B
buffalo
Guest
Well not exactly - you can substitute your name in for the objector.
Why Did the Catholic Church Condemn Galileo?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Why Did the Catholic Church Condemn Galileo?
S
SFTor
Guest
So does this mean you disagree with the Inquisition’s placing him under house arrest?Well not exactly - you can substitute your name in for the objector.
Why Did the Catholic Church Condemn Galileo?
B
buffalo
Guest
II agree with the swan song article.So does this mean you disagree with the Inquisition’s placing him under house arrest?
R
reggieM
Guest
I’m saying that it wasn’t produced by Darwinian processes.Reggie:
You’re saying that God created the flagellum?
S
SFTor
Guest
Ed,Since you like physical examples, here is one. Imagine placing all the parts for a car’s engine on the ground and waiting one billion years. There have been earthquakes and strong winds and floods and disturbances by local animals, but the engine cannot assemble itself. Now imagine the car engine running in a car. Next, imagine adding or removing a part while it’s running. Finally, operating in the role of ‘nature,’ you have no idea where the part should go.
God bless,
Ed
that one isn’t so strong. We know that living organisms change over time. We can observe it today. Is the process simple and easy to explain? No,
R
reggieM
Guest
What data is that guess based on?my guess is that God doesn’t appreciate you explaining to Him what He can or can’t do and by what mechanisms He should create things.
S
SFTor
Guest
So are you throwing out the theory of evolution on that basis?I’m saying that it wasn’t produced by Darwinian processes.
R
reggieM
Guest
I would certainly throw out much of what is claimed by Darwinists, simply because they contradict each other and make ridiculous claims which are not supported by facts.So are you throwing out the theory of evolution on that basis?
But no, that would not be the only basis I would use to reject many of the illogical and contradictory claims of evolutionists. It’s certainly a very strong one though.
But most importantly, I believe that God’s “involvement” in the creation of life and nature make it impossible to fully understand such things on a materialistic basis alone.
In other words, life is not just about matter and molecules, and the development of living beings is not a product of blind, accidental forces.
S
SFTor
Guest
What you describe is the scientific process. Claims will be made, some of which may be ridiculous. If they are they will not stand for long.I would certainly throw out much of what is claimed by Darwinists, simply because they contradict each other and make ridiculous claims which are not supported by facts.
But no, that would not be the only basis I would use to reject many of the illogical and contradictory claims of evolutionists. It’s certainly a very strong one though.
But most importantly, I believe that God’s “involvement” in the creation of life and nature make it impossible to fully understand such things on a materialistic basis alone.
In other words, life is not just about matter and molecules, and the development of living beings is not a product of blind, accidental forces.
As for the rest, science has no choice but to understand to the best of its ability how nature works on a materialistic basis alone. There is nothing else for science. It cannot consider divine intervention in the matter by definition. If it did it would lose its foundation utterly and completely.
If you wish to believe that there was divine intervention in nature you do it outside of science.
Best,
Tor
A
anthony022071
Guest
He certainly didn’t say that the evidence confirms the theory,as you say. He said that the evidence furnishes support for some theory of evolution. Perhaps you should figure out the difference between evidential support for a theory and confirmation of a theory.Sure looks like it. You think he didn’t mean it?
Same paragraph,same “scientific account”.Entirely different sentence, with an entirely different subject. Same document, though.
If evolution theory were not part of the “scientific account”,it would have been summarized in a separate paragraph,just as other topics are addressed in separate paragraphs.
The pope does not mention in what sense he means “contingeny”.He also says that God can use contingency (which includes chance) to His purposes. Contingency, in the sense that the Pope and scientists use it, means that it is not necessity. Things are either necessary, and must happen, or contingent and may or may not happen.
Contingency means likely but not necessary. It can be a case chance or it can be a case of decision.
He did not claim that the theory of evolution was a fact.Yep. He has no objection to the fact.
Science does deny divine providence. That’s why science denies that there is intelligent design in organisms.That’s what Pope Pius XII said. So long as science doesn’t deny the facts of divine providence, the Church does not object.
Plumbing is not naturalistic,so the point is moot.No, that’s wrong. It’s like saying plumbing denies divine providence because plumbing is methodologically naturalistic.
