Human appendix not vestigial

[edwest2]

I want to thank reggieM for all of the useful information he posted and the photo of that amazing sign that tells people to evolve beyond belief – to worship the mind of man.

Some time ago, I was told that disbelieving in evolution meant that “biology would be destroyed!” But, for those who think biology would keel over and shatter, like Humptey Dumptey, never to be put back together again, I offer this article by a scientist published in a scientific journal, who asks “Why do we invoke Darwin?”

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

I want to thank reggieM for all of the useful information he posted and the photo of that amazing sign that tells people to evolve beyond belief – to worship the mind of man.

Some time ago, I was told that disbelieving in evolution meant that “biology would be destroyed!” But, for those who think biology would keel over and shatter, like Humptey Dumptey, never to be put back together again, I offer this article by a scientist published in a scientific journal, who asks “Why do we invoke Darwin?”

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/

Thanks, Ed. I found that to be an excellent and very important article:

A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.[1] “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

Peace,
Ed

 

[PaulF2]

“Nobody doubts that”? Why not?

There are TWO types of evolution being discussed here: old dead things evolution, and the supposed evolution of living things like bacteria evolution.

Let’s start with bacteria. First of all, bacteria have the ability to exchange bits of genetic material with other species of bacteria. Got that? Viruses have the ability to change their outer protein coat if they come across something they don’t like. OK? And if scientists find bacteria in dirt in Canada that are already resistant to natural and synthetic antibacterials, what does that tell you?

So, in conclusion, bacteria can do something no macro creature can do, but they always remain bacteria. They don’t sprout arms and legs. Viruses always remain viruses no matter how many coat changes occur.

Let’s go over to old dead things. The laws of probability go against the idea that something could change into something else or that free floating parts that did one thing could end up somewhere else doing something else. If you’ve ever put together a complex device which involves a rod that must have Part A go on first, followed by Part B, a washer and a plastic spacer, and then another part, you know it has to go together in the right order to work right. A simple cell is far more complex.

To blame it on nature implies some sort of intelligence. To blame it on chance, means you have to get all the parts together in the right spots, at the right size and with the right shape. Can you just swap out parts between a Chevy and a Volvo? Can you just put parts anywhere? Of course not. Even if you found a similar part, odds are it’s too long or too short, too thin or too thick, or it has a bend in it that means it will make contact with something it shouldn’t.

I am against the idea of being a card carrying member of any movement, including ID. I think it would be better to think outside of the box, to reexamine established assumptions and to show that iffy scenarios are far more improbable than advertised.

Hi Ed,

I asserted that microevolution takes place and you seem to have offered some arguments against macroevolution. I fully agree with you that we have no evidence that random mutation coupled with natural selection are ever going to give complex new features like arms & legs to bacteria.

To observe microevolution, we need observe nothing more than a mutation which brings about a change that turns out to be advantageous which is then selected for and takes over the population. This is a very simple thing and has been observed in the lab and other places countless times.

 

[Mersenne]

Mersenne,

It “works very well”, eh? Where are the examples of observed macroevolution your statement rather suggests should exist?

We wouldn’t expect to see a lot of macroevolution, it happens over millions of years generally. Regardless, there are a number of examples we’ve observed.

How many millions of generations of bacteria have been observed in the lab with no new features and no species changed observed?

We’ve observed new features and new species of bacteria. Tons. There are bacteria that have evolved to eat synthetic materials.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I want to thank reggieM for all of the useful information he posted and the photo of that amazing sign that tells people to evolve beyond belief – to worship the mind of man.

I hope that you will not judge all evolutionists, and the theory, by association.

 

[PaulF2]

We wouldn’t expect to see a lot of macroevolution, it happens over millions of years generally. Regardless, there are a number of examples we’ve observed.

It is well-known that given the extremely short generational times of bacteria, evolution (into other species) ought to be feasible in the lab.

Please give me the examples of macroevolution we have observed with full gradual fossil support (I assume you’re speaking of fossils).

