Creationism and life in general

[ricmat]

It’s not how much we read but the quality that counts.

Signature in the Cell is written by Stephen C. Meyer. I look for his papers. Sum total zero. As I said "Golden rule - peer review”. Anyone can write a book and sound like they know what they’re talking about, but if he’s talking science he could first have written a paper or two and put them up for peer review and criticism is the usual way. After all he has a degree in physics.

The fact that he didn’t and wrote a mass market book instead means not only that he’s writing fiction but he knows all too well he’s writing fiction.

There are about 100 pages of references to papers in the book. Peer reviewed.

Read the book, and tell me where he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

It’s hardly a mass market book. If you read it, you would know that.

You know it’s not true even though you’ve never read it. Right.

 

[edwest2]

Say it isn’t so Ed my man, say it isn’t so.

Well, we always need to be clear about Church teaching:

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Simply saying we believe or accept this or that is not a complete answer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

Yes, God is the God of the gullible. And thankfully so. And the God of the stupid, uneducated, poor, unscientific, humble, and so forth. The god who restricts his dominion to the Intellectuals, Scientists, proud, etc., is not my God.

1. God wants us to appreciate his creation, his design. He does not hide behind a veil of randomness. Otherwise look at the gymnastics one must go through (your quote above) to somehow keep God involved in the explanation. God is not a god of the intellectuals, or a god of the scientists. If one needs to understand your paragraph above to understand God - we’re all in deep trouble.

Nobody needs to understand the paragraph from Communion and Stewardship to have a meaningful relationship with God and find salvation. Nobody needs to understand evolution to have a meaningful relationship with God and find salvation.

However, it would be hypocritical to assume that someone who is intellectual enough to understand evolution, or to think that s/he does, should not be intellectual enough to understand that paragraph from Communion and Stewardship and should not find it substantial and meaningful for their faith.

You can’t have one thing and then pretend the other related one doesn’t matter or is “too intellectual”.

---

For those readers who do not want to go back to the post with that paragraph, here it is:

But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).

 

[rossum]

I asked a question earlier, which nobody bothered to answer, and that is probably because there is no answer. It is probably because there are not ten scientific facts in accordance with the Bible, that support the theory of Evolution!!!

I am Buddhist. Why should I worry about whether or not facts are in accordance with the scripture of another religion?

The Theory of Evolution has been disproven over and over, and no matter how much DNA we share with chimpanzees, or chromosomes we share with vegetables, and other animals (humans=46 tobacco=48 bat=44), we are still not anything but human.

You are being lied to by creationist websites. Chromosome number is not that important, it is more the genes on those chromosomes. Horses, donkeys and zebras all have different numbers of chromosomes, yet they can have live offspring if they interbreed.

“Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn’t sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change.”

• "

Human Genome Project, Quantitative A Disproof of Evolution, CEM facts sheet. Cited in Doubts about Evolution?

Again, your creationist source is lying to you. While there are a few changes of 3 nucleotides that are fatal, the huge majority of such changes are not fatal. The average human has about 150 mutations, that is at least 150 changes to nucleotides. Scientists have removed over a million nucleotides from some strains of laboratory mice with no observable ill-effects. That removal was certainly not fatal. See Mice do fine without ‘junk DNA’:
The team created mice with more than a million base pairs of non-coding DNA missing - equivalent to about 1% of their genome. The animals’ organs looked perfectly normal. And of more than 100 tests done on the mice tissues to assess gene activity, only two showed changes.

The computer programs that evolutionists run, claiming that they prove evolution, are actually proof for creation, because it took an intelligent designer, to create the programs just the way they wanted them to!!!

I have written a computer program simulating God. Therefore by your argument God Himself was designed.

History has also proven Christianity,

History has proven the Greek gods. Homer wrote of Troy, and archaeologists have found the city of Troy. Therefore all the Greek gods mentioned in Homer must also be true. This is a very weak argument. Nobody disputes that some of the Bible is history. War and Peace contains a description of the Battle of Borodino, which is known to history. That does not make all of War and Peace a history book.

You are using some very weak arguments, which I suspect that you have taken from creationist websites. I suggest that you both check the facts first and that you think carefully about the weaknesses in the arguments before presenting them here. You will not be preaching to the choir. Weak arguments will be pointed out to you.

rossum

 

[Al_Moritz]

Well spoken, Rossum. Jon, you are being lied to by creationists, and your arguments are weak.