Bad comparisons usually are.How silly.
You didn’t check well enough. We were taking about science in general.I did? (Barbarian checks) Nope. I didn’t. You made that up.
From post 57:
Anthony:
Methodological naturalism is a priori naturalistic. Science does address the supernatural,even though scientists claim it can’t.
Science addresses the supernatural by stating that it not permitted in the study of nature.
The conclusions that it draws about what causes natural phenomena are always natural causes.
Barbarian:
Yes. It can say nothing about the origin of all things, or the resurrection, or the soul. It is merely a method that works without presupposing that it has the ultimate truth of anything.
Abiogenesis scientists do deny divine providence. It is the scientists who speak for the theory.Perhaps you don’t know what “explicitly” and “deny” mean. Nothing whatever in abiogenesis does that or could do that. If it did, it would cease to be science.
MN does deny supernatural causes within the context of science,which is why scientists deny that there is intelligent design in organisms. It denies a role of God in creation.Perhaps you don’t know what “methodologically naturalistic” means. It means assuming that natural things have natural causes, without denying that there might be supernatural causes.
“The methodological naturalist is the person who assumes that the world runs according to unbroken law; that humans can understand the world in terms of this law; and that science involves just such understanding without any reference to extra or supernatural forces like God. Whether there are such forces or beings is another matter entirely and simply not addressed by methodological naturalism. Hence, although indeed evolution as we understand it is a natural consequence of methodological naturalism, given the facts of the world as they can be discovered, in no sense is the methodological naturalist thereby committed to the denial of God’s existence. It is simply that the methodological naturalist insists that, inasmuch as one is doing science, one avoid all theological or other religious references. **In particular, one denies God a role in creation.” **
Michael Ruse (2002) “Methodological Naturalism Under Attack” p. 365
It means a methodology in which supernatural causes are assumed to not exist.You don’t know what “methodologically naturalistic” means.
It says that life emerged from chemical processes.You don’t know what abiogenesis says,
The Church’s position on those things is disbelief.and you don’t know what the Church’s position on these things are.
Show me where I lost the argument. Let’s test to see if that claimYou lost the argument a long time ago. I’m just patiently explaining it to you.
is true.
A
anthony022071
Guest
Edited:
The pope did not mention in what sense he meant “contingency”.
Contingent means likely to happen but not certain,or something which is possible. Contingency can be dependent upon chance or it can be dependent upon will. If contingency is guided by God’s will,it is not a matter of chance.
zenit.org/article-22144?l=english
Pope Benedict:
“Yes, I believe that the world and my life are not the product of chance, but of eternal Reason and eternal Love, they are created by Almighty God.”
The pope did not mention in what sense he meant “contingency”.
Contingent means likely to happen but not certain,or something which is possible. Contingency can be dependent upon chance or it can be dependent upon will. If contingency is guided by God’s will,it is not a matter of chance.
zenit.org/article-22144?l=english
Pope Benedict:
“Yes, I believe that the world and my life are not the product of chance, but of eternal Reason and eternal Love, they are created by Almighty God.”
A
anthony022071
Guest
I didn’t say what God can or cannot do. I stated what God does,based upon scripture,Catholic doctrine,and reason.my guess is that God doesn’t appreciate you explaining to Him what He can or can’t do and by what mechanisms He should create things.
Newton didn’t discover gravity – mankind has always been aware of it. Gravity exists whether or not people call it a law.on the other hand, I sometimes disagree with newtonian physics, especially gravity. since, as you see it, these aren’t really “laws”, I’d appreciate you putting in a good word for me with Him next time I fly my sailplane. altering some of the causation rules would be nice too, come to think of it.
R
reggieM
Guest
This excerpt from The Case for a Creator is an interview with Michael Behe by Lee Strobel and it gives some good insights on the evidence for intelligence as the cause of complex systems.
As amazing as the cilium is, I was even more fascinated by another biological machine for propelling cells—the bacterial flagellum. “While cilia act like oars to move cells, it was discovered in 1973 that the flagellum performs like a rotary propeller,” Behe explained. “Only bacteria have them.”
“How does it work?” I asked.
