Human appendix not vestigial

[rossum]

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.

If any claim is made about the supernatural affecting the natural world, then science can test the natural part of the claim. If it is claimed that some frogs kissed by Princesses turn into Princes, then that claim can be tested: “Results show that 3.7% of osculated frogs turn into Princes providing the Princess is wearing something green and it is not a Wednesday.”

There have been scientific studies done on the effects of prayer: Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer. Whether or not you accept NOMA, science has the ability to test events in the material world.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

I agree. Science can study the Shroud of Turin, science can study a cancer that was there but disappeared after prayer, and science can study the cloak with the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Science is usually called in to examine miracles. Each candidate for sainthood, today, must have two miracles attributed to him or her that must be thoroughly examined.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

Your view is far too extreme. Most of the scientists who laid the foundation of modern science were Christians. Long before synthetic drugs were introduced, common people used parts of plants to treat various conditions. Then chemical companies produced synthetics based on these natural substances. Religion has never taken a back seat to science since the Church founded many universities and established a Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

I always encourage Catholics to avoid what I call Internet Opinion Culture. The Church was not founded on opinions but the real Living God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[PaulF2]

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.

I should start out proving that we don’t have transitional forms? In other words, start out with the assumption that macroevolution is true? How interesting. How about if instead I provide quotes for you from avowed evolutionists discussing this very real problem? I will do that shortly. It is pretty astonishing you’re not aware of it.

However, I am not interesting in debating evolution, as I have indicated. I do not necessarily oppose the notion that completely natural macroevolution best explains biological life. I hope you can read and understand that this time. I have argued and will argue in these forums several things, but that evolution is false is not one of them at all. My position is that I am (relatively recently, after assuming evolution to be true and not in conflict with my faith for ~20 years) skeptical that random mutation & natural selection account completely for the variety of biological life. I am in particular skeptical that cellular machinary could have evolved completely naturally given the huge problems present there.

Unlike you, I am not hemmed into a box on this issue - my worldview can easily deal with either completely naturalistic macroevolution or some mix of evolution with special events. Yours, on the other hand, can deal only with the former - while leaving the origin of life as well as the philosophical question unanswered.

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.

Nice. My issues are that you:

1. Seem to equate evolution with atheism - an enormously illogical position, one rejected by even many or most committed natural evolutionists! You seem to do this implicitly here without even explaining yourself.
2. Very infrequently post anything of substance at all. Most of your posts (that I have seen) consist of dismissive attacks on anything you do not care for without even an attempt to actually debate or exchange information. (The recent post copying a few paragraphs from another website being an exception.)
3. Have, in fact, dodged the follow-up questions I have offered you in response to your ridiculous out-of-hand and unjustified questions on the implications of your worldview. That includes a direct invitation (via PM) to participate in a thread I started on the tangent of mind & matter after the original thread was closed. Now it’s entirely your business what, if any, debates you want to participate in and which you don’t - but you can’t both ignore challenges (that, I think, speak to crcl, core issues) attack me on unrelated matters.

 

[PaulF2]

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.

Once again, I find your ridiculous, broad, personal attacks to be nothing but baseless and clueless hot air. And they don’t help your side.

Here is my retort to that: Anyone with “any motivation to know the truth” would not proclaim that they are a product of blind evolution yet proceed to loudly declare right from wrong or truth from error (although the fact that you tend to do these things with no evidence or argument is more in harmony with that worldview, I’ll admit). That is the only matter I have discussed with you in the past: your view & definition of the mind and the direct implications thereof.

I misspoke slightly regarding observed speciation (not “specialization”) - granted. But this is an ancillary topic for me. I think the language I used made that rather obvious.

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.

A mark of an intellectually honest person is characterizing opponents accurately. Now, you must know, if you know anything about the movement, that the main players in the ID world have almost nothing in common with creationists: they don’t believe in any sort of “young earth” and they do, generally, accept macroevolution to some extent. The tenet - the only tenet - of ID is that life (at the molecular level) carries the earmark of design.

Even if the claims of the ID movement are false - and I’m not sure what I think about that myself - it is disengenuous of you to characterize them as identical to creationists in the common definition of the word (and amusing that you would present it as a legal issue, since no court ruling can really speak to a question like that). Yes, I know that is standard operating procedure for their opponents - and it’s at least somewhat dishonest.

 

[PaulF2]

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?

