Science & Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter epiphany08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
"When DNA acts like a mechanical clock
Very specific genes, known as “Hox,” are involved in this process. Responsible for the formation of limbs and the spinal column, they have a remarkable characteristic. “Hox genes are situated one exactly after the other on the DNA strand, in four groups. First the neck, then the thorax, then the lumbar, and so on,” explains Duboule. “This unique arrangement inevitably had to play a role.”

"The Hox clock is a demonstration of the extraordinary complexity of evolution. One notable property of the mechanism is its extreme stability, explains Duboule. “Circadian or menstrual clocks involve complex chemistry. They can thus adapt to changing contexts, but in a general sense are fairly imprecise. The mechanism that we have discovered must be infinitely more stable and precise. Even the smallest change would end up leading to the emergence of a new species.”

actu.epfl.ch/news/from-whales-to-earthworms-the-mechanism-that-gives/
Click to expand...
In all the years you have been posting this might be the very first time you actually linked a science article. Growth indeed. 🙂

Now onto the article.

Yes indeed - a great article that actually supports design and the power of DNA and the super language of DNA. Taken together with facilitated variation, 500 or so “immortal genes”, the demise of Junk DNA, embryo formation you may very well be a closet ID’er. 👍

More support for IDvolution.
 
StAnastasia said:
buffalo;8472462:
Not by any means that we could express. If it happens, it’s ineffable.
Click to expand...
Here be the difference between an evolutionist and a Catholic.

Evo - brain is responsible for consciousness. Brain dies, so too consciousness.

Catholic - Consciousness of the soul is expressed through the brain. If the brain is injured so too the expression. In this case the immortal consciousness is not injured but limited by the corrupted physical human body.

What is needed for the immortal soul to express itself to another immortal soul or God?
Click to expand...
 
SGWessells said:
Elizabeth502 wrote: “Does the Church’s moral theology include moral absolutes that are not subject to redefinition by the scientific community or by secular society in general?”

Not subject according to whom?
Click to expand...
Not sure why I have to repeat myself, but here goes:
Elizabeth502 said:
Does the Church’s moral theology include moral absolutes that are not subject to redefinition by the scientific community or by secular society in general?
Click to expand...
You then went off into a mini-rant 😉 about condoms. I merely posed the general question, to which the responder replied in the affirmative. The word “include” implies some, not all. Apparently the person I was addressing (who was not you) understood the breadth (inclusiveness) of the question.
 
SGW

The universe began with a fortuitous Bang. The primal elements of the bang were designed (or did they accidentally come about?) in such a way as to make the evolution of the universe, the formation of stars and their planets, the origin of life and the appearance of man, one great unintended consequence? Oh really? It’s all just a purposeless accident?

Prove it. You can’t. And you want to believe there is no God (it seems you are an atheist though you don’t admit it), so you have directed your intellect to refuse to see the design that others see.

The whole universe is pointless? It just came into being without a reason? Prove it. 😃
 
buffalo said:
In all the years you have been posting this might be the very first time you actually linked a science article. Growth indeed. 🙂

No - I’ve linked to science articles many times. I’m sorry the others were too technical to be comprehensible!
Yes indeed - a great article that actually supports design and the power of DNA and the super language of DNA. Taken together with facilitated variation, 500 or so “immortal genes”, the demise of Junk DNA, embryo formation you may very well be a closet ID’er.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
inocente said:
I asked you to please explain something and if you did I sure can’t find it. Are you proposing that God, and souls, are made of a supernatural thinking substance?
Click to expand...
My reply was, is and always will be:

“Considering that God created everything it is hardly likely!”

CCC 42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God–“the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable”–with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

CCC 43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that “between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude”; and that “concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him.”

It doesn’t make sense to refer to God as “a supernatural thinking substance” because God created everything and everyone, nature and supernature, substance and accidents, thinkers, thoughts and the objects of thought. Our definitions cannot apply to the Infinite because to define is to limit and the Infinite is unlimited. How can imperfect beings presume to categorise the Perfect One? The closest descriptions of the Supreme Being are to be found in the Old Testament: “He Who Is” and the New Testament: “God is Love”…
 
Anastasia

**It can’t be proven either way. Theism and atheism are assumptions we each bring to our perceptions of the universe. **

Why does atheism assume no God? Atheists are supposed to demand proof for our conclusion. Why don’t they demand proof for their own? There is no proof for atheism.