“Extremely efficiently,” he said. "Just picture an outboard motor on a boat and you get a pretty good idea of how the flagellum functions, only the flagellum is far more incredible. The flagellum’s propeller is long and whiplike, made out of a protein called flagellin. This is attached to a drive shaft by hook protein, which acts as a universal joint, allowing the propeller and drive shaft to rotate freely. Several types of proteins act as bushing material to allow the drive shaft to penetrate the bacterial wall and attach to the rotary motor."8
“Where does it get its energy?” I asked.
“That’s an interesting phenomenon,” he replied. “Some other biological systems that generate movement, like muscles, use energy that has been stored in what’s called a ‘carrier molecule.’ But the flagellum uses another system—energy generated by a flow of acid through the bacterial membrane. This is a complex process that scientists are still studying and trying to understand. The whole system works really well—the flagellum’s propeller can spin at ten thousand revolutions per minute.”
As a car aficionado, I was staggered by that statistic! A friend had recently given me a ride in his exotic high-performance sports car, and I knew it wasn’t capable of generating that many rpms. Even the notoriously high-revving Honda S2000, with a state-of-the-art, four-cylinder, two-liter, dual-overhead-cam aluminum block engine … has a redline of only nine thousand rpms.
“Not only that,” Behe continued, “but the propeller can stop spinning within a quarter turn and instantly start spinning the other way at ten thousand rpms. Howard Berg of Harvard University called it the most efficient motor in the universe. It’s way beyond anything we can make, especially when you consider its size.”
“How small is it?”
“A flagellum is on the order of a couple of microns. A micron is about 1/20,000 of an inch. Most of its length is the propeller. The motor itself would be maybe l/100,000ths of an inch. Even with all of our technology, we can’t even begin to create something like this. Sometimes in my lectures I show a drawing of the flagellum from a biochemistry textbook, and people say it looks like something from NASA. If you think about it, we’ve discovered machines inside ourselves. On Star Trek they had a creature called the Borg, which has tiny machines inside. Well, it turns out everybody does!”
Drawings of the flagellum are, indeed, very impressive, since they look uncannily like a machine that human beings would construct. I remember a scientist telling me about his father, an accomplished engineer who was highly skeptical about claims of intelligent design. The dad could never understand why his son was so convinced that the world had been designed by an intelligent agent. One day the scientist put a drawing of the bacterial flagellum in front of him. Fascinated, the engineer studied it silently for a while, then looked up and said to his son with a sense of wonder: “Oh, now I get what you’ve been saying.”
“Think of this too,” Behe continued. “Imagine a boat with its motor running. Uh-oh! Nobody’s steering it. It goes out and crashes— boom! Well, who’s steering the bacterial cell? It turns out it has sensory systems that feed into the bacteria flagellum and tell it when to turn on and when to turn off, so that it guides it to food, light, or whatever it’s seeking. In a sense, it’s like those smart missiles that have guidance systems to help them find their target, except there’s no explosion at the end!”
“And the flagellum is irreducibly complex?”
“That’s right,” he said. “Genetic studies have shown that between thirty and thirty-five proteins are needed to create a functional flagellum. I haven’t even begun to describe all of its complexities; we don’t even know the roles of all its proteins. But at a minimum you need at least three parts—a paddle, a rotor, and a motor—that are made up of various proteins. Eliminate one of those parts and you don’t get a flagellum that only spins at five thousand rpms; you get a flagellum that simply doesn’t work at all. So it’s irreducibly complex— and a huge stumbling block to Darwinian theory.”
I asked, “Has anyone been able to propose a step-by-step evolutionary explanation of how a gradual process could have yielded a flagellum?”
“In a word—no,” he said with a chuckle. "For most irreducibly complex systems, the best you get is a sort of hand-waving, cartoon-ish explanation, but certainly nothing that approaches being realistic. Even evolutionary biologist Andrew Pomiankowski admitted: 'Pick up any biochemistry textbook, and you will find perhaps two or three references to evolution. Turn to one of these and you will be lucky to find anything better than ‘evolution selects the fittest molecules for their biological function.’
