence of those gods.
Of course, you likely recognize that as nonsense. And it is, for your god and the rest alike.
"There is little doubt that evidence exists for another reality beyond science."
Really? What is that evidence? How, if it's "beyond science", do we determine if it is correct or incorrect? What alternate method do you propose to do so?
"Why dismiss that evidence?"
What evidence? You can't just handwave evidence into existence and say it's there, you need to state -what it is-.
"Why dismiss the evidence of good vs. evil?"
Good vs. evil is a human construct. It is a useful one, but one with meaning only in the context of a human mind. A lion is neither good nor evil when it kills a gazelle, it is simply hungry.
We have evolved reasoning high enough to develop a better social structure, and determine that some things are beneficial for our society, and some detrimental. We can call that "good and evil", or "right and wrong", or "blargle and buggle". It helps us to form and maintain our societies, and to improve our qualities of life, and so it is useful. But good and evil are concepts we developed, they were not somehow "already there". It has helped us to develop our highly-advanced societies, and those societies, in turn, have made us the dominant species on the planet.
"Too many evolutionists seem more interested in evil and blame believers for it."
That makes no sense. Believers are responsible for some evil, but not all. Sometimes it is a direct result of their religious belief, sometimes it is not.
That aside, evolutionary biology, in general, would not be particularly concerned with questions of "good and evil" at all. That would be more of a question that sociology and psychology would study.
"For science to maintain that only this elite group has access to truth, seems quite arrogant–not unlike many religions."
Yes, that certainly would be arrogant. But instead, they put out their data and methods for the whole world to look at. Anyone can read a science journal, anyone can read a book about science, anyone can use Google. Secrecy is anathema to science–you must show your methods and your evidence so that others can try to reproduce the same thing you did.
"That is why many of us believe atheism to be a religion."
You can "believe" atheism to be religion, just like you can "believe" not collecting stamps to be a hobby, or not owning a car to be a type of car. But it simply means one does not believe that one or more gods exist. It is, incidentally, possible for one to believe one or more gods exist but not follow a religion, this is called deism.
"Agnostism, however, can be an honest alternative if one is willing to listen to all explanations for life."
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Every atheist I've ever met is agnostic; they would change their mind upon provision of sufficient evidence that a god exists. It is similar to the fact that I do not believe the Loch Ness monster exists, but if sufficient evidence were presented that it in fact does, I'd change my mind.
Present your evidence.
"I don't trust insignificant humans (when compared to the vastness of the cosmos) to interpret the evidence for life."
If you're saying we don't know everything, you are absolutely correct. I trust far more those who acknowledge that and work to learn ever more (the scientists) than those who pick a book and say "This is the Truth!" (the religious).
If we don't know everything -now-, how much less did we know in the Bronze Age? Are you saying they did?
"One so engrossed in evolutionary science and its implications could easily ignore the spiritual and even mental and physical aspects of life on Planet Earth."
Might amaze you, but those of us who do not believe in a god can still live, love, appreciate beauty and those around us, be amazed and awestruck by the universe we live in and the people we live with, and be good, kind, moral people who treat our fellow humans decently. In my experience, this is actually more true among nonbelievers than believers. That is not surprising to me. Believing things which are not in fact true is generally harmful in one way or another.
I actually recently had someone give me a bunch of stuff like this, and got reminded of this after seeing someone respond to an old thread that I stumbled across on Google. Apparently this is a common method of thought. It's a poor one. I apologize if going point by point puts me beyond "three modest paragraphs", but there's too much wrong here to do any other way.
Ella M said:
"There can't be faith without room for doubt; then it would not be faith. Faith in the Bible is belief in what we can't clearly see but know is there through experience and the experience of others; it is like "looking through a glass darkly.""
Mark Twain said:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
I said:
I think the two people are really saying the same thing. "Faith" is not a way to find truth. If I told you that I have something to sell you, and you're interested in buying, you wouldn't just send me money on "faith" (or at least I hope you wouldn't!). You'd require to see what I want to sell first and examine it, and to have some assurance I would in fact transfer possession of it to you once you paid me. "Faith" is essentially just saying "I believe this because I do", without any good reason to do so.
"Because I am not a science student or professional and only read it for interest, there is no way I could debate someone educated in contemporary science about the evidences for and against evolution."
I'm not a professional either, but I do enjoy science and am well aware of how it works. I could certainly speak to it. You could too, if you cared to learn–all the information is right here at your fingertips, since you apparently do have Internet access.
"I suspect that is true for a majority of people. They only believe in it because scientists have told them it is true, so they must trust science's interpretation. Many would think the world to be flat if they didn't know others who had been around it."
Unfortunately, that is true. And sometimes that leads to people believing in garbage that's dressed up to sound "sciency", like anti-vax or "alternative medicine". Yes, we need to fix that. But the answer to that is more scientific literacy, not more mythology. People shouldn't take -anything- on faith, be it from a scientist, a preacher, or a Bronze Age tale. They should take it only upon the presentation of adequate evidence for the claim.
However, the fact that many people believe something for poor reasons does not mean that the thing they believe is not, in fact, true. If I believe the world is round because I think it would be really cool if it looked like a marble, that is a poor reason to believe that, but the world is still indeed round.
"The scientist bases his belief in evolution on an additional concept he calls "evidence." "
Bingo. You use evidence-based thinking every day in your own life, too. So do we all.
"What is it evidence of? He says the fossil record shows a long history of development of one speices (sic) into another. How does he know?"