For the benefit of the audience, here is an excerpt of what Mersenne dismisses as “bad pseudo science”, from another post of mine:

Many modern physicists have expressed the belief that the fundamentals of quantum theory are in conflict with materialism - these scientists do not believe that the human mind can be reduced to physics. Sir Rudolf Peierls stated in regards to quantum theory:

“The premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being… including its knowledge, and its consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing.”

The Noble-prize winning physicist Eugene Wigner denied (on the basis of quantum theory) that the mind can be solely a material thing. In discussion the philosophical systems that are compatible with quantum mechanics, he declared flatly that “materialism is not”.

Barr points out that von Neumann, London, Bauer, as well as Wigner and Peierls asserted that an observer in quantum mechanism system cannot be physical. We’ll see why below. I am going to go through the basics of quantum theory so we can see where this idea originates. (Not for your benefit, although it does seem like you’ve missed something fundamental.)

The reason for what I’ve said about quantum mechanics and the mind is the very special role the “observer” plays in the theory. By the nature of it, ‘observers’ are fundamentally different than the observed system. They cannot be a part of the system and, it is argued, it is the mind, the consciousness, that cannot be part of the system - that is to say it cannot be described by a wave function. The reason for this is that quantum theory concerns itself only with probabilities. If we put the observer in the system, we have an outcome, not just a probability - the math of QT has no facility for dealing with that.

To quote Dr. Barr: “If one attempted to describe the observe in his totality by the mathematics of quantum theory, then he too would become a part of the world of the merely probable. He would step out of the world of facts, so to speak, and into the realm of the hypothetical and conditional. However, the role that the observer plays in quantum physics is precisely to allow an escape from that realm, and consequently if he were to become part of it himself he would not be able to play his assigned role.”

As Barr points out, the ‘critical’ feature of said observer is his mind - that which knows. That which knows what it true and what is not true. That is where the line is crossed from probability to fact.

To sum up the traditional forumulation, Barr outlines these five tenets: “1) In quantum theory the fundamental theoretical description is in terms of multiple hypothetical possibilities and their relative probabilities. 2) To relate these hypothetical possibilities to the world of facts, measurements must be made by an ‘observer’. 3) A measurement is complete at the point when the observer has made a judgment of fact, that is, when he comes to know that one of the hypothetical possibilities is a fact and the others are not. 4) What makes the observer an observer, therefore, is an act of the intellect. 5) This act cannot be described by the physical theory without inconsistency, for the mathematics of the theory gives us only probabilities while the observations yield definite outcomes.”

Anyone reading this can see that your definition of “bad pseudo-science” must be science with implications that you don’t like. Now, nobody is going to assert that this matter constitutes absolute proof in a non-physical mind, but it’s certainly something to consider for an honest person.

 

[PaulF2]

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?

Your assertion is that modern science holds that random mutation & natural selection explain all biological constructs? And because of that, to assert anything else is thus “not science”? I do have that correct, right? Do I have to go on for you to see how ridiculous you’re being here? You’re literally closing the door on all debate, on all questioning, insisting that these questions are answered beyond all possible doubt. If the scientific community took that attitude always than several previous almost univerasally-held but incorrect beliefs would still be with us:

• The existence of the aether
• The immutability of time & distance
• The constant existence of the universe
• Newtonian gravity
• Etc.

What you mean to say is that because your atheistic materialistic worldview can tolerate no other possibility than what you assert, it should be accepted as absolute fact, with no questioning allowed - is that what you mean to say?

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.

You never said that? Here is your quote: “Please provide me your proof that evolution could not have possibly occurred.” Why were you expecting me to provide you proof that evolution never occurred when you believe I never asserted that?

I’ve actually never gone ‘crying to the mods’ - nor would I care to. However, when there’s such recklessness going on, what’s the alternative? Actually, I think there’s no need; your own statements have shed enough light. For me, understanding that you equate belief in evolution with atheism (and apparently implicitly expect everyone else to!) and that you equate creationism with ID - and also equate someone with an interest in ID as a frothing creationist - has helped me greatly to finally figure out some of your statements.

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.

I disagree with you that ID can be dismissed so cavalierly - that is posturing. AND, I have read every anti-ID piece I could get my hands on, from Ken Miller and many others. I have read it all - not of it speaks, really, to the heart of the matter. There is not even a real alternative presented - that is, a step-by-step model on how the flagellum, transcription, or a host of other things could have evolved piecemeil. Yet I hold that it could be true in all cases - the Machine that builds life could be so front-loaded, so to speak.