We’ve observed new features and new species of bacteria. Tons. There are bacteria that have evolved to eat synthetic materials.

Speciation is usually defined as occurring when inter-mating is no longer possible. I admit that I have never given thought to what it means with organisms that reproduce asexually. So - can we define speciation here? Can you provide references?

 

[Mersenne]

It is well-known that given the extremely short generational times of bacteria, evolution (into other species) ought to be feasible in the lab.

We do have tons of new bacterial species. There are bacterial species that eat synthetic materials.

Please give me the examples of macroevolution we have observed with full gradual fossil support (I assume you’re speaking of fossils).

No, I’m speaking of actual observed speciation, or species we know have come about recently.

A new species of mosquito, isolated in London’s Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens

Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread

A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker’s sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor

Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) One example is Primula kewensis

A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).

Speciation is usually defined as occurring when inter-mating is no longer possible. I admit that I have never given thought to what it means with organisms that reproduce asexually. So - can we define speciation here? Can you provide references?

Why don’t you go to the library and educate yourself on evolution before you declare the opinions of the scientific world as trumped by your own. Please provide me your proof that evolution could not have possibly occurred.

 

[reggieM]

Species Problem

 

[PaulF2]

We do have tons of new bacterial species. There are bacterial species that eat synthetic materials.

No, I’m speaking of actual observed speciation, or species we know have come about recently.

A new species of mosquito, isolated in London’s Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens

Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread

A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker’s sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor

Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) One example is Primula kewensis

A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).

Why don’t you go to the library and educate yourself on evolution before you declare the opinions of the scientific world as trumped by your own. Please provide me your proof that evolution could not have possibly occurred.

Going to the library would involve a lot more effort than what you just did - copying multiple paragraphs from a website and posting it verbatim as if they were my words:

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

WOW.

Further commentary:

1. The contempt you seem to express for all who simply believe in God certainly doesn’t do anything for your intellectual credibility.
2. Since you’re roaming far & wide with your “why don’t you educate yourself” insult, why don’t you try to address the glaring contradictions in your worldview, as we’ve discussed before? You ignore pointed challenges on the matter yet shoot potshots like the above.
3. I have never, ever “declared the opinions of the scientific world trumped by my own” or that “evolution could not possibly have occurred” - or anything close to either. This is what is known as LIBEL, actually. I very much dislike ever getting into anything personal in a debate, yet you seem to be unable to ever resist going there immediately, and frankly it seems like you have some issues. Why don’t you please post the quotes backing up both of those statements?
4. As I have stated here before, I have no philosophical issue with theistic evolution - I accepted it for around 20 years as a matter of fact (admittedly without a lot of critical thinking). Recently I have begun to see the very real problems that exist with the neo-darwin formulation - problems that even most honest evolutionists admit exist.

 

[Mersenne]

Going to the library would involve a lot more effort than what you just did - copying multiple paragraphs from a website and posting it verbatim as if they were my words:

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

WOW.

Further commentary:

1. The contempt you seem to express for all who simply believe in God certainly doesn’t do anything for your intellectual credibility.
2. Since you’re roaming far & wide with your “why don’t you educate yourself” insult, why don’t you try to address the glaring contradictions in your worldview, as we’ve discussed before? You ignore pointed challenges on the matter yet shoot potshots like the above.
3. I have never, ever “declared the opinions of the scientific world trumped by my own” or that “evolution could not possibly have occurred” - or anything close to either. This is what is known as LIBEL, actually. I very much dislike ever getting into anything personal in a debate, yet you seem to be unable to ever resist going there immediately, and frankly it seems like you have some issues. Why don’t you please post the quotes backing up both of those statements?
4. As I have stated here before, I have no philosophical issue with theistic evolution - I accepted it for around 20 years as a matter of fact (admittedly without a lot of critical thinking). Recently I have begun to see the very real problems that exist with the neo-darwin formulation - problems that even most honest evolutionists admit exist.

You complain about me ignoring “glaring contradiction in my worldview” but you don’t present any and instead just go to insults and foaming at the mouth. I proved your complaints to be invalid. If you have any other actual points to make I’d like to see them.

