Churches rejecting science altogether

[kbachler]

BTW - a great book that discusses some of the inability of the press to do meaningful stories in a meaningful way is “Innumeracy”

 

[buffalo]

No. Your statement shows that you don’t understand what he said. It also shows that you don’t seem to have a good grasp of your own IDvolution.

Since you don’t answer questions straight up but expect straight up answers I now flip it to back to you.

Specifically, what is your understanding of what he said?

 

[Shredderbeam]

The human species is beyond degrees. However, I would not reject science just because one segment is somewhat short sighted. Rather, I would like to discuss the subject in depth in Back Fence Forum.

I’m not arguing for or against the author of that article’s viewpoint, I’m just elaborating on what he probably meant.

But certainly! I’ll keep an eye out there.

He was pointing out the vast differences in intelligence. No chimpanzee, gorilla, etc. will EVER paint a Mona Lisa. Nor will it ever even come close. Human intelligence far exceeds that of the apes that **** in their hands and throw it at you when you walk by their cages at the zoo.

But the author didn’t claim that there were no vast differences in intelligence. He only pointed out that there was no single, critical difference between humans and animals. For example, rationality. Humans are (usually) highly rational, but some animals can be rational to a certain extent. The author of the article didn’t comment on the degree of separation between man’s rationality and a chimp’s rationality, he just claimed that rationality was not something entirely unique to humans.

 

[grannymh]

The media tends to get details of all reporting wrong - I’ve learned that many times over the years. (I once had a friend and brother who got trapped in the mountains during a snow storm. They built a snow cave, stayed for 3 days, and hiked back. They met a ranger at the edge of the parking lot who was just going to look for them. The next day’s headline read “Ranger Finds Lost Hikers”.)

Koko the ape and any human have larger vocabularies than Chaser, so the headline as written is incorrect, but among dogs hers is the largest (maybe even among non-primates?) She (and Rico) have demonstrated some measurable ability to reason (as have some apes and chimps.) Exactly how much ability? We don’t know. But to say that ONLY humans reason is too strong of a statement today. Can we say “Humans in general appear to have much stronger reasoning abilities that other species in general?” Absolutely!

My point was just to show donsnow that the world is often a fuzzier place than people (and certainly the news media) want to believe. Embrace the gray.

From post 277. “But to say that ONLY humans reason is too strong of a statement today.” But to say that ONLY humans reason is too strong of a statement today. Can we say “Humans in general appear to have much stronger reasoning abilities that other species in general?” Absolutely! "

Appear?

One needs to consider sentience in animals, i.e., having sense perception or consciousness. Perhaps that would be an easier way to figure out the difference in kind between oneself and all other living organisms.

On the other hand, many humans find it very comfortable to be considered an animal even though being treated like an animal might be annoying.

 

[kbachler]

Since you don’t answer questions straight up but expect straight up answers I now flip it to back to you.

Specifically, what is your understanding of what he said?

First, from IDvolution:

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

In other words, IDvolution embraces the biological concept of a tree of life. In your haste to embrace Venter (apparently because he disagreed with* the atheist* Dawkins, you neglect to notice that Dawkins position is actually closer to your own and Venter’s further away.

If you are correct in that the “tree of life has fallen” then you have undermined a basic principle of IDvolution.

Second, this isn’t exactly what Venter is saying. Dawkins (and Davies) are espousing the traditional tree of life argument, Venter is stating its much less certain than that, there is gray, and lists organisms that create an issue.

Now, Davies, Dawkins and Venter know that there are three ways these organisms could come about:

1. There could be significant mutations from standard tree of life mutations
2. (In their words) The “accident” of life could have happened more than once on Earth, and after natural selection a few of these additional forms are left, although mostly we have one form.
3. In their words) The “accident” of life could have happened more than once on Earth and/or ELSEWHERE in space and through natural process some of those forms were seeded here to earth, and after natural selection a few of these additional forms are left, although mostly we have one form.

Dawkins is surprised because by denying the “Tree of Life” Venter is stating he now has a believe in one of the other two forms. That is, he believed life started MORE THAN ONCE, and possibly even started elsewhere.

When he finally asks Venter the direct question, Venter smiles, NOT because he knows something Dawkins doesn’t, but because he knows Dawkins is trying to get him to OVERTLY state this belief. But clearly Venter does not feel he yet has enough evidence to state this publicly (the sudden appearance of ill-gotten newspaper stories mis-stating that he now thinks there is a good possibility that life happened more than once - pops into his brain with all the consequences.) So he DOESN’T answer a question asking for proof - he just smiles. He’s stating a belief that he is not yet ready to stick his neck out for.