“But for the flagellum, there aren’t even any cartoon explanations. The best the Darwinists have been able to muster is to say that the flagellum has components that look like the components of other systems that don’t have as many parts, so maybe somehow this other system had something to do with the flagellum. Nobody knows where this subsystem came from in the first place, or how or why the subsystem may have turned into a flagellum. So, no, there’s no reasoned explanation anyone has been able to offer.”
I tried another approach. “What about Darwinists who say, ‘Maybe it’s merely too early for us to come up with a road map of how these gradual changes developed. Someday we’ll better understand the fla-gellum, so have patience—in the end, science is going to figure it out.’”
Behe leaned back in his chair. "You know, Darwinists always accuse folks in the Intelligent Design movement of making an argument from ignorance. Well, that’s a pure argument from ignorance! They’re saying, ‘We have no idea how this could have happened, but let’s assume evolution somehow did it.’ You’ve heard of ‘God-of-the-gaps’—inserting God when you don’t have another explanation? Well, this is ‘evolution-of-the-gaps.’ Some scientists merely insert evolution when they don’t understand something.
"Look—we may not understand everything about these biological systems, but we do know some things. We do know that these systems have a number of very specifically matched components that do not lend themselves to a gradualistic explanation. We know that intelligence can assemble complex systems, like computers and mousetraps and things like that. The complexity we see is not going to be alleviated by the more we learn; it can only get more complicated. We will only discover more details about the systems.
(continued)
As amazing as the cilium is, I was even more fascinated by another biological machine for propelling cells—the bacterial flagellum. “While cilia act like oars to move cells, it was discovered in 1973 that the flagellum performs like a rotary propeller,” Behe explained. “Only bacteria have them.”
“How does it work?” I asked.
“Extremely efficiently,” he said. "Just picture an outboard motor on a boat and you get a pretty good idea of how the flagellum functions, only the flagellum is far more incredible. The flagellum’s propeller is long and whiplike, made out of a protein called flagellin. This is attached to a drive shaft by hook protein, which acts as a universal joint, allowing the propeller and drive shaft to rotate freely. Several types of proteins act as bushing material to allow the drive shaft to penetrate the bacterial wall and attach to the rotary motor."8
“Where does it get its energy?” I asked.
“That’s an interesting phenomenon,” he replied. “Some other biological systems that generate movement, like muscles, use energy that has been stored in what’s called a ‘carrier molecule.’ But the flagellum uses another system—energy generated by a flow of acid through the bacterial membrane. This is a complex process that scientists are still studying and trying to understand. The whole system works really well—the flagellum’s propeller can spin at ten thousand revolutions per minute.”
As a car aficionado, I was staggered by that statistic! A friend had recently given me a ride in his exotic high-performance sports car, and I knew it wasn’t capable of generating that many rpms. Even the notoriously high-revving Honda S2000, with a state-of-the-art, four-cylinder, two-liter, dual-overhead-cam aluminum block engine … has a redline of only nine thousand rpms.
“Not only that,” Behe continued, “but the propeller can stop spinning within a quarter turn and instantly start spinning the other way at ten thousand rpms. Howard Berg of Harvard University called it the most efficient motor in the universe. It’s way beyond anything we can make, especially when you consider its size.”
“How small is it?”
“A flagellum is on the order of a couple of microns. A micron is about 1/20,000 of an inch. Most of its length is the propeller. The motor itself would be maybe l/100,000ths of an inch. Even with all of our technology, we can’t even begin to create something like this. Sometimes in my lectures I show a drawing of the flagellum from a biochemistry textbook, and people say it looks like something from NASA. If you think about it, we’ve discovered machines inside ourselves. On Star Trek they had a creature called the Borg, which has tiny machines inside. Well, it turns out everybody does!”
Drawings of the flagellum are, indeed, very impressive, since they look uncannily like a machine that human beings would construct. I remember a scientist telling me about his father, an accomplished engineer who was highly skeptical about claims of intelligent design. The dad could never understand why his son was so convinced that the world had been designed by an intelligent agent. One day the scientist put a drawing of the bacterial flagellum in front of him. Fascinated, the engineer studied it silently for a while, then looked up and said to his son with a sense of wonder: “Oh, now I get what you’ve been saying.”