Well, you could, you know, always go read how the research has been done. Or you could pretend like that information is not available. But it was developed in the same way as all scientific theories. First, observation was done. Then a hypothesis was formed as to why what we've seen is there. That hypothesis had predictive abilities, as all scientific hypotheses do, and its predictions were tested. Everything we've found, from fossils to DNA, have corresponded with exactly what that hypothesis predicted should happen. Indeed, its predictions were so spot-on that we now consider it a theory–a well-tested working model that has been consistently correct.
"Are there millions of transitional fossils being discovered?"
What is this mythology of the "transitional fossil"? -Every- fossil is a transitional fossil. Evolution is a continuous process, not something that happens with sudden jolts and then stops for a while. Sometimes a large amount of stress in an organism's environment cause it to proceed more quickly than usual, but organisms are -always- adapting to their environments.
It's similar to the myth of "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Evolution is evolution. Over a small period of time it produces small changes, over a large period of time it produces large changes that are the aggregation of those small ones.
"Even so, are they evidence that the current world evolved?"
Yes, indeed, they are. Though they are not the only evidence, nor even the best. The most powerful confirmation of the theory of evolution by natural selection came when we sequenced the genome.
We could, indeed, have found that wolves are more closely related genetically to robins than coyotes, that a mackerel is more closely related to a clam than a tuna, or that an oak is closer to wheat than an elm. If we'd found that, evolution would've been falsified, right then and there. But that's not what we found. Everything fell into place just where evolution said it should. That's powerful, amazing predictive ability, and powerful confirmation that the theory is right.
We could have even found that humans have a genome unlike any other animal. That would be strong evidence toward some type of "special creation". But instead, our closest relatives are exactly who we thought they were–chimpanzees and bonobos, drifting farther through the rest of the great apes, then even farther through the remaining primates. Just exactly as predicted. And Charles Darwin didn't even know there was such a thing as DNA.
We have also observed evolution in process, with everything from our selective breeding of plants and animals to suit our purposes, to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. We breed bananas, and wheat, and cows, and corn, and chickens, that best suit our purpose of eating them. They, in turn, evolve to suit us, because that is a survival advantage for their species. Being a favorite of humans is a tremendous survival advantage indeed, in the Anthropocene. But that happens with many species which have symbiotic relationships, and protect and nurture one another, all the way down to ants protecting their aphids who in turn feed them honeydew. The difference is only one of scale and scope.
"Could there have been a former creation before this one?"
There is no "creation". But in regards to answer if life itself has started and stopped on Earth many times, that is conceivably possible, but the evidence we have indicates it is not in fact the case.
"Doesn't the evidence show this creation was destroyed?"
That life on Earth was destroyed? No, it does not. It was subjected to radical changes many times, including the extinction of the dinosaurs which allowed the mammals to rise and eventually become us, but no evidence indicates it was ever completely snuffed out.
"Are there fossils everywhere on earth?"
Yes, though some places have conditions more favorable to their formation such as the proper type of minerals or prolonged and extreme cold and so have more of them. Fossilization is a -rare- event and requires a very specific set of conditions. The vast majority of plants and animals that die do not fossilize, they simply decompose as they become food for other organisms.
"If most planets have ice caps, why does ours show that it was once tropical?"
Most planets don't have ice caps. Most are not in their star's temperate zone, and so if they had water present, would either see it all as vapor (if hot) or all frozen (if cold). Our planet is in our star's temperate zone, and so has undergone temperature shifts over time, both hotter and colder than we now experience. As an aside, if we keep spewing carbon at the rate we are, we're going to learn all too personally how that works. That process has already started. And if that happens, our planet too may no longer have ice caps. But if that happens, at some point in the future, the planet will again cool and the ice caps will form once again.
"If time differs in other parts of the universe, why not here in the past?"
Time only differs if speed differs. An object moving at half of lightspeed in the Milky Way is affected by time exactly the same as one moving at the same speed in Andromeda. The Earth's speed is primarily influenced by the gravitational influence of the Sun and the rest of the Milky Way, and that would not have changed significantly.
Objects moving as slowly as the Earth do not experience significant time dilation in any case; you must get up to high fractions of lightspeed for that to matter. The Earth moves at a tiny fraction of lightspeed.
"Is science stuck in uniformity in spite of the big bang theory?"
Huh? Some things are uniform, some things are not. What would the Big Bang theory have to do with that?
"What of the new theories in quantum mechanics and multiverses?"
Hypotheses, not theories. To become a theory, a hypothesis must be demonstrated to predict correctly, time and time again. "Theory" doesn't just mean a supposition, it means something that's worked, worked for a long time, and worked very well.
If one or more of these does turn out to work, and becomes an established theory, well then, we know a little more about the universe than we did yesterday. If they all turn out to get falsified, we also know a little more–we know those -aren't- the way it works. That's how science works.
"How can they influence evolution?"
They wouldn't, really. Even if they're correct, they're too far removed from it to have a measurable impact on it, just like, as above, time dilation does not affect it. It's a real phenomenon, but it doesn't occur to any significant degree in the context of life on a relatively slow-moving planet.
""Evidence" seems a subjective word."
That's because you're looking at it subjectively. But in the context of science, no, it is not.
"To me evidence should appeal to all our senses and needs."
There's the subjectivity you're inserting into it. Evidence is not in any way required to appeal to your needs, and it can be detected in far more ways than just the senses.
"What do evolutionary scienctists say about the evidence of "miracles"; strange personal events; spiritual visitations, etc."