 

[PaulF2]

You complain about me ignoring “glaring contradiction in my worldview” but you don’t present any and instead just go to insults and foaming at the mouth. I proved your complaints to be invalid. If you have any other actual points to make I’d like to see them.

Actually, you didn’t “prove” anything I was actively disputing. Are you not aware that evolutionists acknowledge the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record - thus the lack of any direct evidence of the evolution of new, major features - to be a serious problem? Species (depending on how the word is defined) so close to each other that they are indistinguishable in terms of features, function, and behavior do not speak to this issue.

Let me repeat for you one more time: I am open to evolution in the theistic sense. Your implication that I have somehow carried a Creationist torch around here is bizarre ~ unless to you entertaining some of the tenets of ID is the same thing. If that’s the case, you’re misinformed. My mind is not yet made up on the question of macroevolution as a completely natural process vs. some sort of special event punctuation. The evidence for the former is thin, though I stand with Dr. Stanley Jaki & others in finding it the more philosophically palatable alternative.

Regarding the contradictions in your worldview, I’m speaking about your response to a post I made in a previous thread regarding the nature of mind. You, an express materialist, do not acknowledge what follows logically from that stance.

Furthermore, in your post in that thread, you called my assertion that quantum mechanics implies a non-physical mind a “distortion of science”. That was yet another empty statement. If you’d like to explain it, you can do so by replying to these posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5598837&postcount=21
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5598840&postcount=22

To reiterate: I have never, ever “declared the opinions of the scientific world trumped by my own” or that “evolution could not possibly have occurred” - or anything close to either. [Although your first statement is nonsensical, given that opinions, by definition, are just that, we know what you meant.] I have never once argued in these forums that “evolution could not possibly have occurred”. You can either retract this statement or I will be bringing it to the attention of the moderators - there are limits to the amount of dishonesty one can engage in here.

 

[edwest2]

I hope that you will not judge all evolutionists, and the theory, by association.

Well, the association is a valid one. Prior to Darwin’s book, what did non-believers in God have to go on? I don’t believe it? Show me God? (I heard that one over 30 years ago.) But, as Richard Dawkins has pointed out, evolution allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

There is a power struggle going on today. People post here insisting that Catholics reinterpret Genesis to fit what they call 'science." There’s always at least one poster here that gets all emotional about disbelieving “science.”

A) You hate science.
B) You’re ignorant. Which simply means you disagree with someone, and not that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
C) You obviously don’t understand evolution. See B.
D) You’re a fundamentalist, which implies you are lying and probably inclined to hurt others regarding your beliefs.
E) It is perfectly alright for Catholics to accept evolution. Two Popes did. Wrong. Pope John Paul II referred to theories of evolution and his statement was not meant as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance that explicity deny to God any truly causal role for the creation of life in the Universe.

And I have posted Pope Benedict’s comment on that secularly famous quote from Pope John Paul II: “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

So, for those who protested outside of the Creation Museum, what was the problem? They were afraid moms, dads and their kids might go in and actually believe what they saw? Gasp! Then what? You heard me. Then what? One protester told whoever was videotaping her, “I’ll sue. I won’t let them use my tax dollars to teach this in schools.” So It Is VERY clear that atheists are afraid that God, or even some vague mention of a Creator, might sneak back into public schools after God was thrown out in the early 1960s (school prayer eliminated after lawsuit by atheist Madelaine Murray O’Hare). Did they talk about any of the evidence for Creation? No, of course not, They can’t afford to.

They can’t explain how petrified trees pass through many rock strata and even into coal seams. They can’t explain ancient depictions, by men, of dinosaurs on pottery and metal.

The only reason I can see for putting in this constant, daily effort is to get people to believe something that cannot be replicated by experiment. To stop people from thinking about any other explanation. Long before gene sequencing was possible, humans bred dogs and horses. They did not know what would happen, or did they? My point is this: if the interbred animals did not already have the capability to interbreed, nothing would have happened. Nothing. No offspring.