“Think of this too,” Behe continued. “Imagine a boat with its motor running. Uh-oh! Nobody’s steering it. It goes out and crashes— boom! Well, who’s steering the bacterial cell? It turns out it has sensory systems that feed into the bacteria flagellum and tell it when to turn on and when to turn off, so that it guides it to food, light, or whatever it’s seeking. In a sense, it’s like those smart missiles that have guidance systems to help them find their target, except there’s no explosion at the end!”
“And the flagellum is irreducibly complex?”
“That’s right,” he said. “Genetic studies have shown that between thirty and thirty-five proteins are needed to create a functional flagellum. I haven’t even begun to describe all of its complexities; we don’t even know the roles of all its proteins. But at a minimum you need at least three parts—a paddle, a rotor, and a motor—that are made up of various proteins. Eliminate one of those parts and you don’t get a flagellum that only spins at five thousand rpms; you get a flagellum that simply doesn’t work at all. So it’s irreducibly complex— and a huge stumbling block to Darwinian theory.”
I asked, “Has anyone been able to propose a step-by-step evolutionary explanation of how a gradual process could have yielded a flagellum?”
“In a word—no,” he said with a chuckle. "For most irreducibly complex systems, the best you get is a sort of hand-waving, cartoon-ish explanation, but certainly nothing that approaches being realistic. Even evolutionary biologist Andrew Pomiankowski admitted: 'Pick up any biochemistry textbook, and you will find perhaps two or three references to evolution. Turn to one of these and you will be lucky to find anything better than ‘evolution selects the fittest molecules for their biological function.’
“But for the flagellum, there aren’t even any cartoon explanations. The best the Darwinists have been able to muster is to say that the flagellum has components that look like the components of other systems that don’t have as many parts, so maybe somehow this other system had something to do with the flagellum. Nobody knows where this subsystem came from in the first place, or how or why the subsystem may have turned into a flagellum. So, no, there’s no reasoned explanation anyone has been able to offer.”
I tried another approach. “What about Darwinists who say, ‘Maybe it’s merely too early for us to come up with a road map of how these gradual changes developed. Someday we’ll better understand the fla-gellum, so have patience—in the end, science is going to figure it out.’”
Behe leaned back in his chair. "You know, Darwinists always accuse folks in the Intelligent Design movement of making an argument from ignorance. Well, that’s a pure argument from ignorance! They’re saying, ‘We have no idea how this could have happened, but let’s assume evolution somehow did it.’ You’ve heard of ‘God-of-the-gaps’—inserting God when you don’t have another explanation? Well, this is ‘evolution-of-the-gaps.’ Some scientists merely insert evolution when they don’t understand something.
"Look—we may not understand everything about these biological systems, but we do know some things. We do know that these systems have a number of very specifically matched components that do not lend themselves to a gradualistic explanation. We know that intelligence can assemble complex systems, like computers and mousetraps and things like that. The complexity we see is not going to be alleviated by the more we learn; it can only get more complicated. We will only discover more details about the systems.
(continued)
R
reggieM
Guest
(continued from previous)
MOLECULAR TRUCKS AND HIGHWAYS
According to Behe, the cilium and bacterial flagellum are just the beginning of the Darwin-defying complexity in the microscopic world of the cell. One of his other favorites is the “intra-cellular transport system.”
“The cell is not a simple bag of soup, with everything sloshing around,” he said. "Instead, eukaryotic cells—cells of all organisms except bacteria—have a number of compartments, sort of like rooms in a house.
"There’s the nucleus, where the DNA resides; the mitochondria, which produce energy; the endoplasmic reticulum, which processes proteins; the Golgi apparatus, which is a way station for proteins that are being transported elsewhere; the lysosome, which is a garbage disposal unit; secretory vesicles, which store cargo before it’s sent out of the cell; and the peroxisome, which helps metabolize fats. Each compartment is sealed off by a membrane, just like a room has walls and a door. In fact, the mitochondrion has four separate sections. Counting everything, there are more than twenty different sections in each cell.
“Cells are constantly getting rid of old stuff and manufacturing new components, and these components are designed to work in one room but not others. Most new components are made at a central location in the cell on things called ribosomes.”