Jon, note that I am Catholic, so I have no religious axe to grind.

 

[ricmat]

Nobody needs to understand the paragraph from Communion and Stewardship to have a meaningful relationship with God and find salvation. Nobody needs to understand evolution to have a meaningful relationship with God and find salvation.

I’ll go further and say that nobody needs to believe that paragraph as part of their salvation.

However, it would be hypocritical to assume that someone who is intellectual enough to understand evolution, or to think that s/he does, should not be intellectual enough to understand that paragraph from Communion and Stewardship and should not find it substantial and meaningful for their faith.

You can’t have one thing and then pretend the other related one doesn’t matter or is “too intellectual”.

---

For those readers who do not want to go back to the post with that paragraph, here it is:

But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).

I understand it. I don’t agree with it. I guess that’s because I’m gullible, or anti-intellectual. There is NO obligation that I believe that paragraph. It is not Church Dogma. I have reviewed it, considered it, respected it, and rejected it. It is an opinion of of a commission. There are lots of commissions and lots of viewpoints.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’ll go further and say that nobody needs to believe that paragraph as part of their salvation.

I understand it. I don’t agree with it. I guess that’s because I’m gullible, or anti-intellectual. There is NO obligation that I believe that paragraph. It is not Church Dogma. I have reviewed it, considered it, respected it, and rejected it. It is an opinion of of a commission. There are lots of commissions and lots of viewpoints.

It’s not ‘just a commission’ speaking here, but it bases its statement on St. Thomas Aquinas. Please note that Aquinas is one of the foremost Teachers of the Church, and that Thomism (his philosophy) pretty much was the official philosophy of the Catholic Church until Vatican II, and also Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), has emphasized the importance of the thinking of the Angelical Doctor as Aquinas commonly has been called. Certainly, Aquinas was wrong on some things, such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which was not yet dogma at the time, but I would think that rejection of what he says needs to be based on substantial reasons. And simple personal dislike of a certain opinion of his is not a substantial reason.

Also, please note that the text of the commission was ratified by then Cardinal Ratzinger, the current Pope, who then held the position of Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In this position he basically was the supreme defender of the faith, next to the Pope.

 

[ricmat]

It’s not ‘just a commission’ speaking here, but it bases its statement on St. Thomas Aquinas. Please note that Aquinas is one of the foremost Teachers of the Church, and that Thomism (his philosophy) pretty much was the official philosophy of the Catholic Church until Vatican II, and also Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), has emphasized the importance of the thinking of the Angelical Doctor as Aquinas commonly has been called. Certainly, Aquinas was wrong on some things, such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which was not yet dogma at the time, but I would think that rejection of what he says needs to be based on substantial reasons. And simple personal dislike of a certain opinion of his is not a substantial reason.

Also, please note that the text of the commission was ratified by then Cardinal Ratzinger, the current Pope, who then held the position of Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In this position he basically was the supreme defender of the faith, next to the Pope.

Al, it seems that your life is totally centered on and around evolution. [Working with it?], Studying it. Preaching it. Desperately trying to convince others to believe it. A crusade in which there is no compromise, no prisoners, a fight to the (metaphorical) death.

As though it really makes any difference.

It doesn’t.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al, it seems that your life is totally centered on and around evolution. [Working with it?], Studying it. Preaching it. Desperately trying to convince others to believe it. A crusade in which there is no compromise, no prisoners, a fight to the (metaphorical) death.

As though it really makes any difference.

It doesn’t.

If that is your answer, instead of a substantial rebuttal, the argument truly must have hit a nerve.

 

[ricmat]

If that is your answer, instead of a substantial rebuttal, the argument truly must have hit a nerve.

If this is your response, I must have hit the truth.

 

[Al_Moritz]

If this is your response, I must have hit the truth.

You wish.

 

[Jon_Leveille]

I am Buddhist. Why should I worry about whether or not facts are in accordance with the scripture of another religion?

I am sorry, I thought I was addressing only professing Christians, and there were a few people here, who sounded like they were making arguments for Evolution.