Bacteia already have the capability to exchange genetic material with other SPECIES of bacteria. Got that? No macro creature can do this. It is Built-IN. Preexisting. And for that nonsense comment that bacteria “evolved” to eat a “synthetic” material like nylon, what about bacteria found in dirt in Canada that were already resistent to a lot of natural and synthetic antibiotics? Huh? But no, you can’t go down that road because ‘everybody’ already believes something else.

What is being presented here, most of the time, is the no-God-involved, self-starting engine of evolution that runs all by itself. Check your Biology textbook. Is God needed to make the process go? Of Course Not. God is mentioned here, most of the time, to get Christians to just say yes to evolution without thinking about it. I’m told science is silent about God. I’m told science cannot study the supernatural. But there’s no evidence that that’s true here. Nope. People are reinterpreting the Bible based on their ““urgent”” desire to get Christians to b e l i e v e something. Got that? There is no peer reviewed scientific paper linking Adam and Eve, or Creation in general to science.

Atheists, the immoral, amoral and confused want an ‘anything goes’ existence. They came from nothing, their lives are full of sound and fury, and they die to nothing. This is nihilism. And what is the mission of the Catholic Church? That the Living God died for you and loves you. Science, I will be told, can’t comment on that. So, the Bible is not a science book. How about people realizing that the biology text is not a theology book?

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

I’m told science is silent about God. I’m told science cannot study the supernatural. But there’s no evidence that that’s true here. …So, the Bible is not a science book. How about people realizing that the biology text is not a theology book?

This is the way it works with many evolutionists:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[reggieM]

I hope that you will not judge all evolutionists, and the theory, by association.

Personally, I think the theory leads to some evil results. But there are some who do not follow the logical conclusions of the theory. I wouldn’t make a sweeping judgement about everyone who accepts Darwinian theory, but I do judge the theory itself as having the power to cause tremendous harm. I think the anti-religious billboards are consistent with what the theory teaches.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you, reggieM, for that cartoon. For a while, I’ve been reading how science explains the “how” but not the “why.” Really? Evolutionary psychology tells people that our genes gave rise to our god belief as a survival mechanism. “Man Created God” on buses right now. Now, where do you think they got that idea?

Our neorological development, we are told, eventually, through random mutation and natural selection, allowed us to detect God. Really? And the evidence is?

There was a science program that supposedly ‘explained’ all of the plagues brought against Egypt by God through Moses. This coincidence followed by that coincidence. Sounds a bit like evolution. The parting of the Red Sea as described in the Bible. Naw. Exodus? Never happened.

I would invite people to find out what year it is on the Jewish calendar. What? They just made this up last week? Give me a break.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mersenne]

Actually, you didn’t “prove” anything I was actively disputing. Are you not aware that evolutionists acknowledge the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record - thus the lack of any direct evidence of the evolution of new, major features - to be a serious problem?

Absurd claim. You’re going to have to prove that one. That are incredible amounts of transitional forms, both in the fossil record and still alive today, more then we could have ever hoped for. I have a hard time imagining that this is true.

Species (depending on how the word is defined) so close to each other that they are indistinguishable in terms of features, function, and behavior do not speak to this issue.

Sense you are so keen on declaring that I am not addressing your issue, why don’t you actually state what your issue is so you can stop sleazing your way out of the debate.

Let me repeat for you one more time: I am open to evolution in the theistic sense.

No, you are not. Anyone with any motivation to know the truth would not demand proof for commonly known facts. I see no indication from you that you’ve really looked into this subject at all. The fact that you were unaware the specialization has been observed speaks volumes.

Your implication that I have somehow carried a Creationist torch around here is bizarre ~ unless to you entertaining some of the tenets of ID is the same thing. If that’s the case, you’re misinformed.

They are the same thing and I am not misinformed. In fact, these days, creationism and ID are legally recognized as the same thing. I know IDers try to spin it as otherwise, but their claims are the same exact baseless assertions based on religiously driven ideology.