The facile notion that “If I were God I could have produced a better universe” is patently absurd.
 
=Charlemagne II;8472758]Why does atheism assume no God? Atheists are supposed to demand proof for our conclusion. Why don’t they demand proof for their own? There is no proof for atheism.
Click to expand...
Charlie, there is no proof for either theism or atheism. Both are foundational assumptions we bring to bear on our observation of nature.
The facile notion that “If I were God I could have produced a better universe” is patently absurd.
Click to expand...
Correct – this is a false idea. We have no idea what God is capable of in relation to what God wants from the universe.
 
SGWessells said:
I believe love doesn’t occur in us without them. Emotions are more complicated, since they interact with other psychological factors, experiences, temperament, and genetic predispositions. I am not so extreme a reductionist as the convenience of your position would induce you to believe.
Click to expand...
What is your precise position if it is not inconvenient to explain it?
 
40.png
StAnastasia:
Dumb and not my position at all. You want to speak of magic? Evolutionary explanations are full of magic with full blown storytelling.

Challenge - if you are up to it - please share with us what on the IDvolution site is magic and back your claim.
 
StAnastasia said:
No, but I carefully distinguish questions that take scientific answers and questions that rake religious answers. D. J. Grothe says it better:

“So the fact that science is compatible with religion turns out to be a comforting red herring. The less comfortable wet fish slapped around the face is that how easily science and religion can rub on together depends very much on what kind of religion we’re talking about. If it is a kind that seeks to explain the hows of the universe, or ends up doing so by stealth, then it is competing with science. In such contests science always wins, hands down, and the only way out is to claim a priority for faith over evidence, or the Bible over the lab. If it is of a kind that doesn’t attempt to explain the hows of the universe, then it has to be very careful not to make any claims that end up doing just that. Only then can the science v religion debate move on, free from the illusion that it rests on one question with one answer.”
Click to expand...
When science is thought to explain whys in terms of hows it is exceeding its brief and trespassing into the territory of metaphysics - and vice versa. There are at least three exceptions to this rule - as far as metaphysics is concerned:
  1. How the universe was created ex nihilo.
  2. How progressive development in the universe was directed.
  3. How persons function as beings made in the image of God - rather than biological robots.
There are no exceptions as far as science is concerned because it is restricted to efficient causes whereas final causes in the universe come into the scope of metaphysics.
 
buffalo said:
Dumb and not my position at all. You want to speak of magic? Evolutionary explanations are full of magic with full blown storytelling.
Click to expand...
False. Buffalo, if IDvolution is a valid scientific theory, why has it gained no traction? Why was Intelligent Design trounced at Dover? Why is it rejected by the International Society for Science and Religion? Why is it rejected by Rome, by Biologos, by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, by the Metanexus Institute, by the AAAS, and by every major professional scientific organization. It seems as though it’s your site and the Discovery Institute against the entire scientific world.

StAnastasia
 
tonyrey said:
When science is thought to explain whys in terms of hows it is exceeding its brief and trespassing into the territory of metaphysics - and vice versa. There are at least three exceptions to this rule - as far as metaphysics is concerned:
  1. How the universe was created ex nihilo.
  2. How progressive development in the universe was directed.
  3. How persons function as beings made in the image of God - rather than biological robots.
There are no exceptions as far as science is concerned because it is restricted to efficient causes whereas final causes in the universe come into the scope of metaphysics.
Click to expand...
I do not believe StA believes in metaphysics.
 
Anastasia
**
Charlie, there is no proof for either theism or atheism. Both are foundational assumptions we bring to bear on our observation of nature.**

But why does the atheist choose the assumption of atheism?
 
buffalo said:
I do not believe StA believes in metaphysics.
Click to expand...
Of course she does! Everyone has a metaphysic; you cannot think and not have one. Read E. A. Burtt’s Metaphysical Foundations of Modern science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top