LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If you do convince someone that evolution is incompatible with faith, then they are forced to either accept evolution and deny their faith, or accept the faith and deny evolution.
- Status
E
edwest211
Guest
Speaking very generally, this assumes the reader does not have the ability to analyze this and come to their own conclusions. Nameless, faceless people with no actual relationship to me or anyone else is a matter of choices. I go to one highly specialized message board about aviation. It is up to me to do the work regarding what I read. Is this true? What is the source? Can it be verified? But I don’t actually know any of the posters. None of them. That’s why I rely on real sources with real names and checkable information. That is why I spent so much time at libraries reading actual physical journals. And why I can call certain places to get a person with a voice and an identity.
On the internet, I have seen many personality types. They could be anyone from anywhere. Intent is difficult to determine at times. Other times, I can disregard certain things I read because I know certain things are not true or repeated so often that they become factual to some readers. I think it would be better for actual people to talk to actual people, but, on the internet, certain limitations exist.
On the internet, I have seen many personality types. They could be anyone from anywhere. Intent is difficult to determine at times. Other times, I can disregard certain things I read because I know certain things are not true or repeated so often that they become factual to some readers. I think it would be better for actual people to talk to actual people, but, on the internet, certain limitations exist.
A
Aloysium
Guest
In that tension, we arrive at the truth.
E
edwest211
Guest
I disagree. Tension does not help. I have one object in front of me. I add another object. How many do I have? 1 + 1 = 2.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
That is what Dawkins stated. Theistic evolution is not tenable.
B
buffalo
Guest
Natural selection is now understood to be a conservative process not a creative one.
B
buffalo
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Will we ever… reveal all the secrets of life from DNA? (me- we just know it had to be natural selection, random mutations and blind unguided chance)
These genomes contain the information necessary for building their respective owners, but it’s information that we still struggle to parse. To date, no one can take the code from an organism’s genes and predict all the details of its shape, behaviour, development, physiology – the collection of traits known as its phenotype. And yet, the basis of those details are there, all captured in stretches of As, Cs, Gs and Ts. “Cells know pretty reliably how to do this,” says Leonid Kruglyak from Princeton University. “Every time you start with a chicken genome, you get a chicken, and every time you start with an elephant genome, you get an elephant.”
Here, our metaphors let us down. Science writers like to compare the genome to a textbook or a blueprint. That conveys the fact that it stores information, but glosses over its buzzing, dynamic nature – proteins docking on and off to control the activity of genes, huge stretches of DNA that fold and unfold to reveal or hide their sequences, parasitic jumping genes that copy themselves and hop throughout the genome… None of our information stores – not sheet music, not recipe books – are this intricate.
www.bbc.com
These genomes contain the information necessary for building their respective owners, but it’s information that we still struggle to parse. To date, no one can take the code from an organism’s genes and predict all the details of its shape, behaviour, development, physiology – the collection of traits known as its phenotype. And yet, the basis of those details are there, all captured in stretches of As, Cs, Gs and Ts. “Cells know pretty reliably how to do this,” says Leonid Kruglyak from Princeton University. “Every time you start with a chicken genome, you get a chicken, and every time you start with an elephant genome, you get an elephant.”
Here, our metaphors let us down. Science writers like to compare the genome to a textbook or a blueprint. That conveys the fact that it stores information, but glosses over its buzzing, dynamic nature – proteins docking on and off to control the activity of genes, huge stretches of DNA that fold and unfold to reveal or hide their sequences, parasitic jumping genes that copy themselves and hop throughout the genome… None of our information stores – not sheet music, not recipe books – are this intricate.
Will we ever… reveal all the secrets of life from DNA?
We may have sequenced the human and other species’ genomes, but we are still nowhere near predicting how this creates a living, breathing organism. Here’s why.
www.bbc.com
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Then your disagreement ought, first and foremost, be with Dawkins.