What is that evidence? Someone said so? They'd say that is not sufficient evidence for such an extraordinary claim. I'd tend to agree. When I've asked people to provide -actual- evidence of a god, or psychic abilities, by posting hashes of strings I type on my computer and telling me what I typed, they can't provide it. If you have such evidence, James Randi has a million dollars for you, and there's also a Nobel in store. But no one's ever claimed it.
"Even if we say some are ill, insane, hallucinating, etc. we are saying that much of the world lies and are passing judgment on them."
I wouldn't say they're lying if they genuinely believe it. If you genuinely believe that hydrogen has two protons, and you say so, you are not a liar. But you are still mistaken, and it still only has one. The sincerity of your belief has no bearing on what the reality actually is.
"There are millions who have experienced God (or Satan in many cases)."
There are millions who have experienced -what they state to be- such. There are also millions who have "experienced" Buddhist transcendence, Krishna, Zeus, and the list goes on and on. If you say we must accept experiences of your god as true based upon that, you must accept that as evidence of those gods.
Of course, you likely recognize that as nonsense. And it is, for your god and the rest alike.
"There is little doubt that evidence exists for another reality beyond science."
Really? What is that evidence? How, if it's "beyond science", do we determine if it is correct or incorrect? What alternate method do you propose to do so?
"Why dismiss that evidence?"
What evidence? You can't just handwave evidence into existence and say it's there, you need to state -what it is-.
"Why dismiss the evidence of good vs. evil?"
Good vs. evil is a human construct. It is a useful one, but one with meaning only in the context of a human mind. A lion is neither good nor evil when it kills a gazelle, it is simply hungry.
We have evolved reasoning high enough to develop a better social structure, and determine that some things are beneficial for our society, and some detrimental. We can call that "good and evil", or "right and wrong", or "blargle and buggle". It helps us to form and maintain our societies, and to improve our qualities of life, and so it is useful. But good and evil are concepts we developed, they were not somehow "already there". It has helped us to develop our highly-advanced societies, and those societies, in turn, have made us the dominant species on the planet.
"Too many evolutionists seem more interested in evil and blame believers for it."
That makes no sense. Believers are responsible for some evil, but not all. Sometimes it is a direct result of their religious belief, sometimes it is not.
That aside, evolutionary biology, in general, would not be particularly concerned with questions of "good and evil" at all. That would be more of a question that sociology and psychology would study.
"For science to maintain that only this elite group has access to truth, seems quite arrogant–not unlike many religions."
Yes, that certainly would be arrogant. But instead, they put out their data and methods for the whole world to look at. Anyone can read a science journal, anyone can read a book about science, anyone can use Google. Secrecy is anathema to science–you must show your methods and your evidence so that others can try to reproduce the same thing you did.
"That is why many of us believe atheism to be a religion."
You can "believe" atheism to be religion, just like you can "believe" not collecting stamps to be a hobby, or not owning a car to be a type of car. But it simply means one does not believe that one or more gods exist. It is, incidentally, possible for one to believe one or more gods exist but not follow a religion, this is called deism.
"Agnostism, however, can be an honest alternative if one is willing to listen to all explanations for life."
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Every atheist I've ever met is agnostic; they would change their mind upon provision of sufficient evidence that a god exists. It is similar to the fact that I do not believe the Loch Ness monster exists, but if sufficient evidence were presented that it in fact does, I'd change my mind.
Present your evidence.
"I don't trust insignificant humans (when compared to the vastness of the cosmos) to interpret the evidence for life."
If you're saying we don't know everything, you are absolutely correct. I trust far more those who acknowledge that and work to learn ever more (the scientists) than those who pick a book and say "This is the Truth!" (the religious).
If we don't know everything -now-, how much less did we know in the Bronze Age? Are you saying they did?
"One so engrossed in evolutionary science and its implications could easily ignore the spiritual and even mental and physical aspects of life on Planet Earth."
Might amaze you, but those of us who do not believe in a god can still live, love, appreciate beauty and those around us, be amazed and awestruck by the universe we live in and the people we live with, and be good, kind, moral people who treat our fellow humans decently. In my experience, this is actually more true among nonbelievers than believers. That is not surprising to me. Believing things which are not in fact true is generally harmful in one way or another.
Am I to assume that you and others have no "cognitive dissonance" to be negative about the Bible? It takes looking at both sides and going with the weight of the evidence. I would wager there are more positive things about God whose "love is everlasting" than negative in the Bible. As mentioned in other blogs, the Hebrews believed God to be the source of all events in their earlier history. I can think of one occasion when God supposedly told them to kill the heathen and their children, and that has been used to hit believers over the head ever since unbelievers started reading the Bible. Again one must look at the percentages and the culture. How many times can I say that?
There is nothing wrong with believing in Islam or other family faith if the life reflects its best ethics. Islam has a bad name because the most extreme of them have not lived by their bible. Some, maybe most, have made it into a very toxic religion. Any religion can be quite profound in its purest form coming down from its great philosophers; but when it gets to the uneducated (and often uncaring of human rights) and superstitious in the pew or tent, it can be quite toxic. There are exceptions, of course.
I have to call you down on the comparison to a believer as an "abused wife" that is down right insulting to all sincere believers.
If believing that God is more loving and caring than we can imagine in this temporary world, then I am guilty of such cognitive dissonance.
Count me in among those who have chosen to believe in spite of the contrary evidence. We need to weigh the scientific and revelatory evidence and make an intelligent choice! The Scriptural evidence favoring God's foreknowledge and the historical evidence on behalf of the resurrection of Jesus is overwhelming in my opinion.