So:

1. The tree of life argument has not yet fallen
2. Venter believes that life happened more than once. When he thinks he has evidence to prove that, believe me, he will share it.
3. Dawkins view is more in line with your own for supporting IDvolution
4. You quote Venter as taking a clear stand on this, but he stops just short. His responses are careful:

“Well, I’ve got the same genetic code,” said Davies. “We’ll have a common ancestor.”

“You don’t have the same genetic code,” replied Venter. “In fact, the Mycoplasmas [a group of bacteria Venter and his team have used to engineer synthetic chromosomes] use a different genetic code that would not work in your cells. So there are a lot of variations on the theme…”

Note that up to this point Venter has not denied any relatedness. He hasn’t made clear whether he thinks the difference is due to big variation from the tree, or a separate tree.

Then Venter says:
“The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren’t really holding up…So there is not a tree of life.”

So he’s saying the concept doesn’t seem to work. But he also knows that by saying this he could be saying there is more than one tree, or there is a thicket or a forest, or that things could be entirely unrelated.

“Surely that means,” Dawkins asks Venter, “that they’re all related? Doesn’t it?”

from the article you quote “As nearly as we can tell from the video, Venter only smiles.”

Venter realizes he’s gone as far as he is willing to go. He has cast the doubt on 1 above, but he is not ready to embrace 2) or 3).

If he doesn’t believe that they are related, then he believes in multiple trees, which is even further against IDvolution.

Venter is leaving it gray, except to say that he is now longer comfortable with the single occurrence of life, single trunk concept.

If you embrace Venter, you’re undercutting the basic statement of IDvolution above.

 

[kbachler]

From post 277. “But to say that ONLY humans reason is too strong of a statement today.” But to say that ONLY humans reason is too strong of a statement today. Can we say “Humans in general appear to have much stronger reasoning abilities that other species in general?” Absolutely! "

Appear?

I don’t think we need to quibble over the word appear. The point is that the argument that ONLY humans reason is not a correct one.

One needs to consider sentience in animals, i.e., having sense perception or consciousness. Perhaps that would be an easier way to figure out the difference in kind between oneself and all other living organisms.

No such division is needed to decide if humans belong in the animal kingdom. There are additional differentiations that divide humans (or goats, or geese) from other animals after that point. This is just the first division.

On the other hand, many humans find it very comfortable to be considered an animal even though being treated like an animal might be annoying.

Might I suggest the article at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank which explains taxonomy and shows an example including humans.

 

[davidv]

I don’t think we need to quibble over the word appear. The point is that the argument that ONLY humans reason is not a correct one.

No such division is needed to decide if humans belong in the animal kingdom. There are additional differentiations that divide humans (or goats, or geese) from other animals after that point. This is just the first division.

Might I suggest the article at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank which explains taxonomy and shows an example including humans.

How does this taxonomy account for the human soul? How does any of the science related to it disprove the souls existance?

Where is the Chimps version of this taxonomy?

 

[kbachler]

How does this taxonomy account for the human soul? How does any of the science related to it disprove the souls existance?

Where is the Chimps version of this taxonomy?

The taxonomy doesn’t account for the human soul because the human soul has not been observed. Science is about what is observable. This isn’t a positive or a negative, it is simply its focus.

I’m not sure where you are coming from with the second question; science is not generally out to disprove the souls existence, although there have been a few experiments to see if the soul can be observed.

Chimps don’t have a version (so far as we know. ) Why would you ask such a question?

 

[davidv]

The taxonomy doesn’t account for the human soul because the human soul has not been observed. Science is about what is observable. This isn’t a positive or a negative, it is simply its focus.

I’m not sure where you are coming from with the second question; science is not generally out to disprove the souls existence, although there have been a few experiments to see if the soul can be observed.

But there are scientists who use science to deny the souls existance. Just like it appears is being done with the taxonomy to discount any unique difference of kind between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Chimps don’t have a version (so far as we know. ) Why would you ask such a question?

It is just one more example of the gulf between human nature and the rest of the animals.

 

[kbachler]

But there are scientists who use science to deny the souls existance. Just like it appears is being done with the taxonomy to discount any unique difference of kind between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

That IS NOT what is being done in the taxonomy, and if you think that then you need to learn more about it. You’re stopping at the first level of a taxonomy that has MANY levels. So yeah, if you stop at the beginning, all you have is man in with all the other animals.

