EVOLUTION: what about this

[reggieM]

With his own intellectual evolution …

You implied just yesterday that there was “not one whiff of the truth” in what Mr. Behe has to say. Clearly, you don’t even know what he wrote. You might try reading his books – there are only two of them so far.

 

[reggieM]

Get ready for the wave of Darwinist pro-atheism. Here is an article that comments on that phenomenon.

That was a frightening commentary because it merely follows the logic …

[evolution] leads to some sticky problems. One of these, for instance, is genocide. Since it exists, it must confer an evolutionary advantage – which is about as close as Darwinism gets to the old-fashioned notion of ethical goodness. Some evolutionary theorists even think that humans are programmed for genocide and war. Indeed, the old man himself seems to have thought genocide something between a jolly good thing and a regrettable necessity. As he wrote in his other great text, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”

Fortunately, Oxford University is taking a different stance towards the Darwin bicentenary:

Regent’s Park College
University of Oxford
Oxford Centre for Christianity and Culture

Darwin Reconsidered

featuring a talk entitled:
Darwin’s Original Sin: The Rejection of Theology’s
Claims to Knowledge

 

[StAnastasia]

Not really, his latest book, “The Edge of Evolution” got panned by scientific reviewers. Until Intelligent Design can provide more scientific substance than it currently has, I suspect that Behe will not get a good press from other scientists. Technically he is a biochemist rather than a biologist.rossum

The problem is that instance of so-called “irreducible complexity” seem to be reducible (e.g., eyes, bacterial flagella). Thus far the IDers have not devised a way to test for and find IC. I have not communicated personally Michael since before Dover, so I don’t have a handle on how his work continues to be received at Lehigh.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Intellectually alive? The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, not the fear of man. A belief or disbelief in evolution is not the core of being “intellectually alive.” As you know, the Catholic Church allows the faithful to believe in Evolution but in Theistic Evolution only. I know you know this. To even imply otherwise is not right.Peace,Ed

I’m not implying anything of the sort. One can be spiritually alive without being intellectually alive – I’m sure there are many incurious saints. But you cannot be intellectually alive by adamantly hunkering down in the fortress of 1850s science.

 

[reggieM]

The problem is that instance of so-called “irreducible complexity” seem to be reducible (e.g., eyes, bacterial flagella).

Not true.

I have not communicated personally Michael since before Dover

Perhaps you might exhibit some honest courtesy and tell him that you posted on a public website that you believe that nothing he contributed has a “whiff of truth” about it. You could then explain that you didn’t bother to read his books before making that slanderous comment.

… so I don’t have a handle on how his work continues to be received at Lehigh.

You don’t have a handle on his work – and that is not a crime or a sin in any way, but it’s quite sad to see your rash commentary on this topic.

 

[reggieM]

But you cannot be intellectually alive by adamantly hunkering down in the fortress of 1850s science.

If you’re suggesting that we should reject the works of Charles Darwin since they were published in the mid-1800’s, well even I wouldn’t go that far. I think they should be rejected on the basis of the content and not because they were published in the 19th century.

 

[edwest2]

I’m not implying anything of the sort. One can be spiritually alive without being intellectually alive – I’m sure there are many incurious saints. But you cannot be intellectually alive by adamantly hunkering down in the fortress of 1850s science.

The word “science” should not be interchangeable with the word “evolution.” Second, why do you insist on calling “1850s science” so important or unimportant?

Do you want all Catholic Churches to hang a banner outside that reads, “We believe in Evolution! Come on in!” I don’t think your obsession with “science” as you call it, is a good one. The world calls the mystery of the Cross foolishness, and most leading scientists reject God. So, science, as it is practiced today, is primarily an atheist pursuit, along with scientism.

On this forum, Alec fits the description of an individual that is a scientist who wants us Catholics to consider the evidence of the myth of Adam and Eve. So, right here, on this forum, the atheist-scientific mind set is operating in full force.

God first. Then, a little science but only by the light of Scripture.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

So, science, as it is practiced today, is primarily an atheist pursuit, along with scientism.Ed

Scientism is not a pursuit, but a philosophical assumption. Science is neither theistic nor atheistic. My dentist and my electronics repairman don’t mention God, but I don’t complain that they are practicing atheistic dentistry or electronics repair. As for Alec, he just does genetics, not atheist genetics.

StAnastasia

 

[rossum]

Not true.

You are wrong here. Every example of Irreducible Complexity proposed by Behe has been shown to be evolvable. Experiments by Lenski have shown the IC systems are easily evolvable by indirect routes. See Line of Descent for a complete mutation by mutation line of descent for an IC system.

Behe originally said, “IC systems cannot evolve”. Following results such as Lenski’s and others, he changed this to “IC systems are unlikely to evolve”. This is not a criticism of Behe, science works by rejecting hypotheses and modifying them to fit new data. The current work in this area is looking to determine just how unlikely (or likely) it is that IC systems will evolve. Behe’s own paper with Snoke (the URL I have is proteinscience.org/cgi/content/full/13/10/2651 but that seems to be unavailable at the moment) is directed towards this end. So far the results are showing that IC systems can evolve reasonably easily. Behe’s own paper is consistent with this, it shows that a simple IC system can evolve in a population of bacteria in about 20,000 years using just a subset of known evolutionary mechanisms.

rossum

 

[mmmcounts]

The Earth is old. Get used to it. Here’s a fun question. On what day did God create the Earth? It’s kind of a trick question, so be careful.

 

[redneck22]

The Earth is old. Get used to it. Here’s a fun question. On what day did God create the Earth? It’s kind of a trick question, so be careful.

Scripture states that God only ever created one day, it’s known as the Lord’s day. It’s also the day the Spirit came. The other days that followed were repeats. Our salvation is tied to that day, the send of the Messiah from the house of David ref. Jeremiah 33:19-22.