This is why the Psalmist wrote: "The fool said in his heart, 'there is no God.'" The problem is that modern unbelievers do not say this in their hearts, but rather openly and publicly. Eventually, they will be publicly shamed!
Joe,
I am not sure if you wrote the introduction to your blog, but the following will definitely not help in the "fellowship" that is apparently the goal:
"This becomes a wildly chaotic epistemology that has no anchor at all—unless one clings to some authoritarian spiritual fantasy, either traditional or of one's own invention. For those inclined toward paranoid schizophrenia, this should be familiar territory."
How am I to treat the experiences I have heard from professional people I firmly trust when they tell of being protected, hearing another language they did not know or others understanding them who did not speak English and thus protecting them, or answered prayers, dreams that came true, warnings that protected them, etc. Do you say these are all fantasies? That is judgmental isn't it?
Is it possible to be so biased that we turn away from small evidences that don't fit? Just look at our government and its impasse between Rep and Dem. These are intelligent people.
Yes, I am biased. I like to think I see the whole picture that includes not just science, but the spiritual, mental, and social aspects of life. However, so much of the writing on here ignores the real spiritual life which is not based on materials found, but on relationships–with oneself, with others, with family, with the beauty and adaptation of nature, and with God. I think these things are of a higher value.
Yes Ella. the human experience of Spirit led heirs, according to the promise. Thank you for your true
witnessing.
Good content, Joe!
Evidence for humans ultimately comes down to input to human senses, most often images on the eyes since they have the widest "bandwidth". Sometimes there may be a recording device between the instrument and the human input, now likely to be a computer, to help with human responses and memory. To get from the sensory input to a belief about history or a prediction for the future, multiple levels of pattern recognition must occur. To even "recognize" an image as a stratum, a fossil, a cell, or a planet, for example, is a major feat of pattern recognition and that is only the first step toward a belief. There would also have to be a recognition of other fossils, for example, along with patterns necesssary for dating, etc.
A scientist gradually, with much experience, comes to trust in many or all of these levels of pattern recognition in a given field. A scientific lay-person, on the other hand, may not have put in the time and effort required to understand and eventually trust in the patterns so it is easy to be unimpressed, to assume that the scientists are guessing, and therefore doubt the scientific conclusions. Fortunately, there are many resources available to everyone today so anyone who is interested can follow the steps from sensory input to conclusions and then make an intelligent decision about accepting or rejecting findings of the scientific community.
“Evidence for humans ultimately comes down to input to human senses, most often images on the eyes since they have the widest "bandwidth". I have often amazed that God took a full day to create light. I read somewhere majority of our perception of our World came through light. The Hubble Telescope is an extension of our eye into the sky so are electron microscope, the particle accelerators, NMR, interferometer, etc. that extend our sensory scopes. Once collected those material ‘evidences’ tell a story. Some stories are quite straight forward such parity is not universally conserved or light bends traveling through space warped by a large mass, even layman do not usually raise question of their interpretations. Other stories require quite imaginative extrapolation out of data ranges such as macro-evolution Even layman can ask meaningful questions about those stories.
Exactly what does a "spiritual view of science" mean? It sounds like a meaningless catch phrase unless explained. Is there a "non-spiritual view of science" or a "spiritual view" of physics, geometry, or astronomy" All are various disciplines in science whih covers very broad categories.
Darrel, you quoted the following wise saying: "“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”"
And I am asking myself: "How much science did my dad have? The answer if probably close to zero. He grew up during World War I, and had no formal schooling, yet he revealed an unusual amount of wisdom and he set an example for his children we are proud to follow. Was my dad blind? I don't think so!
I can ask the same question about Ellen White and the disciples of Jesus, which leads me to wonder about the reliability of aphorisms. Can they be trusted to give us a clear view of reality? Just wondering!
“He says what he has said before, that scientific evidence does not support evolution”
Joe there is a difference. What I wrote is more like this; the highest level scientific evidence does not support evolution” That level is when the observation can be reproduced over and over. We are not talking about history; we are talking about evolution as “a fact” that includes “ongoing events”. The “evos” write as “facts” no as possibilities the non-enzymatic production of nucleotides, RNA or DNA. Where do we find these things in nature? They write about evolving from one specie to another. Literally it has been spend millions of dollars trying to reproduce that concept. After all this years the E Coli is E Coli.
“He is especially dismissive of what he calls "retrospective" evidence.”
By the level of your education and experience you should know the limitations of retrospective studies. Sometimes are confirmed with prospective observations and other times contradicted and eliminated. A prudent observer will give that value for what they are.
“To him, science seems to all be about experimental replicability in the present”
Yes if we talking about an “evolving fact/s”
“English is not his native language” you are in target, English came after Latin and Greek
David, you said: "After all this years the E Coli is E Coli."
Yes! And cats are still cats, horses are still horses. We have produceed all kinds of dogs, but they never cease to be dogs. No matter how deep we dig into the past, we find no evidence of what has been described as macro evolution. No matter how far we go in search for the coveted evidence, we come back empty handed!
Nic, I am confident that you believe what you say above. You can deny that evidence exists as much as you wish, and you can avoid looking to see whether there is evidence or you can claim that the evidence does not show what most people think it clearly shows. Because you do not know what you are talking about, you are not lying. But, somewhere along the line you and others are being deceived.