But I am not interested in debating ID - given that I’m not sure I accept its tenets. Not sure at all. To me, the Machine of Dr. Stanley Jaki is more attractive.

Let me explain that to you and see if you can grasp the fact that whether or not natural evolution explains biological diversity is almost totally irrelevant to the ‘God question’. If macroevolution cannot be explained without recourse to the infusion of special information, then we have the situation where God intervenes directly in creation. But if we do not, we most certainly have not removed the question of causality nor the need for an explanation of the “why”. In the view nicely expressed by Fr. Jaki, God created a Machine - the universe - that creates life. This Machine operates by its own rules - it was built to; it doesn’t need further external (name removed by moderator)ut once it’s started. That this Machine exists requires an explanation. “There is no explanation” is not an explanation; even if the universe did not have a beginning - and it did - we would still need an Explanation.

Your worldview, which cannot deal with such issues, is ultimately immature, self-contradictory, and illogical.

So, I am not interested, at this time, in debating ID - though I might play devil’s advocate here & there - but I am interested in having people like you speak to the contradictions in their worldview they gloss over. Because these issues are at the absolute core - if these simple questions can’t be answered, an observer is justified in asking why you are debating these matters at all. These questions, again:

1. By your own description your mind is your brain, and nothing more, which evolved to keep you alive long enough to mate - nothing more. Why should it know anything of philosophy? Why should “you” know anything with any certainty not related to keeping you reproducing?
2. In your worldview there can be found no reasonabl explanation for free will whatsoever: why do you address people as if they, and you, do possess free will?

Let’s see if you’d like to speak to those questions. We can have a civilized debate.

 

[reggieM]

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

I went to a bit of trouble this evening in order to help you understand that comic strip – and also to show that it’s not a good idea to argue with me about its accuracy (because you’re wrong to think that Gould did not do exactly as the comic portrayed the evolutionist).

You claimed that you:

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.

Now you admitted that you do know of a scientist who accepts NOMA – but you claim that I am only correct in “one respect”:

But ultimately you are correct in one respect, one cannot believe in NOMA without contradicting oneself.

So, now we can look at this:

Stephen Jay Gould was a proponent of this hypothesis. He believed that religion was an exaptation or a Spandrel.[5]That is **religion evolved as byproduct of psychological mechanisms **that evolved on the basis of conferring other evolutionary benefits, but confers no particular benefit on its followers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion

As an example of an exaptation, Gould (1991) used the large size of the human brain and its function of enabling humans to produce speech … Among the spandrels he cited as being by-products of large brains are **religion **…
sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/spandrels.html

Both Gould (1991) and Pinker mention **religion **as an example of an evolutionary by-product.
psych.ubc.ca/~ara/religion%20seminar%20papers/Kirkpatrick_1999.pdf

the list of exaptations (natural phenomena arising through co-option) proposed by Gould
(1991), namely language, religion, principles of commerce, warfare, reading, writing, and the fine arts.
tbeauchaine.psych.washington.edu/papers/definitions.pdf

1. Religion is a spandrel. The term spandrel was invented in biology by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, taking a term from architecture, to mean anything that is there simply because it is a byproduct of adaptive traits. In this case, [Gould holds] religion [as] a byproduct of our cognitive, social and linguistic/symbolic evolution. For instance, mysticism may be the side-effect of our ability to conceptualise the world in terms of agency, and of our brain structure.
   scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2007/03/the_topic_of_the_evolution_of.php

So, now you can finally say that you certainly ***do ***know of a scientist who claims both that they are separate valid sources of knowledge and that we should study religion as a natural phenomenon.

Additionally, you now know that I was correct in every respect – not just one.

And on top of all of those good things – you can now fully enjoy the comic strip that I posted since you obviously couldn’t appreciate it when you “didn’t know any scientist” who was reflected perfectly in the artist’s conception of that dialogue.

That was a lot of work going out to get quotes by Stephen Gould, just to show you this. But you are a person who makes bold assertions about evolution all the time, so in this case, you’ll know that Mr. Gould did propose that religion is the “by-product” of evolution and the result of a natural process which should be studied as such, through science.

So, he contradicted his own idea about NOMA.

But, perhaps he just made a mistake. That does happen.

I find that evolutionists make a lot of “mistakes” of various kinds. More critical observers call these lies, cover-ups and deceptions – but that certainly doesn’t help very much because it’s hard enough to convince them that they even made a mistake, much less that they are deliberately misrepresenting the facts (however true that may be).