Again, your creationist source is lying to you. While there are a few changes of 3 nucleotides that are fatal, the huge majority of such changes are not fatal. The average human has about 150 mutations, that is at least 150 changes to nucleotides. Scientists have removed over a million nucleotides from some strains of laboratory mice with no observable ill-effects. That removal was certainly not fatal. See Mice do fine without ‘junk DNA’:
The team created mice with more than a million base pairs of non-coding DNA missing - equivalent to about 1% of their genome. The animals’ organs looked perfectly normal. And of more than 100 tests done on the mice tissues to assess gene activity, only two showed changes.

First of all, I did not use Creationist sources, except for the quote, these comments are based on what I read from over 10 evolutionist websites, I always look at both sides of the argument, and try to see where the Evolutionists, are coming from, so I can decide for myself whether or not they are lying.

I have written a computer program simulating God. Therefore by your argument God Himself was designed.

You can not simulate God with a computer program, try running a simulation, where with spoken word you cause the entire universe to come into being, create the system of science and mathematics, and create the whole human race, along with thousands of creatures, in six days! P.S. since God wasn’t created or being controlled by some more intelligent source, you can’t use a computer, and you can’t create the program, the program has to have been there forever, which is impossible to us.

History has proven the Greek gods. Homer wrote of Troy, and archaeologists have found the city of Troy. Therefore all the Greek gods mentioned in Homer must also be true. This is a very weak argument. Nobody disputes that some of the Bible is history. War and Peace contains a description of the Battle of Borodino, which is known to history. That does not make all of War and Peace a history book.

First of all, there were tons of fictional people and places, that Homer wrote of, that do not exist, if you can show several parts of the Bible that have been disproven, then I will delete my comments! Secondly, I should not have put proven, what I meant was that it provided evidence for the Bible.

You are using some very weak arguments, which I suspect that you have taken from creationist websites. I suggest that you both check the facts first and that you think carefully about the weaknesses in the arguments before presenting them here. You will not be preaching to the choir. Weak arguments will be pointed out to you.

Actually only the quote came from a Creationist website!!!
rossum

 

[Jon_Leveille]

I am Buddhist. Why should I worry about whether or not facts are in accordance with the scripture of another religion?

You are being lied to by creationist websites. Chromosome number is not that important, it is more the genes on those chromosomes. Horses, donkeys and zebras all have different numbers of chromosomes, yet they can have live offspring if they interbreed.

Again, your creationist source is lying to you. While there are a few changes of 3 nucleotides that are fatal, the huge majority of such changes are not fatal. The average human has about 150 mutations, that is at least 150 changes to nucleotides. Scientists have removed over a million nucleotides from some strains of laboratory mice with no observable ill-effects. That removal was certainly not fatal. See Mice do fine without ‘junk DNA’:
The team created mice with more than a million base pairs of non-coding DNA missing - equivalent to about 1% of their genome. The animals’ organs looked perfectly normal. And of more than 100 tests done on the mice tissues to assess gene activity, only two showed changes.

I have written a computer program simulating God. Therefore by your argument God Himself was designed.

History has proven the Greek gods. Homer wrote of Troy, and archaeologists have found the city of Troy. Therefore all the Greek gods mentioned in Homer must also be true. This is a very weak argument. Nobody disputes that some of the Bible is history. War and Peace contains a description of the Battle of Borodino, which is known to history. That does not make all of War and Peace a history book.

You are using some very weak arguments, which I suspect that you have taken from creationist websites. I suggest that you both check the facts first and that you think carefully about the weaknesses in the arguments before presenting them here. You will not be preaching to the choir. Weak arguments will be pointed out to you.

rossum

1. I am sorry, I thought I was addressing only professing Christians, and there were a few people here, who sounded like they were making arguments for Evolution.
2. I did not use Creationist sources, except for the quote, these comments are based on what I read from over 10 evolutionist websites, I always look at both sides of the argument, and try to see where the Evolutionists, are coming from, so I can decide for myself whether or not they are lying.

You can not simulate God with a computer program, try running a simulation, where with spoken word you cause the entire universe to come into being, create the system of science and mathematics, and create the whole human race, along with thousands of creatures, in six days! P.S. since God wasn’t created or being controlled by some more intelligent source, you can’t use a computer, and Nobody can create the program, since the program has to have been there forever, which is impossible to us.
First of all, I believe that there were of fictional people and places, that Homer wrote of, that never existed, if you can show several parts of the Bible that have been disproven, then I will delete my comments! Secondly, I should not have put proven, what I meant was that it provided evidence for the Bible.