My friend Dr. Claud Bramblett at U of Texas has posted something for one of his anthropology classes. Anyone who wishes to read some details on fossil primates is free to read what is on the site.
uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblett/ant301/thirteen.html
For those who just want something written in easy to follow prose, try Bob Strauss' site called
dinosaurs.about.com and look at the section on prehistoric life
There you can see some fo the evidence regarding horses, dogs, primates, elephants, whales, etc.
You may not LIKE the evidence, you may not BELIEVE the evidence, and you may deny that evidence exists. But the evidence DOES exist and it is both abundant and convincing.
But, beware. If you examine this evidence with an open mind, your perspective might change. I advise people to adjust their faith to ensure that they will not be devastated by examining actual evidence.
Let see who is denying reality.
Some people believe the most elemental molecules were from by non-enzymatic means. Where is the evidence in nature? NONE!
I believe, these molecules are formed via enzymes. This abundant in nature, more than abundant is the only way so far.
So if we go to evaluated by a psychiatry, who will be the schizophrenic?
Yes, Timo, I think you are correct the the glimpse science can have of evidence from the spiritual realm is minimal. That is, we are in an "evidence poor" situation. Even so, it would be erroneous for scientists to claim that they entertain only objective evidence as they formulate questions and design strategies for gathering information. In fact, intuition plays important roles in the scientific process.
So, perhaps we could say that religion is "intuition rich," even if it does not thrive on objective reality. It seems to me that the scientific process is especially effective when adequate attention is given to intuition. "The evidence indicates A, but my inuition suggests B. I should probably continue to explore."
And well-informed intuition probably can serve us all much better than willful ignorance of evidence.
David, ribozymes, discovered more than 30 years ago, a discovery that won a Nobel Prize (in 1989, I think), can serve as non-enzymatic catalysts, can't they? I would expect you to know more about this that I would expect myself to know.
I’m aware of the theory of even the elaborated laboratory experiments, but where is the evidence in the natural world? Where in nature we found that simple atoms just by themselves (no in living organisms) are form in to RNA (ribosomal or other forms) where we find out even the simpler amino acid like glycine is being form without enzymes?
At least a dozen different naturally occurring ribozymes have been documented. Have a look at the literature….
One easy place to start is a full text paper on line by Alema Tekewe and colleagues. The reason I suggest it is that it has a pretty good literature review. The text should be quite understandable to you, David, but regardless of what you think of the text, you can explore the other literature referenced.
http://www.pharmacophorejournal.com/May-June2012-article2.pdf
Lest be specific the question is the full context “but where is the evidence in the natural world? Where in nature we found that simple atoms just by themselves (no in living organisms) are form into RNA (ribosomal or other forms) where we find out even the simpler amino acid like glycine is being form without enzymes?
Are you suggesting the ribozymes produce by themselves without intervention of the whole interactive mechanisms, which is full on enzymes?
David, please, with all due respect, just read the literature regarding RNA and ribozymes. I found 550 papers on ribozymes just in the journal RNA. This is not really an area of expertise for me. It seems to me that you have claimed expertise closely related to this, and yet, you seem unfamiliar with the literature and unwilling to familiarize yourself with it. You and others claim that there is no evidence, and yet the evidence is now abundant. There has been speculation about this (ribozymes) for more than 40 years and direct evidence for more than 30 years and naturally occurring ribozymes and even ribozyme sequences in the human genome (and many if not most other genomes). A whole area of ribozyme-based therapeutics is emerging (although it has been underway for at least 15 years).
I have no wish to argue with you. It will surprise some that I do not come here to argue. I'm just saying that your faith should not require you to deny real evidence.
Just to help the readers.
The evolutionists (“evos”) believe that life could be explained “from the RNA world”. RNA produced DNA and DNA produced proteins doing that they can solve the problem what “came first DNA or proteins”. All things are explained and lets sing kumbaya! Well, lets see.
RNA including Ribozymes are tridimensional complex molecules. They are composed by purines and pyrimidines
Purines have 9 atoms (given by the “donors”: glycine, glutamine, aspartate, 10 formyl FHF and CO2)
In the natural world purines are formed by 10 enzymes. Enzymes are complex functional proteins. Proteins are formed because DNA. Wait, things get even more complicated, we need even more enzymes to synthetize the “donors”. And this is only for the purines. Similar events are for the pyrimidines.
In the natural world, the one we can observe over and over, these events are enzymatic.
Of course are very elaborated papers and experiments to explain the non-enzymatic formation of purines. But does not happened in real world, so the “RNA world is just a theory that was never proved in nature.
Joe lest be fair you invite me to this debate see yor introduction. You just stated “you seem unfamiliar with the literature and unwilling to familiarize yourself with it” Ok lets see.
Could you or any body demonstrated in the natural world the non-enzymatic formation of purines which is the backbone of the RNA including ribozymes?
“I'm just saying that your faith should not require you to deny real evidence”
What reproducible real evidence I’m denying?
It is up to you to read and keep up with this line of research if you make claims that it does not exist. It seems to me that you just keep changing your criteria. At first you seemed to be denying that ribozymes existed. Then that they existed in nature (aside from being synthesized in labs). Now that you can't claim that ether of those assertions is true, you move on to the "non-enzymatic" formation of purines. As you know, ribozymes act as "RNA enzymes." I do not wish to disrespect your expertise, but I think you should research this and provide us with the answer. I am not seeking to destroy your faith, or anyones. Please accept my warmest regards.
David: 'The evolutionists (“evos”) believe…'
David, love it – 'evos'
Can we then please start calling creationists – 'creos'.