Regarding the contradictions in your worldview, I’m speaking about your response to a post I made in a previous thread regarding the nature of mind. You, an express materialist, do not acknowledge what follows logically from that stance.

Furthermore, in your post in that thread, you called my assertion that quantum mechanics implies a non-physical mind a “distortion of science”. That was yet another empty statement. If you’d like to explain it, you can do so by replying to these posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5598837&postcount=21
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5598840&postcount=22

So your response to my post on specialization is to make reference to a post you made addressing someone else about a different subject, and bad pseudo science at that?

To reiterate: I have never, ever “declared the opinions of the scientific world trumped by my own” or that “evolution could not possibly have occurred” - or anything close to either. [Although your first statement is nonsensical, given that opinions, by definition, are just that, we know what you meant.] I have never once argued in these forums that “evolution could not possibly have occurred”. You can either retract this statement or I will be bringing it to the attention of the moderators - there are limits to the amount of dishonesty one can engage in here.

In the proofs that you demand, you are certainly stating, albeit indirectly, that your personal opinions trump modern science. Modern science holds common decent and macroevolution to be a fact. Where does that leave you if you treat it as if it isn’t?

As far as “evolution could not have occured” I never said that you said that. I asked you to prove them, in the same sense that you demanded ridiculous proofs from me. Now next time you want to go off your rocker and make accusation of libel on an internet message board and say that you’re going to run crying to the mods, you may want to make certain you are not doing them yourself. Because accusing me of making that statement most certainly is libel.

I would again suggest you make a trip to the library. Read some books on evolution that aren’t written by creationists or “IDers” A small amount of work will reveal in short order that ID is nonsense.

 

[Mersenne]

This is the way it works with many evolutionists:

http://www.evidentcreation.com/image/NOMA.jpg

I certainly do not know of any scientists who claim both that they are separate valid sources of knowledge and that we should study religion as a natural phenomenon.

Certainly, if one really thinks about it, science must trump religious myth, otherwise we’d have to avoid saying anything about what causes lightning, after all, what if it’s Thor?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Well, the association is a valid one. Prior to Darwin’s book, what did non-believers in God have to go on? I don’t believe it? Show me God? (I heard that one over 30 years ago.) But, as Richard Dawkins has pointed out, evolution allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Some offensive people may seize upon evolution as an opportunity to be extra offensive, but that does not mean that evolution itself, and all those who believe in it, are that way. I might cite the existence of certain Christians who use their faith to justify extreme anger and hatred towards seemingly everything - but I won’t, because I understand that they are not true Christians, and that they are not your representatives.

edwest2:

There is a power struggle going on today. People post here insisting that Catholics reinterpret Genesis to fit what they call 'science." There’s always at least one poster here that gets all emotional about disbelieving “science.”

A) You hate science.
B) You’re ignorant. Which simply means you disagree with someone, and not that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
C) You obviously don’t understand evolution. See B.
D) You’re a fundamentalist, which implies you are lying and probably inclined to hurt others regarding your beliefs.
E) It is perfectly alright for Catholics to accept evolution. Two Popes did. Wrong. Pope John Paul II referred to theories of evolution and his statement was not meant as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance that explicity deny to God any truly causal role for the creation of life in the Universe.

Yep, I’ve seen them, and I roll my eyes and sigh inwardly every time they post.

I understand the difference between what, say, Richard Dawkins might believe and the theory of evolution that Pope John Paul II mentioned.

edwest2:

And I have posted Pope Benedict’s comment on that secularly famous quote from Pope John Paul II: “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Well, I don’t know if that’s fair. There really aren’t any scientific theories that are complete and proven.

edwest2:

So, for those who protested outside of the Creation Museum, what was the problem? They were afraid moms, dads and their kids might go in and actually believe what they saw? Gasp! Then what? You heard me. Then what? One protester told whoever was videotaping her, “I’ll sue. I won’t let them use my tax dollars to teach this in schools.” So It Is VERY clear that atheists are afraid that God, or even some vague mention of a Creator, might sneak back into public schools after God was thrown out in the early 1960s (school prayer eliminated after lawsuit by atheist Madelaine Murray O’Hare). Did they talk about any of the evidence for Creation? No, of course not, They can’t afford to.