 

[edwest2]

Scientism is not a pursuit, but a philosophical assumption. Science is neither theistic nor atheistic. My dentist and my electronics repairman don’t mention God, but I don’t complain that they are practicing atheistic dentistry or electronics repair. As for Alec, he just does genetics, not atheist genetics.

StAnastasia

As for Alec, he encourages atheism. Please stop avoiding the real question by employing various distractions. The dentist or electronics repairman do not have answers regarding human origins, “science” supposedly does; more specifically, evolution. So can we avoid plumbers and automobile repairmen also?

When the journal Nature tells everyone most leading scientists reject God, they must have a reason for this. Being scientists, they must have what is, to them, a reasonable explanation for this rejection. I strongly doubt it is something simple like, “I just don’t believe in God.” No, they have a reason. The same reason Richard Dawkins has. “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” I don’t think you can call this man ignorant of Christianity, since his book, The God Delusion, is a diatribe against religion and Christianity in particular.

Your promotion of the wonders of science and your apparent fascination with it do not show much, if any, enthusiasm for God and the knowledge of God. Ignorance of the Bible is ignorance of Christ. How much I pray that Catholics would study God’s Word and their Catechisms so that they will know and then do what God tells them. But in your writings, I see a love for science, but where is your love for God’s truth? Is it buried in post-1850s knowledge, the focus of all the atheists through their god, Mr. Darwin?

The Church has considered Darwinism and its modern developments and found it wanting. I’m sure it hasn’t escaped you that when one Pope says, “Evolution is more than a hypothesis.” the Church is hailed with various words like progressive and relevant. But when another Pope, referring to the same statement, says, “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” Suddenly, the Catholic Church is derided as being retrograde, living in some past century and anti-science. That it should mind its own business and stick to faith and morals, and leave science, which it is accused of knowing nothing about, alone.

Let me get this straight: For you, if the Church does not accept “science,” as you define it, it risks losing converts? And what does Christ Himself say about the process of conversion? That unless the Father draw him, and we accept Him, then the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within us. That is the Truth required of all to salvation. I have very intelligent friends, some of whom work in highly technical fields, but what does the Bible say? God does not regard our position in life and He resists the proud but accepts the humble.

A sign I saw on a non-Catholic Church read: “Avoid truth decay, read your Bible.” I am concerned about Catholics yielding to a mostly blind science of evolution and rejecting God’s direct causal action in creating life. The biology textbook makes it very clear that evolution is a self-contained, self-actuating process, no God required. That is the primary message I am getting here as well. This is false.

Finally, as a person who studies the history of technology, the actual finished device or product needs to be coupled to a correct mind-set or it is invariably misused. There is a relationship between religion and science which was defined by Pope John Paul II, a relationship. Pope Benedict has stated that faith and science are complimentary but, for the most part, not here. If truth cannot contradict truth then it must flow in both directions, not one.

Science is not first, God, and His Word, are first.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

The Earth is old. Get used to it. Here’s a fun question. On what day did God create the Earth? It’s kind of a trick question, so be careful.

The earth seems already to have been existent, albeit void and without form. The dry land was created on a Tuesday.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

As for Alec, he encourages atheism.QUOTE]

Perhaps I’ve missed his proselytizing session – when was it held? I’m aware that he carries different metaphysical assumptions from most of us, but I’ve seen Alec as respectful of other’s religious views. Can you cite a posting in which this was not the case?

 

[StAnastasia]

When the journal Nature tells everyone most leading scientists reject God, they must have a reason for this. Being scientists, they must have what is, to them, a reasonable explanation for this rejection. I strongly doubt it is something simple like, “I just don’t believe in God.” No, they have a reason. Peace, Ed

That’s Nature for you; I wonder who the editor was. I’ve got loads of priest friends who are biochemists, botanists, geneticists, historians of science, physicists, and astronomers, and somehow they received neither the message that you have to disbelieve in God to be a scientist, nor the message that you have to reject modern science to be a Catholic.

StAnastasia

 

[reggieM]

a simple IC system can evolve …

Contradiction in terms.

 

[reggieM]

That’s Nature for you; I wonder who the editor was. I’ve got loads of priest friends who are biochemists, botanists, geneticists, historians of science, physicists, and astronomers …

How many is “loads”?

Perhaps you’ll be impressed by this:

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

 

[rossum]

Contradiction in terms.

That depends on what definition of “IC system” you are using. I assume that Behe was using his own initial ‘knockout’ definition:A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin’s Black Box, 39)
The Behe and Snoke paper looked at simple IC systems requiring two or more specific amino acids to function - a single amino acid would not function while 2 (or 3, 4, 5 …) would. Behe’s own calculations showed that it would take about 20,000 years to evolve such a simple IC system in a population of a billion becteria. There are over a thousand times as many bacteria in your gut and ten million times as many bacteria in a ton of soil.

Behe’s own paper shows that the evolution of IC systems is possible.

What definition of an IC system are you using?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Scientism is not a pursuit, but a philosophical assumption. Science is neither theistic nor atheistic. My dentist and my electronics repairman don’t mention God, but I don’t complain that they are practicing atheistic dentistry or electronics repair. As for Alec, he just does genetics, not atheist genetics.

StAnastasia

He is definitely biased.

 

[reggieM]

20,000 years to evolve such a simple IC system in a population of a billion becteria. There are over a thousand times as many bacteria in your gut and ten million times as many bacteria in a ton of soil.

There are, then 5,000 times more in a pound of soil. The evolution of an IC system should then be demonstrated in a pound of soil over a period of 4 years.

What definition of an IC system are you using?

If one of the parts is not present and the system is still working, then it’s not IC.