So, again – I hope you enjoyed the comic.

 

[tjm190]

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?

Evolutionary psychology is separate from the theory of evolution

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

Confused by the question.

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.

Off topic I see.

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

I invite you to become literate with respect to geology, chemistry, and astronomy (assuming we’re discussing the age of the Earth)

 

[Shredderbeam]

I agree. Science can study the Shroud of Turin, science can study a cancer that was there but disappeared after prayer, and science can study the cloak with the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Science is usually called in to examine miracles. Each candidate for sainthood, today, must have two miracles attributed to him or her that must be thoroughly examined.

Peace,
Ed

I must point out that correlation does not prove causation.

1. By your own description your mind is your brain, and nothing more, which evolved to keep you alive long enough to mate - nothing more. Why should it know anything of philosophy? Why should “you” know anything with any certainty not related to keeping you reproducing?
2. In your worldview there can be found no reasonabl explanation for free will whatsoever: why do you address people as if they, and you, do possess free will?

Let’s see if you’d like to speak to those questions. We can have a civilized debate.

1). One possibility is that a brain capable of abstract thought is more capable of surviving to reproduce. Such a brain is able to form better hunting plans, envision future possibilities, create weapons, etc.

2). I believe that whether or not free will actually exists is an interesting academic point, but not really relevant to my day to day life. It seems to me that I have free will, and it will presumably continue to seem so until I die.

 

[Mersenne]

I should start out proving that we don’t have transitional forms?

You have to prove the claim you made, that evolutionists in general believe that there is a lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, and no direct evidence for evolution.

However, I am not interesting in debating evolution, as I have indicated. I do not necessarily oppose the notion that completely natural macroevolution best explains biological life. I hope you can read and understand that this time. I have argued and will argue in these forums several things, but that evolution is false is not one of them at all. My position is that I am (relatively recently, after assuming evolution to be true and not in conflict with my faith for ~20 years) skeptical that random mutation & natural selection account completely for the variety of biological life. I am in particular skeptical that cellular machinary could have evolved completely naturally given the huge problems present there.

So you don’t want to debate evolution, you just want to debate evolution.

Seem to equate evolution with atheism - an enormously illogical position, one rejected by even many or most committed natural evolutionists! You seem to do this implicitly here without even explaining yourself.

Not particularly.

So your issue, and let’s remember you were arguing in this thread before I showed up, so the number one issue you were arguing, before I showed up, was the assumption that I equate atheism with evolution.

1. Very infrequently post anything of substance at all. Most of your posts (that I have seen) consist of dismissive attacks on anything you do not care for without even an attempt to actually debate or exchange information. (The recent post copying a few paragraphs from another website being an exception.)

So I ask you to state your position clearly, so we can discuss it, and you have nothing to bring to the table but insults? Ironic.

1. Have, in fact, dodged the follow-up questions I have offered you in response to your ridiculous out-of-hand and unjustified questions on the implications of your worldview. That includes a direct invitation (via PM) to participate in a thread I started on the tangent of mind & matter after the original thread was closed. Now it’s entirely your business what, if any, debates you want to participate in and which you don’t - but you can’t both ignore challenges (that, I think, speak to crcl, core issues) attack me on unrelated matters.

So it’s my business if I want to participate in a thread but if I don’t I’m not allowed to debate with you about anything unrelated to that thread that I didn’t feel at the time like participating in and even though it’s “my business” you’re going to list it as one of the “problems” you have with me. Besides the fact that you produced a list of personal attacks when asked to clarify your position on evolution. That’s not very christian of you.

 

[Mersenne]

So, now you can finally say that you certainly do know of a scientist who claims both that they are separate valid sources of knowledge and that we should study religion as a natural phenomenon.

Additionally, you now know that I was correct in every respect – not just one.

And on top of all of those good things – you can now fully enjoy the comic strip that I posted since you obviously couldn’t appreciate it when you “didn’t know any scientist” who was reflected perfectly in the artist’s conception of that dialogue.

Indeed!

 

[edwest2]

Evolutionary psychology is separate from the theory of evolution

Confused by the question.

Off topic I see.

I invite you to become literate with respect to geology, chemistry, and astronomy (assuming we’re discussing the age of the Earth)

As reggieM just showed, the mind, brain, religion and all other thoughts were produced by natural evolutionary processes. That’s why atheists put signs on buses: Man Created God.

I invite you to think outside of the box and realize an ideology is being marketed here. It is called Scientific Atheism.