There are also non-scientists who deny the souls existence. Some of them use gasoline. Do you stop using gasoline as a result?

It is just one more example of the gulf between human nature and the rest of the animals.

There are plenty of other examples. But it doesn’t mean that man isn’t an animal.

 

[davidv]

That IS NOT what is being done in the taxonomy, and if you think that then you need to learn more about it. You’re stopping at the first level of a taxonomy that has MANY levels. So yeah, if you stop at the beginning, all you have is man in with all the other animals.

There are also non-scientists who deny the souls existence. Some of them use gasoline. Do you stop using gasoline as a result?

There are plenty of other examples. But it doesn’t mean that man isn’t an animal.

Re: highlight

I have readily agreed with this. What is not agreed to is the implication of this truth.

 

[kbachler]

Re: highlight

I have readily agreed with this. What is not agreed to is the implication of this truth.

There is no implication other than “man is an animal.” Any additional implication is what you’re adding onto it.

Science doesn’t deal with “additional implications” of this sort. It deals with what is said.

If someone tries to tell you otherwise - for example - that there is no soul - just explain that you are not aware of any experiments that established that. (There are subatomic particles that are nearly impossible to catch, or impossible to catch, and we believe in those because of the way they fit a theory. The physical evidence is not significantly different from the physical evidence for a soul.) And while some choose to believe that there is no soul, you choose to believe that there is - but to mistakenly claim that there is a proof either way is to misrepresent science.

 

[buffalo]

First, from IDvolution:

IDvolution does not claim a tree of life. It does not claim common descent. It posits that “kinds” were thought of at once by God right at the beginning. So IDvolution would have no problem with many domains.

I really don’t care if an atheist is closer to IDvolution than another. All I am interested in is the truth.

1. The tree of life has fallen. Maybe this will bring you up to date: The tree of life, one of the iconic concepts of evolution, has turned out to be a figment of our imagination, says Graham Lawton - Uprooting Darwin’s tree - 24 January 2009 | NewScientist

2,3,4 - You neglect either through ignorance or obstinancy - HGT and its effect on the tree, turning it into a bush.

You - Now, Davies, Dawkins and Venter know that there are three ways these organisms could come about: - Uh No - they think they know. Now which of these guys would you pick to come out with another possibility, namely God? I vote none. So of course they are limited in what they think they know. Which one would agree with “God breathed information?” I vote none. An a priori exclusion no doubt.

I understand Venter is postulating an additional domain. The point I made is the tree of life has fallen and he agrees, his motivations nonwithstanding.

“Well, I’ve got the same genetic code,” said Davies. “We’ll have a common ancestor.”
Now I would agree here with Davies if he is saying I have the same genetic code as other humans so I will have a common ancestor. (Catholics know them as Adam and Eve)

“You don’t have the same genetic code,” replied Venter. “In fact, the Mycoplasmas [a group of bacteria Venter and his team have used to engineer synthetic chromosomes] use a different genetic code that would not work in your cells. So there are a lot of variations on the theme…”

Ahhh - this seems clear that common descent is at risk. In the above cases whether life developed several times, or they arrived here on earth from elsewhere all life is not descended from the first cell. How about man was supernaturally created by God? Is man a different domain too?

Summary - tree of life has fallen, now a bush, Venter adds another additional possibility. IDvolution is not restrictive to a tree of life. All life on earth has a common ancestor - bye bye. Unrelated life could have started at different times here on earth. (Sounds eerily Genesis like)

 

[edwest2]

There has been a long clash of orthodoxies. The secularist belief system prefers natural events giving rise to life, and may, for the moment, not mind adding the word God. But if that’s all that separates science from Divine revelation then what good is Divine revelation? As Catholics, we know certain things are historically true, like our first parents. But since Catholics, and Christians in general, understand that God does work in history, certain scientific proposals that come in conflict with revelation will, of course, be challenged.

Peace,
Ed

 

[donsnow]

Yeah, its really pretty odd that Buffalo quoted this, and even odder that you did donsnow. I’m curious as to why you did.

Well, kbachler,

It discusses microevolution, the level which demonstrates mutant changes can happen rapidly. Not gradually.
I have no problem with microevolution.
I started an article in Time magazine while waiting for my morning appointment at the local VA clinic. It discussed the changes wrought by epigenomes, or some such terms. These cause changes in one generation of humans. I think the investigators name was Byrgen, or like that, in Norway. I wish I had taken notes, now. But, all the changes were behavioral. LIke, eating disorders and longevity.