Open to other terms.
Hi Stephen, is this your way of suggesting that we "lighten up?"
It seems like maybe we should. It is too difficult a task to assure us that evidence cannot be found in a field that abounds with new discoveries. We never know what we don't know, and it seems to me that faith should be built on firmer ground. If some new scientific discovery could destroy one's faith, it seems to me that one is standing a bit too close to the edge.
Of course, some think I am a bit of a galah….
No no, you seem to be making some good scientific points. Just consider my comment a comic interuption. Please continue…
Joe, you wrote: "Nic, I am confident that you believe what you say above. You can deny that evidence exists as much as you wish, and you can avoid looking to see whether there is evidence or you can claim that the evidence does not show what most people think it clearly shows. Because you do not know what you are talking about, you are not lying. But, somewhere along the line you and others are being deceived."
Yes, the evidence is there! I am not questioning the evidence. What I am questioning is the explanation of said evidence. You can explain it by common descent or by common design. I believe that the evidence for dsign is overwhelming, and it has the support of Scripture from page one till the last page in the Bible. But more than that, this includes the testimony of Jesus Christ, the one responsible for the creation of the heavens and th earth and all living forms on our planet. If I am being deceived then all th Bible prophets and Jesus were deceived! This I cannot accept!
Lets put the record straight. This was my first statement about this:
“Some people believe the most elemental molecules were from by non-enzymatic means. Where is the evidence in nature? NONE!
I believe, these molecules are formed via enzymes. This is abundant in nature, more than abundant is the only way so far.
These are basic facts of biochemistry. I ask you some questions that you never replied I’ll formulated again,
Could you or any body demonstrated in the natural world the non-enzymatic formation of purines that is the backbone of the RNA including ribozymes?
If you don’t know or if you can’t is ok to admit. To my best effort I could not find it
Joe this has nothing to do with faith, this is a matter of honesty.
David, I thought I already said that I know very little about this. This is not my field. You are the one who brought up the subject and made statements that were rather easily challenged just by looking at a few papers readily available on line. Why are we arguing about this at all? It is your field, not mine. You seem to be in disagreement with many scientists, but who knows? You could be correct and all those other people out there studying RNA and ribozymes (natural and synthetic) could be wrong.
But to be brutally honest, I would not know where to begin demonstrating non-enzymatic formation of purines. The answer: I don't know, and why should I? I am not the one asserting that it never happens or happened and couldn't.
The honest answer to many questions, for me, is "I don't know."
So what happens if you are wrong about this? That will not be the end of your faith, I hope, or your honesty.
Now, appeal will be made to 'naturalism-of-the-gaps.'??
Joe honesty is always welcome.
The “easy challenge” goes both ways. With solids facts of biochemistry the foundations of the “RNA world” are week and stay just as hypothesis.
Don’t worry about my faith. Let me elaborated a little more here.
For what I read we are going in opposites directions. Some in AT in the past had some spiritual/religious experiences and drift to be agnostics, evolutionists, and atheists. I started that way and became to be a believer. I suppose we have our own personal reasons. My conversion was a “Paulist conversion” a mean with extraordinary events.
David, thank you for your note. I have to say that I never thought the "RNA World Hypothesis" was anything more than a hypothesis. It just seemed to me that a lot of attention has been given to RNA issues, some of which seem supportive of RNA preceding DNA and ribozymes filling some roles formerly thought to require enzymes. But, as I said, I have little expertise in this field. I'm afraid the BMW self-assembly story did not seem very relevant to the RNA hypothesis.
Sorry for my abrasiveness. I'll try to be more considerate. Having a "Paulist conversion" is pretty convincing to the person who has it. I did not have such an experience. Perhaps it will happen someday. I'm thinking there is some sort of balance that each of us must find between objective evidence, personal knowledge, and individual intuition. I respect your experience of extraordinary events.
I'd really like to get better acquainted with you, and I'll make an effort not to be oppositional.
Now, David, if I may ask, where do you live? I have the impression that you might have grown up
in Peru. Or maybe Philippines…. I guess I'm pretty confused about your background.
I'm trying to understand more about the participants here. One, who I thought might live in Melbourne,
Victoria, turns out to work in the SF Bay area. One of the challenges on line is how to be considerate
without being judgemental or stereotyping people.
Sorry for the delay, but still I’m and will be in the working force for the next 25 years. I grew up in different countries and regions of the southern and northern hemisphere of America. I live in Florida. I just to travel 30 times a year all over the planet given lectures, these days I prefer to spend more time with my four kids.
The parables are understood better with appropriate context. By the way still admire the “makers” of that Fine, Fun and Fast machine.
Thanks for the cordiality
By the way still I admire the “makers” of that Fine, Fun and Fast machine.
David, your life sounds fascinating. I get to Florida several times each year–mostly Collier & Hendry counties for consulting, lectures, and workshops. There are so many BMWs there, how will I recognize you? Do feel free to contact me privately at agingapes AT gmail DOT com.
It is the right of every one to choose a poison, er "faith" of their choice. i see Christianity, whose God
offers life after death for believers in Jesus Christ, and rise to the call to share the gospel message, also they should have joy & peace in their lives, knowing they have a Savior who paid their ransom from eternal death, with His life. It appears that evolutionists & atheists are duty bound to disprove the facts of Christian belief, ID, and origins of life forms. Their god is nature, mother earth. What does their god offer the Christian when they suffer death? Why would you desire to take away the conviction & confidence of the Christian?
earl,
All promises for a future life after death are promises. If it makes one happier to have elaborate dreams, no problem as there is no "money back gurantee if promises aren't as believed.