Denton has described the ribosome, a collection of some fifty large molecules containing more than one million atoms, as an automated factory that can synthesize any protein that it is instructed to make by DNA. Given the correct genetic information, in fact, it can construct any protein-based biological machine, including another ribosome, regardless of the complexity. Denton marveled:
It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery, which possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that has ever existed on Earth, from a giant redwood to the human brain, can construct all its own components in a matter of minutes and … is of the order of several thousand million million times smaller than the smallest piece of functional machinery ever constructed by man.
“Not only is the ribosome amazing,” Behe said, "but now you’re faced with the challenge of getting these new components into the right rooms where they can operate. In order to do that, you need to have another complicated system, just like you need a lot of things in place for a Greyhound bus to take someone from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh.
"First of all, you’ve got to have molecular trucks, which are enclosed and have motors attached to them. You’ve got to have little highways for them to travel along. You’ve got to be able to identify which components are supposed to go into which truck—after all, it doesn’t do any good if you just grab any protein that comes along, because each one needs to go to a specific room. So there has to be a signal attached to the protein—sort of a ticket—to let the protein onto the right molecular truck. The truck has to know where it’s going, which means having a signal on the truck itself and a complementary signal on the compartment where the truck is supposed to unload its cargo.
"When the truck arrives where it’s supposed to go, it’s kind of like a big ocean liner that has crossed from London to New York, It pulls up at the dock and everyone’s waving—but, oops, they forgot the gang plank. Now what are you going to do? You see, you’ve got to have a way for the cargo to get out of the truck and into the compartment, and it turns out this is an active process that involves other components recognizing each other, physically opening things up, and allowing the material to go inside.
“So you’ve got numerous components, all of which have to be in place or nothing works. If you don’t have the signal, if you don’t have the truck, you’re pretty much out of luck. Now, does this microscopic transportation system sound like something that self-assembled by gradual modifications over the years? I don’t see how it could have been. To me, it has all the earmarks of being designed.”
MOLECULAR TRUCKS AND HIGHWAYS
According to Behe, the cilium and bacterial flagellum are just the beginning of the Darwin-defying complexity in the microscopic world of the cell. One of his other favorites is the “intra-cellular transport system.”
“The cell is not a simple bag of soup, with everything sloshing around,” he said. "Instead, eukaryotic cells—cells of all organisms except bacteria—have a number of compartments, sort of like rooms in a house.
"There’s the nucleus, where the DNA resides; the mitochondria, which produce energy; the endoplasmic reticulum, which processes proteins; the Golgi apparatus, which is a way station for proteins that are being transported elsewhere; the lysosome, which is a garbage disposal unit; secretory vesicles, which store cargo before it’s sent out of the cell; and the peroxisome, which helps metabolize fats. Each compartment is sealed off by a membrane, just like a room has walls and a door. In fact, the mitochondrion has four separate sections. Counting everything, there are more than twenty different sections in each cell.
“Cells are constantly getting rid of old stuff and manufacturing new components, and these components are designed to work in one room but not others. Most new components are made at a central location in the cell on things called ribosomes.”
Denton has described the ribosome, a collection of some fifty large molecules containing more than one million atoms, as an automated factory that can synthesize any protein that it is instructed to make by DNA. Given the correct genetic information, in fact, it can construct any protein-based biological machine, including another ribosome, regardless of the complexity. Denton marveled:
It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery, which possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that has ever existed on Earth, from a giant redwood to the human brain, can construct all its own components in a matter of minutes and … is of the order of several thousand million million times smaller than the smallest piece of functional machinery ever constructed by man.
“Not only is the ribosome amazing,” Behe said, "but now you’re faced with the challenge of getting these new components into the right rooms where they can operate. In order to do that, you need to have another complicated system, just like you need a lot of things in place for a Greyhound bus to take someone from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh.
"First of all, you’ve got to have molecular trucks, which are enclosed and have motors attached to them. You’ve got to have little highways for them to travel along. You’ve got to be able to identify which components are supposed to go into which truck—after all, it doesn’t do any good if you just grab any protein that comes along, because each one needs to go to a specific room. So there has to be a signal attached to the protein—sort of a ticket—to let the protein onto the right molecular truck. The truck has to know where it’s going, which means having a signal on the truck itself and a complementary signal on the compartment where the truck is supposed to unload its cargo.