Peace,
Ed

 

[PaulF2]

You have to prove the claim you made, that evolutionists in general believe that there is a lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, and no direct evidence for evolution.

I did not say this was the belief of ‘evolutionists in general’ - I said it’s frankly acknowledged by some. There are virtually no transitional forms, which is obviously an enormous problem, as if gradual mutations shaped by natural selection were the rule of the eons we ought to have as many or more transitional fossils as ‘final’ species. ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was proposed to help deal with this problem but it doesn’t seem like it comes close to handling it, really.

Darwin himself saw this problem and called it something like “something that could destroy the theory”. And it has actually gotten worse with time, not better.

So - I will post some quotes, in another thread, eventually.

Ok, just one, for now: “Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group.” - Hickman, Roberts, and & Hickman, Integrated Principles of Zoology.

So you don’t want to debate evolution, you just want to debate evolution.

You’re not making an effort here. If you want some points because I wasn’t clear enough in the past - fine. That’s fair.

I’m interested in discussion of evolution for several reasons, but cannot debate in the sense of taking a side as my mind is not firmly made up. I can make some statements, though:

• The use of the theory of evolution as a materialist ‘theory of everything’ is a misguided (and evil) mixture of philosophy and science (and has had dire consequences when put into practice firmly).
• The total dismissal of most in the biological community of ID is in part posturing and reveals a type of ultra-defensive posture usually found in those eschewing debate. And the fact is that this:

arn.org/docs/mm/flag_labels.jpg

IS OBVIOUSLY DESIGNED. If it was blind nature that “designed” it via random mutation and natural selection, then blind nature was obviously and factually front-loaded to do just that. (And what an utterly astounding thing that is.)

• There is absolutely no credible hypothesis - let alone theory - for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Also acknowledged frankly by those in the field. The statistical math regarding the spontaneous formation of even one of the hundreds of proteins required for the simplest life (the simplest life is nearly identical at the cellular level to the most complex, of course) demonstrates quite impossible odds. And then there is the problem of the information in the DNA - the staggering amount of information, which, be definition, can only come from an intelligent source. (This is why Dr. Crick, and others (Dawkins), have postulated that this information came from aliens - but where, dear doctor, did the aliens’ life-information come from?!)

If you would like to debate any of those points, start a thread & I’ll join.

Not particularly.

So your issue, and let’s remember you were arguing in this thread before I showed up, so the number one issue you were arguing, before I showed up, was the assumption that I equate atheism with evolution.

I don’t see that as a coherent statement. I didn’t follow.

So I ask you to state your position clearly, so we can discuss it, and you have nothing to bring to the table but insults? Ironic.

I don’t really think I did that at all. Are you saying that me pointing out unpleasant truths qualifies as “insult”? Now, I did get more personal than I would like to, and that was, as I said, because you seem to make some very sweeping assumptions followed by very sweeping and wholly unsupported conclusions and condemnations (insult). Tell you what - I’m completely willing to clear the slate if you are! Done deal.

So it’s my business if I want to participate in a thread but if I don’t I’m not allowed to debate with you about anything unrelated to that thread that I didn’t feel at the time like participating in and even though it’s “my business” you’re going to list it as one of the “problems” you have with me. Besides the fact that you produced a list of personal attacks when asked to clarify your position on evolution. That’s not very christian of you.

I contend that what you call my personal attacks were honest observations and replies made with no malice. But, I will offer an apology, since I’m not interested in any personality battles.

As for what’s Christian and what’s not - I sometimes find that non-Christians, especially people with outright contempt for Christianity, have skewed notions about what it is and what it means. I can tell you that being “nice” all the time is not Christianity - charity without truth is blind. And useless, and even harmful.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I did not say this was the belief of ‘evolutionists in general’ - I said it’s frankly acknowledged by some. There are virtually no transitional forms, which is obviously an enormous problem, as if gradual mutations shaped by natural selection were the rule of the eons we ought to have as many or more transitional fossils as ‘final’ species. ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was proposed to help deal with this problem but it doesn’t seem like it comes close to handling it, really.

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

I think that there are some transitional forms.

Why doesn’t punctuated equilibrium handle it?
PaulF:

Darwin himself saw this problem and called it something like “something that could destroy the theory”. And it has actually gotten worse with time, not better.

What exactly did Darwin say?

So - I will post some quotes, in another thread, eventually.
PaulF:

Ok, just one, for now: “Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group.” - Hickman, Roberts, and & Hickman, Integrated Principles of Zoology.