It’s on the micro scale where I see any theory of evolution working.

God loves you,
Don

 

[kbachler]

IDvolution does not claim a tree of life. It does not claim common descent. It posits that “kinds” were thought of at once by God right at the beginning. So IDvolution would have no problem with many domains.

That’s not what the statement I copied and pasted from their website said.

Moreover, if that’s what it says, then it has a difficulty with free will.

I really don’t care if an atheist is closer to IDvolution than another. All I am interested in is the truth.

1. The tree of life has fallen. Maybe this will bring you up to date: The tree of life, one of the iconic concepts of evolution, has turned out to be a figment of our imagination, says Graham Lawton - Uprooting Darwin’s tree - 24 January 2009 | NewScientist

Sigh. Buffalo, can you possibly listen to what someone says, rather than reading your own meaning into it. I am already up to date. All I stated before was with respect to Dawkins/Davies/Venter

2,3,4 - You neglect either through ignorance or obstinancy - HGT and its effect on the tree, turning it into a bush.

Wow, in one sentence you say so much that is untrue. Didn’t neglected, didn’t neglect it through anything, and btw there’s even more evidence of impact from viruses.

You - Now, Davies, Dawkins and Venter know that there are three ways these organisms could come about: - Uh No - they think they know. Now which of these guys would you pick to come out with another possibility, namely God?

As I noted, there are 3 ways. If we speak as Christians God did 1, God did 2, or God did 3. If we speak as scientists then 1, 2, or 3.

I vote none. So of course they are limited in what they think they know. Which one would agree with “God breathed information?” I vote none. An a priori exclusion no doubt.

The concept of course, is ridiculous, since there are cumulative changes in encoding over time.

I understand Venter is postulating an additional domain. The point I made is the tree of life has fallen and he agrees, his motivations nonwithstanding.

And as I note, then you’re at odds with your own beliefs, or you don’t understand them, or they are just misstated. In any case, its not particularly convincing.

“Well, I’ve got the same genetic code,” said Davies. “We’ll have a common ancestor.”
Now I would agree here with Davies if he is saying I have the same genetic code as other humans so I will have a common ancestor. (Catholics know them as Adam and Eve)

You’re aware that you do actually share genetic code with other animals (and other living things) right?

You do understand that Venter wasn’t saying that there are NO relationships, he was just saying that there’s more than one tree. So yes, Davies/Dawkins might be very related to a chimp, but not particularly related to Mycoplasmas.

Don’t overstate his case.

“You don’t have the same genetic code,” replied Venter. “In fact, the Mycoplasmas [a group of bacteria Venter and his team have used to engineer synthetic chromosomes] use a different genetic code that would not work in your cells. So there are a lot of variations on the theme…”

Ahhh - this seems clear that common descent is at risk.

No, it isn’t. You’re overstating the case. Go back and listen to everything Venter said. All he’s saying is that instead of one group of 100% of the organisms having common descent to one original creature, maybe (for example) there are three groups, and one has 85% of life as common descent in its tree, and another has 10% in its tree and another as 5% in its tree.

He’s not arguing, for example, that all primates are not related. He would still contend that they are - but they are likely on a different tree than Mycoplasmas.

In the above cases whether life developed several times, or they arrived here on earth from elsewhere all life is not descended from the first cell. How about man was supernaturally created by God? Is man a different domain too?

Man is in the kingdom of animals. He is clearly related to the other animals. Eukarya are in a different domain than bacteria.

Summary - tree of life has fallen, now a bush, Venter adds another additional possibility. IDvolution is not restrictive to a tree of life. All life on earth has a common ancestor - bye bye. Unrelated life could have started at different times here on earth. (Sounds eerily Genesis like)

The IDvolution website states otherwise. If everything is encoded in advance then it doesn’t allow for the fact that changes gene structures have occurred over time. So it doesn’t work. It would also have an issue with free will, and may have an issue with QED.

Really bad idea.

 

[kbachler]

Well, kbachler,

It discusses microevolution, the level which demonstrates mutant changes can happen rapidly. Not gradually.
I have no problem with microevolution.
I started an article in Time magazine while waiting for my morning appointment at the local VA clinic. It discussed the changes wrought by epigenomes, or some such terms. These cause changes in one generation of humans. I think the investigators name was Byrgen, or like that, in Norway. I wish I had taken notes, now. But, all the changes were behavioral. LIke, eating disorders and longevity.