"When the truck arrives where it’s supposed to go, it’s kind of like a big ocean liner that has crossed from London to New York, It pulls up at the dock and everyone’s waving—but, oops, they forgot the gang plank. Now what are you going to do? You see, you’ve got to have a way for the cargo to get out of the truck and into the compartment, and it turns out this is an active process that involves other components recognizing each other, physically opening things up, and allowing the material to go inside.
“So you’ve got numerous components, all of which have to be in place or nothing works. If you don’t have the signal, if you don’t have the truck, you’re pretty much out of luck. Now, does this microscopic transportation system sound like something that self-assembled by gradual modifications over the years? I don’t see how it could have been. To me, it has all the earmarks of being designed.”
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
**con·tin·gen·cy /kənˈtɪndʒənsi/The pope did not mention in what sense he meant “contingency”.
Contingent means likely to happen but not certain,or something which is possible.
–noun, plural -cies.
- dependence on chance or on the fulfillment of a condition; uncertainty; fortuitousness: Nothing was left to contingency.
- a contingent event; a chance, accident, or possibility conditional on something uncertain: He was prepared for every contingency.
- something incidental to a thing. **
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
"The cell is not a simple bag of soup, with everything sloshing around," he said. "Instead, eukaryotic cells—cells of all organisms except bacteria—have a number of compartments, sort of like rooms in a house.According to Behe, the cilium and bacterial flagellum are just the beginning of the Darwin-defying complexity in the microscopic world of the cell. One of his other favorites is the “intra-cellular transport system.”
"There’s the nucleus, where the DNA resides; the mitochondria, which produce energy; the endoplasmic reticulum, which processes proteins; the Golgi apparatus, which is a way station for proteins that are being transported elsewhere; the lysosome, which is a garbage disposal unit; secretory vesicles, which store cargo before it’s sent out of the cell; and the peroxisome, which helps metabolize fats. Each compartment is sealed off by a membrane, just like a room has walls and a door. In fact, the mitochondrion has four separate sections. Counting everything, there are more than twenty different sections in each cell.
There are cells that lack these evolved structures. And there are cells that have some of them, but not others. And there are cells that have some or all of them, but in less evolved forms.
So that’s another claim in the dumpster. Would you like to see some of the evidence?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Let’s take a look…He certainly didn’t say that the evidence confirms the theory,as you say.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
Ah, he says the evidence makes it “virtually certain.” That’s what scientists say, too.
That’s how theories are confirmed. Evidence is all that counts. Learn more about it, here:Perhaps you should figure out the difference between evidential support for a theory and confirmation of a theory.
So far we have seen that theories are confirmed by evidence that follows. deductively from them (with the help of auxiliaries).
springerlink.com/content/ku4v6v816m065133/
Barbarian re: altering statements of other people:
Entirely different sentence, with an entirely different subject. Same document, though.
No. One is about the formation of the universe. The other, which the Pope has written is “virtually certain”, is about evolution.Same paragraph,same “scientific account”.
More precisely, he said it is “virtually certain.”He did not claim that the theory of evolution was a fact.
Barbarian observes:
That’s what Pope Pius XII said. So long as science doesn’t deny the facts of divine providence, the Church does not object.
No. It is completely unable to do that. It can’t even comment on the supernatural. It can neither deny nor confirm it.Science does deny divine providence.
Well, that’s true. God is the Creator, not some inferior demiurge “designer.”That’s why science denies that there is intelligent design in organisms.
Barbarian observes:
No, that’s wrong. It’s like saying plumbing denies divine providence because plumbing is methodologically naturalistic.
It’s entirely naturalistic. Plumbers look for natural causes for plumbing problems. If plumbers were going about, exorcising the demons of blockage from your pipes, you would be right. But they do it scientifically. Which is to say, naturalism.Plumbing is not naturalistic,
Barbarian regarding false accusation:
I did? (Barbarian checks) Nope. I didn’t. You made that up.
Well enough that you were unable to support your accusation.You didn’t check well enough.
Barbarian:
Yes. It can say nothing about the origin of all things, or the resurrection, or the soul. It is merely a method that works without presupposing that it has the ultimate truth of anything.