I would guess that there are some species for whom transitional fossils have not been found, but I don’t think that finding complete transitional fossils for every single species is a realistic expectation.

- The total dismissal of most in the biological community of ID is in part posturing and reveals a type of ultra-defensive posture usually found in those eschewing debate. And the fact is that this:

arn.org/docs/mm/flag_labels.jpg

IS OBVIOUSLY DESIGNED. If it was blind nature that “designed” it via random mutation and natural selection, then blind nature was obviously and factually front-loaded to do just that. (And what an utterly astounding thing that is.)

I have to point out that with the flagellum, nobody has demonstrated that it could not have evolved, but only pointed to its complexity, been unable to think of a way in which it could have evolved, and concluded that it was designed - the argument from personal incredulity.

I believe it was discovered that the flagellum, minus the tail, could serve as a toxin injector of sorts.

- There is absolutely no credible hypothesis - let alone theory - for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Also acknowledged frankly by those in the field. The statistical math regarding the spontaneous formation of even one of the hundreds of proteins required for the simplest life (the simplest life is nearly identical at the cellular level to the most complex, of course) demonstrates quite impossible odds. And then there is the problem of the information in the DNA - the staggering amount of information, which, be definition, can only come from an intelligent source. (This is why Dr. Crick, and others (Dawkins), have postulated that this information came from aliens - but where, dear doctor, did the aliens’ life-information come from?!)

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

The first “life” need not be as complex at it is today, so I don’t see how abiogenesis is as improbable as you say it is.

Why can information only come from an intelligent source?

 

[rossum]

• The use of the theory of evolution as a materialist ‘theory of everything’ is a misguided (and evil) mixture of philosophy and science (and has had dire consequences when put into practice firmly).

Here I mostly agree with you, (that “evil” is the exception). Darwin’s book was called “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the Origin of Life, the Universe, Species and Everything”. Evolution is an excellent explanation of the origin of biological species. It is not a good explanation of the rest.

• The total dismissal of most in the biological community of ID is in part posturing and reveals a type of ultra-defensive posture usually found in those eschewing debate. And the fact is that this:

arn.org/docs/mm/flag_labels.jpg

IS OBVIOUSLY DESIGNED.

Unfortunately, in science the obvious is not always correct. It is “obvious” to us that the earth stays still while the Sun moves in the sky. That is not correct.

If it was blind nature that “designed” it via random mutation and natural selection, then blind nature was obviously and factually front-loaded to do just that. (And what an utterly astounding thing that is.)

Please have a look at Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. Since Behe (re)discovered the idea of Irreducible Complexity a lot of good scientific work has been done on how IC, as found in the flagellum, can evolve. Even Behe now agrees that IC can evolve, his latest paper looked at how likely it was that a simple IC could evolve. The answer was 20,000 years.

• There is absolutely no credible hypothesis - let alone theory - for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

There are many hypotheses, such as the RNA World. At the moment the problem is that we have too many hypotheses and not enough data to eliminate the incorrect hypotheses.

It is also worth pointing out that ID also has no explanation for the origin of life, unless the desigher was itself dead. A living designer cannot be an explanation for the origin of life.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Here I mostly agree with you, (that “evil” is the exception). Darwin’s book was called “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the Origin of Life, the Universe, Species and Everything”. Evolution is an excellent explanation of the origin of biological species. It is not a good explanation of the rest.

Unfortunately, in science the obvious is not always correct. It is “obvious” to us that the earth stays still while the Sun moves in the sky. That is not correct.

Please have a look at Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. Since Behe (re)discovered the idea of Irreducible Complexity a lot of good scientific work has been done on how IC, as found in the flagellum, can evolve. Even Behe now agrees that IC can evolve, his latest paper looked at how likely it was that a simple IC could evolve. The answer was 20,000 years.

There are many hypotheses, such as the RNA World. At the moment the problem is that we have too many hypotheses and not enough data to eliminate the incorrect hypotheses.

It is also worth pointing out that ID also has no explanation for the origin of life, unless the desigher was itself dead. A living designer cannot be an explanation for the origin of life.

rossum

On the contrary, Catholics believe a living designer did, in fact, design life.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

On the contrary, Catholics believe a living designer did, in fact, design life.

A living designer cannot explain the origin of life. At most such a designer can explain the origin of the second living organism in the universe; it cannot explain the origin of the first living organism - itself.

I am off to France for a week, so I will not be able to respond until I am back.

rossum