It’s on the micro scale where I see any theory of evolution working.

God loves you,
Don

The information I provided also discusses macroevolution, including quantum speciation. Such changes have been observed in the lab and in the wild.

 

[donsnow]

What interpretation. Speciation has been observed, donsnow.

Darwin avoided saying most of the things he is accused of saying. “Two New Sciences” was not a text book. “Principia Mathematica” was not a text book. Writings by Young, Fresnel, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, etc were not text books.

Darwin’s book was about biology.

But that doesn’t mean that Darwin was wrong. All it means is that he is being used out of context, just like Hitler used BOTH the Bible AND Darwin out of context. Don’t paint good ideas with the brushes of bad men.

It seems to me that you rate any change due to the expansion of knowledge as a condemnation of Darwin. It isn’t. This would be like saying Galileo was an idiot, or Aristotle was an idiot because their understanding of physics or the elements was so wrong. It’s like you breath to besmirch Darwin. It’s unbecoming of a Christian.

Darwin developed an excellent theory. The primary underpinnings are correct. Are new details coming up all the time (especially as we learn more about genetics, about which Darwin knew basically nothing?) Absolutely. Does this make Darwin an idiot? No.

LOL, I DO give links and have in the past. But some of this information is so readily available, such common knowledge, I’m sometimes surprised that it needs links, and don’t anticipate such a request. Often the material can be easily found in Wikipedia and linked to references from there. In this case the information you seek is easily available there, with subreferences as well, including this quote:

This with the references seems to answer your objection adequately.

However, the same information is available under evolution in Encyclopedia Britannica including information on “quantum speciation” which is another name for what you would call rapid macroevolution, quantum referring to the time interval for speciation.

This is not new or vague science, donsnow. It is well accepted.

Well, kbachler,

First, go ahead and address me as Don.

Second, I never wrote that Darwin was an idiot. Please don’t put words in my mouth, or, on my keyboard.

Third, I find excuses for not providing sources to statements of yours unsatisfactory and imcomparable to you rendering the courtesy to provide named sources. I would like to point out that the one source in your above post to me was, for practical purposes, anonymous.
There is no reason I should do your work for you…you make the statement, then you and not I, research the source. That’s on you.

Fourth, I remain highly skeptical that there’s been any reputable observation of primate speciation. With the articles coming out about erroneous interpretation of fossils, I remain free to doubt those finds.

God loves you,
Don

 

[kbachler]

There has been a long clash of orthodoxies. The secularist belief system prefers natural events giving rise to life, and may, for the moment, not mind adding the word God. But if that’s all that separates science from Divine revelation then what good is Divine revelation? As Catholics, we know certain things are historically true, like our first parents. But since Catholics, and Christians in general, understand that God does work in history, certain scientific proposals that come in conflict with revelation will, of course, be challenged.

Peace,
Ed

The CHRISTIAN belief system also prefers natural events giving rise to life. Why do you believe that God violates His own laws? I don’t see why you think that has any negative impact on divine revelation.

 

[kbachler]

Well, kbachler,

First, go ahead and address me as Don.

Second, I never wrote that Darwin was an idiot. Please don’t put words in my mouth, or, on my keyboard.

Please provide any quote where I said that you said Darwin was an idiot.

Third, I find excuses for not providing sources to statements of yours unsatisfactory and imcomparable to you rendering the courtesy to provide named sources.

1. I am not going to render a source for every single piece of information. There has to be some assumption that people have some familiarity with science. I don’t wish to spend my entire day find references to educate you on fundamentals, nor do I wish to insult you by quoting fundamentals to you.
2. On other instances I HAVE provided references
3. If ASKED I have provided references.

It is not as though references were ever lacking, Don.

I would like to point out that the one source in your above post to me was, for practical purposes, anonymous.

What one source was anonymous?

There is no reason I should do your work for you…you make the statement, then you and not I, research the source. That’s on you.

As noted, I’m not going to quote references on every item - I assume some knowledge of science. If you don’t know, ASK, and I will happily provide a reference.

Fourth, I remain highly skeptical that there’s been any reputable observation of primate speciation. With the articles coming out about erroneous interpretation of fossils, I remain free to doubt those finds.

Modern primate speciation? I doubt it. From the fossil record? Certainly.

God loves you,
Don