The record we find in the Bible is evidence that the Lord keeps his promises. Read the promise made to Abraham and how said promise was fulfilled. What did Darwin promise his followers?
Earl in past I was in the “other side of the wall” my conversion to Christianity was a “Paulist” one, literally with extraordinary events. By far the night I accepted God and Christ in my life is the most memorable one. I experience the overwhelming joy and peace that is described by Paul. Absolutely nothing compares to that. The dry old book called Bible the next day became to be fountain of fresh living water that I needed. Easily I identified my self with the blind man who stated “One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!" I experienced almost all what this life can offer. I join with author who wrote, “ You can have all this world just give me Jesus”.
Once I had a dinner with an atheist wealthy man who told me “in this life in order to have stability we need 3 thinks; financial security, admiration of the society and support of the family. What brings stability for you?” My reply was faith, hope and love that works for me”.
Earl, my friend, my warmest wishes to you this morning. It may well be that some atheists are "hell-bent" on disproving Christian belief and assertions about ID and life origins, and that some of those atheists are scientists whose fields of emphasis clash with the beliefs some Christians have about ID and origins of life. But you and I know that those who scientifically study natural phenomena have no prospect of proving or disproving anything spiritual at all.
At the same time, from a Christian perspective, if one has very rigid views about such things as young age of life or the impossibility of pre-life existence of some complex chemicals, people who study fossils and ribozymes may seem to be attacking Christian faith, when they are merely using their brains to describe and study the natural world. The facts they find need not threaten their own faith nor that of anyone else, unless that faith is excessively rigid and brittle. Biologists really are not "duty bound" to disprove Christian belief or any other perspective. The point of science, inherent in its name, is to seek truth.
The pathway of honestly "seeking truth" is the common ground for us all, is it not? It is on this path that I have had the priviledge of meeting Earl and Elaine and Timo and David L. and Nathan and Erv and Chris and David N. and Andy and Ella and Bea and Jack and John and David of Florida and Nic and Mailen. Some have found all the truth they want to find or feel they have all they need. Others continue to search. We do not all agree on what gives us confidence or peace or hope, but I think we do all agree that love and respect is a very important part of our journey.
My best wishes to all of you.
Nic: 'Read the promise made to Abraham and how said promise was fulfilled.'
Just to play Devil's advocate, God's promise to Abraham hasn't actually been fulfilled, if you take God's words literally. Israel never has had all the land from the river Euphrates to the Wadi of Egypt. Not even the State of Israel has that area of land.
The only way one can say God fulfilled His promise to Abraham and not be a liar is to take a non-literal approach. Christianity does this by say it was fulfilled metaphorically, in Christ the person and in the Gentiles, as spiritual Israel.
Doesn't that illustrate the difficulties in taking God's words so literally all the time? Wasn't God a liar if He really told Adam he would be dead the day he ate the fruit, when in reality Adam lived for nearly 1,000 years? How could God have kept His promise unless we take 'day' to mean something longer than a human day, say a God-day of 1,000 years?
Stephen, you said: "Just to play Devil's advocate, God's promise to Abraham hasn't actually been fulfilled, if you take God's words literally."
Are you forgetting that Abraham's posterity included his other children besides Isaac? The Arabs are also descendants of Abraham! In addition, we need to bear in mind tha God's promises are always contingent on our human response. To Priest Eli God said that his promise to his posterity would be eliminated due to his failure to disciplimne his sons.
Now regarding the warning to Adam, I have read that the correct translation is "dying you shall die," which does not imply immediate death.
I wonder if we don't handle all this a little better when we believe the words are human words that were "inspired" by God (without getting committed to too much precision on the meaning of "inspired"). And, of course, scriptural references to Jesus as "the Word of God" may essentially mean He was God's commitment to humans, in the sense that "He gave His Word."
It certainly is 'healthier' in my view to view the Bible as written by humans, albeit inspired humans, rather than some type of holy dictation, as if prophets were God's secretaries. I believe the Bible itself teaches the former, whilst it is actually Islam that teaches the latter. As for Jesus, you seem to be promoting some form of Adoptionism?
Joe,
“Denial that the evidence spreads out across millions of years? That is denial of reality, and that is perilously close to insanity.”
When I give someone a pencil and tell him that it is a million years old. He becomes skeptical and questions my assertion. He is not denying the reality of the existence of the pencil in hand but questions my assertion that it is a million years old. When you post your discussion you asserted that denying something millions of years through natural history are denial of reality. You have defined reality with a judgmental spirit.
Science is good for rational inquiry of nature but not good for assetion of one's own opinions about nature.
That really is not a personal assertion about some things being millions of years old, Philip, regardless of anything about pencils. I do take your point that my personal assertion about people being nuts not to recognize the antiquity of life and earth in judgemental and mean-spirited.
Anyway, I'd much rather talk about fish and wildlife research. Are you game for that? I was formerly involved with salmonid spawning habitat surveys in the Mattole watershed and the reintroduction of elk to the headwaters area.
Rake care. Be well and prosper, my friend.
Joe,
Those are interesting works. Why would a psychologist be involved with natural resources study and restoration work? By last week's Sabbath School lesson criteria you were a good steward. Salmonid spawning habitat survey — did you do redd counts or did you do carcass survey?