Barbarian later:
Perhaps you don’t know what “explicitly” and “deny” mean. Nothing whatever in abiogenesis does that or could do that. If it did, it would cease to be science.
Not unless the Pope has denied divine providence. He said it too.Abiogenesis scientists do deny divine providence.
Barbarian suggests:
Perhaps you don’t know what “methodologically naturalistic” means. It means assuming that natural things have natural causes, without denying that there might be supernatural causes.
No. Nothing in the method says that there are no supernatural causes. This is why theists can do science.MN does deny supernatural causes within the context of science,
Hence, although indeed evolution as we understand it is a natural consequence of methodological naturalism, given the facts of the world as they can be discovered, in no sense is the methodological naturalist thereby committed to the denial of God’s existence.
Michael Ruse (2002) “Methodological Naturalism Under Attack” p. 365
Thank you. It wasn’t that hard to find, was it?
No. It merely means that we assume natural causes for natural phenomena, without denying that there might be supernatural causes.You don’t know what “methodologically naturalistic” means.
It means a methodology in which supernatural causes are assumed to not exist.
You don’t know what abiogenesis says, and you don’t know what the Church’s position on these things are.
It says that life emerged from chemical processes.
If so, the present pope is opposed to the Church’s position.The Church’s position on those things is disbelief.
Barbarian observes:
You lost the argument a long time ago. I’m just patiently explaining it to you.
See above.Show me where I lost the argument.
E
edwest2
Guest
The information Mr. Behe presents is accurate. The Coelocanth has a muscle that pumps blood through its body. Scientists regard this simple muscle as “primitive” but that is a perception, not a fact. This simple heart muscle is judged to be less evolved but the coelocanth is still around."The cell is not a simple bag of soup, with everything sloshing around," he said. "Instead, eukaryotic cells—cells of all organisms except bacteria—have a number of compartments, sort of like rooms in a house.
"There’s the nucleus, where the DNA resides; the mitochondria, which produce energy; the endoplasmic reticulum, which processes proteins; the Golgi apparatus, which is a way station for proteins that are being transported elsewhere; the lysosome, which is a garbage disposal unit; secretory vesicles, which store cargo before it’s sent out of the cell; and the peroxisome, which helps metabolize fats. Each compartment is sealed off by a membrane, just like a room has walls and a door. In fact, the mitochondrion has four separate sections. Counting everything, there are more than twenty different sections in each cell.
There are cells that lack these evolved structures. And there are cells that have some of them, but not others. And there are cells that have some or all of them, but in less evolved forms.
So that’s another claim in the dumpster. Would you like to see some of the evidence?
“Less evolved” is only a supposition. The trilobite has a highly complex optical system even though it is supposedly geologically ancient. But scientists are content to write papers about how evolution can do just about anything. An unguided, unwilled, unintelligent process? I don’t think so.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
To The Barbarian -
You wrote elsewhere that science does not have to be believed. Most people who are taught evolution in public schools are told this is it. Natural process, add millions of years and then you. It’s complete in itself.
Your adding God to the mix is puzzling. The theory, as witten in current textbooks, works without any outside supernatural assistance. That’s why I don’t accept it as written. At best, it is only part of the answer. Every human being needs to know we are not haphazard mistakes. They are not going to get that in the God ist verboten public schools.
Once again, I’m not saying add God to the public science class but His critical guidance of whatever process occurred needs to be widely known. And this is a good place to start.
Peace,
Ed
You wrote elsewhere that science does not have to be believed. Most people who are taught evolution in public schools are told this is it. Natural process, add millions of years and then you. It’s complete in itself.
Your adding God to the mix is puzzling. The theory, as witten in current textbooks, works without any outside supernatural assistance. That’s why I don’t accept it as written. At best, it is only part of the answer. Every human being needs to know we are not haphazard mistakes. They are not going to get that in the God ist verboten public schools.
Once again, I’m not saying add God to the public science class but His critical guidance of whatever process occurred needs to be widely known. And this is a good place to start.
Peace,
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
That is true.The information Mr. Behe presents is accurate.
That’s basically what they do. They create an imaginary world about how evolution did everything. The examples given by Behe are clear evidence of this.But scientists are content to write papers about how evolution can do just about anything.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.