5.I expect weak arguments to be pointed out!!

 

[Jon_Leveille]

@ Al Moritz
How can you not see that Evolution and the Bible are not compatible???
Or do I I mistake your post meanings???

 

[rossum]

1. I am sorry, I thought I was addressing only professing Christians, and there were a few people here, who sounded like they were making arguments for Evolution.

Look at the top right of my posts, it says “Buddhist”. Others have different designations, many are indeed Christian.

There is no necessary incompatibility between evolution and Christianity. Some Christians accept evolution: Francis Collins, Keith Miller and Ken Miller for example. Other Christians do not.

1. I did not use Creationist sources, except for the quote, these comments are based on what I read from over 10 evolutionist websites, I always look at both sides of the argument, and try to see where the Evolutionists, are coming from, so I can decide for myself whether or not they are lying.

References please.

1. You can not simulate God with a computer program, try running a simulation, where with spoken word you cause the entire universe to come into being, create the system of science and mathematics, and create the whole human race, along with thousands of creatures, in six days!

You cannot simulate evolution then either. Your computer would need to be the size of the Earth and run for billions of years. A computer simulation generally only simulates part of what is being simulated. Your argument fails either way. If a partial simulation of evolution implies ID then God is also designed. If only a complete simulation implies ID then there has never been a complete simulation of evolution so there is no implication of ID.

Not all interpretations of the Bible adhere to your six day timetable. Saint Augustine had creation taking place instantaneously, not as long as six days. Much closer to what we now know as the Big Bang.

Origen also disagreed with six days: “What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky?”

1. First of all, I believe that there were of fictional people and places, that Homer wrote of, that never existed, if you can show several parts of the Bible that have been disproven, then I will delete my comments! Secondly, I should not have put proven, what I meant was that it provided evidence for the Bible.

We are agreed that just because one part of a book is shown to be true it does not mean that all other parts of that book are also true. Each part needs to be examined on its merits.

As to disproving part of the Bible, Genesis 1:6-8And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Where is this waterproof layer in the sky that separates the waters from the waters? We know from Genesis 1:17 that this firmament is in the solar system because it is associated with the sun and the moon. Where is this firmament? What is it made of?

So far all scientific investigations have disproved the existence of any waterproof layer in the sky.

rossum

 

[rossum]

@ Al Moritz
How can you not see that Evolution and the Bible are not compatible???
Or do I I mistake your post meanings???

At the risk of stealing Al’s thunder. Evolution is not incompatible with the Bible. Evolution is incompatible with some interpretations of the Bible. Other interpretations of the Bible are compatible with evolution.

There is more than one interpretation of the Bible out there. Only some of them are incompatible with evolution.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

The fact that he didn’t and wrote a mass market book instead means not only that he’s writing fiction but he knows all too well he’s writing fiction.

That is a perfect description of the books by Richard Dawkins. Full marks!

 

[inocente]

There are about 100 pages of references to papers in the book. Peer reviewed.

Looking inside the copy on Amazon, not 100 pages of bibliography and by no means all of them peer reviewed papers.

But anyone can cite other peoples’ work. What would be more to the point is how many others cite his work. Not exactly a big rush from what I can see.

It’s hardly a mass market book. If you read it, you would know that.

Errrrm:

Today Amazon.com announced their bestselling books of 2009 and Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne) by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer made the top ten in the science category. According to Amazon.com, books on its 2009 list of best sellers are “[r]anked according to customer orders through October. Only books published for the first time in 2009 are eligible.” - evolutionnews.org/2009/11/intelligent_design_book_cracks028321.html

You know it’s not true even though you’ve never read it. Right.

You mentioned Meyer’s book as containing a scientific hypothesis relating to “14 billion years is about 39,000 orders of magnitude too short” for evolution. But the world took no notice of this devastating blow to the ToE, I wonder why. And Mayer never dared put a paper up for peer review, I wonder why. At times it’s real easy to know that isn’t true.

 

[inocente]

That is a perfect description of the books by Richard Dawkins. Full marks!

Correcto. Except Meyer is being put forward as having a scientific hypothesis while Dawkins isn’t.

 

[Jon_Leveille]

What exactly do you mean by that???