Hi Philip, the first phase was identification of barriers (like logjams) and habitat quality (ratings of siltation, and such) for the entire Mattole watershed. Then, counting redds, carcasses, and eventually setting up capture, milking, fertilization, nest boxes, rearing pools, and releases. We had chinook, coho, and steelhead populations to deal with.
My emphasis in psychology at UC Davis was "psychobiology," with emphasis on animal behavior, behavioral genetics, and comparative learning and development. From 1978-82 I was teaching at Humboldt State, mostly things like, animal behavior, primate behavior, experimental design and statistics, mental retardation, drug use and abuse, biological bases of behavior, human factors and environmental design, animal learning and motivation, etc., the typical range of biological psychology courses. HSU, of course, had strong wildlife and fisheries biology programs, along with natural resources interpretation, and such–and big time forestry and geology programs.
I established the Mattole Center for Science and Education (as an HSU affiliate), essentially, a community ecology center, near the King Range National Conservation Area. My role was to bring everyone together and get them to identify goals that would be helpful to the community. So, we had the ranchers and the hippies and the loggers and the drop out dope growers from LA and Manhattan, etc., a pretty diverse community. Everyone agreed that it would be good to have more fish in the river. So we made sure the local folks were connected with BLM, and F & G, and USFWS, and HSU, and CCC, etc., and we insisted on careful methodology. We started Pacific Watershed Enhancement, first as a newsletter and then as a journal–but we were not able to afford to continue to live there on my HSU pay as an adjunct, and we declined funding from growers or anything to do with dope. So, I got a job as curator of primates for the Chicago Zoological Society's Brookfield Zoo, and we moved to Chicagoland.
But, that more than enough about me. How did you get involved with Fish & Game? It must be really interesting.
Joe,
Your involvment with fish and wildlife was rather extensive. We surely can use your service. Quite a few biologists I worked with went to HSU. No doubt some of them were your students. Since January 2013 we have officially changed our name to California Department of Fish and Wildlife after over a hundred years of being the California Department of Fish and Game. It was felt that Game tilt towards hunting while Fish and Wildlife better fit our mission to protect natural resources. However our mission continues to protect natural resources with benefits to people as part of the objectives.
Statistics has broad applications from Astronomy to Zoology, it is one of few disciplines that spans such a broad range of human endeavour. It is fun work to deal with fish and wildlife. It is an interesting hobby.
I have been involved one way or another with wildlife and fish most of my life. My field work in Indonesia was mainly conservation biology population surveys of monkeys, but with a number of other wrinkles, such as virus screening, genetics, morphometrics, and screening for diabetes risk. Of course we were attempting to determine population status with regard to setting conservaton priorities. We had a team of people from US and Indonesia, as well as some Japanese and European collaborators. Our funding was mainly from National Geographic and NIH, but some was NSF. One of the psych profs I TAed for at Davis later became chair of the Fisheries and Wildlife Biology Department. Again Philip, feel free to contact me directly. agingapes AT gmail
Dr Samojluk asks: "What did Darwin promise his followers?"
————-
A monkey back guarantee?
Ah, Dr. Samojluk…. Good joke!
BTW, who can shed light on "Andrew Jackson University" and its graduate programs? All the links posted led me to "American Jewish University." The information available is spotty. It is apparently "not a scam," but is not regionally accredited. Can anyone elaborate?
Joe, I think I can! When I decided to get into a Ph.D. program, the only school I was able to locate which offered such training online was Andrew Jackson Univesity. I wish I could have applied to Harvard, or any other first rate universities, but I could not afford to neglect my real estate business which ws helping me put food on my table.
I sought the advice of Dr. Bernard Taylor, and he said: "Go for it." I also talked with Dr. Gerald Winslow, the dean of the LLU school of religion. He warned me that AJU was not yet accredited for offering the Ph.D. program in religion. I responded that I did not mind this, since what I was seeking was knowledge. I had no plans to use the degree for anything except the ability to do research into the abortion issue.
Dr. Gerald's pophecy came true. The school's program was never acredited, yet the school was allowed to grant the Ph.D. degrees to those sudents who were already in the program, and I did receive my Ph.D. degree. I did discuss the training I was getting with Dr. Dalton Baldwin, and he told me that the textbooks the school was using were the same utilized in other univesitis for the religion program.
I was allowed seven years to complete the progam–I was working half time since I had to take care of my business–and I was ganted a three years extension to finish the training. I can assure you that my teachers made me work hard–no surprise, since they rally wanted the school to get acredited.
You can try to denigrate the training I received, but in this you will make yourself a fool!
Nic, my apologies for bringing this up. I am fool enough already without adding to my credentials in that regard.
I suppose we should take your experience as a warning, though, about places that offer degrees for which they do not have accreditation. I hope they refunded some of your tuition.
It sounds like you did your part–lots of intensive scholarship across a decade. Regardless of any certificate or degree we receive for our efforts, the most important thing, in my opinion, is learning to learn. I have often urged my students to emphasize filling their toolboxes with learning and performance skills, rather than merely trying to obtain a vocational "ticket." A degree might get you through the door, but, once inside, one is expected to be competent and perform.
All best wishes to you.
Joe, I did not feel that I was entitled to a refund of my fees, since I was aware that the school was seeking acreditation for the Ph.D. program in religion, but there was no guarantee that their goal would be reached.
My personal objective was to get a proper training for doing research on the abortion issue. The trainging I received was sufficient, I believe, for the purpose I had in mind. I did not feel defrauded by the school and I feel grateful for the Christian teachers which treated me with dignity and patience.