A
Aloysium
Guest
If you convince someone that evolution is incompatible with their faith and they have to decide whether to choose between their faith and evolution, it would likely mean that they were not convinced that evolution is a poor explanation. It would then be a matter of whom to trust - what is taught in school and repeated in the media or that which one remembers from catechism class. You would have cast doubt on two unquestioned truths. A choice is presented which is rife with emotion, inducing a need to pray and deepen one’s faith, and possibly to learn about the workings of science. That’s the sort of tension I was thinking would lead a person to the truth. Now, if they now know their faith is true and evolution to be wrong, the tension is one of being true to the truth and considered a fool or to be a fool and considered wise. But I get what you’re saying that creation is rational whereas evolutionary theory is a poor imitation.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
It makes perfect sense.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Of course Dawkins is right. The problem is people’s understanding of what the standard theory of evolution states. God is irrevevant to the process. A Deistic god who simply set the clockwork in motion is however consistent with the theory as is the belief that aliens sent spore to earth to begin the process. It actually makes more sense, bizarre as it is, than what people say when they speak about random atomic activity in primordial soups.buffalo:
Then your disagreement ought, first and foremost, be with Dawkins.
R
Rau
Guest
Sigh… God does not feature in any scientific theories, to my knowledge.
R
rossum
Guest
What does this have to do with evolution? Evolution also includes random mutation, which is not a conservative process. RM introduces new features while NS conserves the beneficial features and eliminates the deleterious features.
Natural selection alone is not evolution.
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
Short comments sometimes elicit a long response. They do that by inserting a sigh.Aloysium:
Sigh… God does not feature in any scientific theories, to my knowledge.
Since you’ve alerted me to the fact that you do not read my lengthy replies, the counter to your comment should be a face-palm meme - Jean Luc Picard does the trick.
The short of the long of it, which will be a separate post, is that he standard theory of evolution is bad science. While it utilizes science in its formulations, it becomes not science at all, when it introduces materialist metaphysics.
God easily enters any scientific theory as He who created and maintains all that is in existence, for His purposes.
When you speak of the origin of the species and humanity and don’t include Him, your perspective is skewed.
The theory creates a scenario based on its assumptions as to how this all transpired from random chemical activity undergoing natural selection. This is the creative process proposed for life on earth. The evidence to be found everywhere in every day life, busts this theory. But, the myth perpetuates.
And, those who offer something different, and more comprehensive I would add, are sighed at.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
I think you oscillate from (1) wanting to find fatal flaws in the current mainstream theories of evolution and thus to prefer various newly developing theories, to (2) requiring a theory in which God fits in a manner you find acceptable or understandable, and then back to (1) again. And I think (1) is really driven by the erroneous belief that the mainstream theories require there be no God. That’s just not true. And I suggest if you want to see Scientific theories identifying the role of God, you will be disappointed.
I
IWantGod
Guest
This is simply not true. God created physical reality and gave it its powers, so how has God not had a hand in its creation? And chance cannot exist without order.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
First, this is not an argument I’m making; I was simply pointing out that this is a common - and I think fairly strong - argument that is commonly made whenever this topic arises.
Second, you cannot refute a scientific argument with a theological response. This just makes the church look anti-science, like she’s reprising the Galileo situation all over again.
Finally, as I said earlier, arguments from faith make it easier to reject out of hand arguments from science. They all get lumped together as part of the unthinking, irrational, unscientific opposition.
Second, you cannot refute a scientific argument with a theological response. This just makes the church look anti-science, like she’s reprising the Galileo situation all over again.
Finally, as I said earlier, arguments from faith make it easier to reject out of hand arguments from science. They all get lumped together as part of the unthinking, irrational, unscientific opposition.
R
rossum
Guest
The Catholic Church has a long history, and has generally learned from that history. The Galileo case is an obvious example: in a discussion about material things, science will always win. Science specialises in the material so that is where its strength lies.
Some Catholics are not as wise as their church, and some Protestants have yet to learn the lesson that the Catholic Church already has.
Science does not deal with God/Allah/Vishnu etc. None of them get a mention in the theory of gravity, in the theory of thermodynamics or in the theory of evolution.
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
I will provide a more comprehensive response when I have time. You don’t need to try to imagine what I think and why. Take the words for what they are, no more and no less. FYI - the above comes across like tilting at windmills.
- Status