They probably are afraid, and, at least in their eyes, for good reason. If adults who have heard all sides of the story choose to believe in the literal Creation story, well, that’s their decision, but it should not be taught in the public school system, especially not in the science classroom.

edwest2:

They can’t explain how petrified trees pass through many rock strata and even into coal seams.

Is that a very common occurrence? I would guess that geological forces would shift some fossils, and that trees might be able to grow into other strata before being petrified, but I don’t know.

edwest2:

They can’t explain ancient depictions, by men, of dinosaurs on pottery and metal.

Ah, well, that isn’t very fair. There are ancient depictions of all sorts of things, from reptilian-men to flying saucers to helicopters to monsters.

Out of curiosity, where were these depictions found?

edwest2:

Bacteia already have the capability to exchange genetic material with other SPECIES of bacteria. Got that? No macro creature can do this. It is Built-IN. Preexisting. And for that nonsense comment that bacteria “evolved” to eat a “synthetic” material like nylon, what about bacteria found in dirt in Canada that were already resistent to a lot of natural and synthetic antibiotics? Huh? But no, you can’t go down that road because ‘everybody’ already believes something else.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

I wouldn’t say it’s “built in”, I’d say that it’s an inherent capability, given the bacteria’s structure.

Evolutionary theory doesn’t predict that all bacteria are susceptible to all antibiotics, unless they’re first exposed to them. In fact, that is how the “superbug” situation started - a small fraction of bacteria already had resistance to antibiotics, and the ones that did not were wiped out, allowing the resistant bacteria to become dominant.

edwest2:

What is being presented here, most of the time, is the no-God-involved, self-starting engine of evolution that runs all by itself. Check your Biology textbook. Is God needed to make the process go? Of Course Not. God is mentioned here, most of the time, to get Christians to just say yes to evolution without thinking about it. I’m told science is silent about God. I’m told science cannot study the supernatural. But there’s no evidence that that’s true here. Nope. People are reinterpreting the Bible based on their ““urgent”” desire to get Christians to b e l i e v e something. Got that? There is no peer reviewed scientific paper linking Adam and Eve, or Creation in general to science.

I agree. I think that “non-overlapping magisteria” is rubbish.

edwest2:

Atheists, the immoral, amoral and confused want an ‘anything goes’ existence. They came from nothing, their lives are full of sound and fury, and they die to nothing. This is nihilism. And what is the mission of the Catholic Church? That the Living God died for you and loves you. Science, I will be told, can’t comment on that. So, the Bible is not a science book. How about people realizing that the biology text is not a theology book?

I don’t want an “anything goes” existence.

 

[reggieM]

I certainly do not know of any scientists who claim both that they are separate valid sources of knowledge and that we should study religion as a natural phenomenon.

Stephen Jay Gould - NOMA

 

[Mersenne]

Stephen Jay Gould - NOMA

Stephen Gould was one of the most famous opponents of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

But ultimately you are correct in one respect, one cannot believe in NOMA without contradicting oneself. That’s because NOMA is incorrect, and the idea of NOMA helps highlight how weak supernatural thinking is. Let’s imagine we are going to accept NOMA, science explains everything in the natural world, religion explains everything in the supernatural world. But this can only work if religion does not attempt to make any statements that overlap with the natural world. This means they cannot make claims such as, prayer works. That would be overlapping with the natural world. At that point you are talking about a god and a religion that is fairly impotent.

But that’s the reality. Either you have to believe that religion trumps science, in which case we have to throw out medicine and replace it with chakra balancing, throw out our belief in electricity and replace it with the will of zuess. Or, you have to admit that religion, at best, takes a back seat to science, that religion is not “TRUTH” but a collection of traditions, opinions, and preferences, that can be explained by science, but still may have some validity in your personal life, but extends no further.