Science & Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter epiphany08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
**Cats **have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)
  • **Cows **(Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)
  • 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)
  • The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).
  • About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)
If one adds in the fact that all life shares around 500 or so conserved (immortal) genes the genetic piano idea looks better and better.
Click to expand...
This shows that a basic level of genetic material is shared by a wide range of species, because they share basic structures and methods by which life develops;but the shared material diminishes the further those species diverge from one another, exactly as one would expect if evolution is correct. The wider the classification, the more features its members have in common.

You do realize, I trust, that “immortal gene” is metaphorical, right? It just means they have lasted through billions of years of evolution by weeding out whatever mutations occurred, and form the basis of many forms of life. When the sun turns into a red dwarf in about 5 billion years, they will be roasted like everything else.
 
grannymh said:
It is my observation that in the 21st century, there is no longer a “The Evolutionary Theory”.

There are now a variety of applications of the “evolution model.” Because of this, one has to read the complete context when it comes to quotes about this or that Pope supporting evolution. These prime time sound bites do not indicate what a Pope is really talking about.
Click to expand...
Right on granny. The moderns synthesis is giving way to the EES as we speak. It’s main point? Self organization. Talk about the odds getting worse…😦
 
SGWessells said:
Sorry, StAnastasia, but much as I appreciate your posts generally, I have to disagree with you here. When the church says evolution may be freely discussed as long as one believes that all humans are descended from only one man and one woman, changing the “interpretation” of that doctrine to mean that the man and woman referred to are symbolic of many men and women, you have in fact changed the doctrine, not just the interpretation, to mean that all humans are not descended from one man and one woman. That is because the doctrine is number-specific. If you say humanity is descended from any number of men and women greater than one of each, you have changed the doctrine itself.
Personally, I applaud the apparent fact that the doctrine has been tacitly abandoned; I wish more Catholics had the honesty to abandon it explicitly, and encourage the teaching of accurate science in public schools so our children are not crippled by ignorance when they get to college or compete with the rest of the world. But that’s the trap it puts itself in by claiming infallibility; it becomes immune to advances in knowledge in certain areas, and increasingly irrelevant to the world as knowledge grows…
Click to expand...
As a famous atheist said (paraphrasing) -theistic evolution does not work. It’s either God or not. He recognized the real issue.

I object to teaching non-empirical science in science class. Guess what that rules out? Put it into a mandatory philosophy class.
 
SGWessells said:
These aren’t necessarily the only alternatives, Tony. It’s possible, for example, that the groups who developed a moral sense did so gradually (as people do today), and because they consciously chose actions such as altruism and cooperation which enhanced the survival of the group, their communities survived while groups which still fought among themselves for the alpha female did not. No evolutionist says that thousands of ape-like creatures suddenly woke up one morning and realized that there was good and evil.
Click to expand...
Why were the 10 Commandments issued?
 
StAnastasia said:
OK, let’s agree to disagree. In my understanding the heart of the doctrine is that sin entered the world as humans became morally conscious. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus constitute God’s recreation of the moral order. I’ll follow the lead of the Hebrew author, who used the generic term “Adam” (man) taken from “adma” (earth) and joined to “Eve” (mother of all) to symbolize emerging humanity. I regard the claim that an historic “Adam” and “Eve” lived in Mesopotamia (or Akron, Ohio) as scientifically false and theologically irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
inocente said:
Not assumptions, science works on evidence. To give one more than you asked for: dating of meteorites, lunar samples, oldest-known Earth rocks, luminosity and mass of the Sun.

Please quietly list the top three assumptions that a different age is built upon (you’ll need to give the age as well, as there are so many to choose from outside of science :)).
Click to expand...
Dating is full of assumptions. Although we do not yet know the full effect of this the recently acknowledge radioactive decay rates are not constant as assumed. Mutation rates **are assumed **and not constant. Mutations as the only method of genetic diversity was assumed and now we know better. Uniformatarianism was assumed and now we know better.

We also now know that physical constants are not the same in all parts of the universe.

The target is moving.
 
SGWessells said:
This shows that a basic level of genetic material is shared by a wide range of species, because they share basic structures and methods by which life develops;but the shared material diminishes the further those species diverge from one another, exactly as one would expect if evolution is correct. The wider the classification, the more features its members have in common.

You do realize, I trust, that “immortal gene” is metaphorical, right? It just means they have lasted through billions of years of evolution by weeding out whatever mutations occurred, and form the basis of many forms of life. When the sun turns into a red dwarf in about 5 billion years, they will be roasted like everything else.
Click to expand...
Beautiful! Perhaps you will be an ID advocate soon. 🙂

Yes the “immortal gene” means conserved from the beginning.

What you are not getting yet is how the genetic piano is played.
 
Is Aristotelianism part of the “understanding” or is it part of the “doctrine”? Can there be another philosophical expression of the Eucharist other than transsubstantiation?
Click to expand...
My understanding, which could be wrong, is that transubstantiation, specifically that the substance of the bread and wine becomes the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the “accidents” remain those of bread and wine, is part of the official formulation of the doctrine, so that the aristotelian distinction between substance and accident is an integral part of the doctrine, not just a “method” by which it may or may not be achieved. In other words, the aristotelian element is nonnegotiable. CCC 1376 quotes the Council of Trent to this effect.
 
buffalo said:
Dating is full of assumptions. Although we do not yet know the full effect of this the recently acknowledge radioactive decay rates are not constant as assumed. Mutation rates **are assumed **and not constant. Mutations as the only method of genetic diversity was assumed and now we know better. Uniformatarianism was assumed and now we know better.

We also now know that physical constants are not the same in all parts of the universe.

The target is moving.
Click to expand...
I agree that things often look better big.

It’s possible that radiometric decay rates vary by tiny fractions of a percent. So, OK, the Earth might by 4.5 billion years + one day old instead of 4.5 billion.

Don’t think genetic mutation is used to date the Earth, nor does any variation in constants elsewhere in the universe matter much, given we’re talking about here on Earth. :rolleyes:

Noting you never answered the question: Please quietly list the top three assumptions for your alternate age assumption. 🙂
 
  1. Science presupposes but does not explain the scientist.
Click to expand...
Theology presupposes God but does not explain God.
  1. Faith in the intelligibility of the world is metascientific not scientific…
Click to expand...
Faith in the intelligibility of the world, like all faith, is metascientific, that is, beyond science. *Confirmation *of the intelligibility of the world by repeated testing across various fields is scientific. That’s how science works. Scientists don’t have to have faith that the world is intelligible, they have proved it by the understanding science has achieved and demonstrated in technology.
 
inocente said:
If you’re contrasting it with the assumption the Earth is 6,000 years old, based on no evidence whatsoever, couldn’t agree more.
Click to expand...
No. I’m basing my statement on the fact that in order to move forward, science does and must embrace assumptions.

You’re barking up the wrong tree, by the way. I don’t have an interest in the age of the earth. It’s irrelevant to religious experience. Argue with posters who apparently are invested, some to a passionate degree, in the age of the Earth.
 
SGWessells said:
Has anyone so far switched primary allegiance from science to religion, or from religion to science, as a result of this discussion? I’m doubtful but curious.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what this question is intending to fathom. Are you seeking to confirm there are any “converts”? Isn’t there an assumption in the question that both views occupy the same cognitive landscape?
 
inocente said:
I agree that things often look better big.

It’s possible that radiometric decay rates vary by tiny fractions of a percent. So, OK, the Earth might by 4.5 billion years + one day old instead of 4.5 billion.

Don’t think genetic mutation is used to date the Earth, nor does any variation in constants elsewhere in the universe matter much, given we’re talking about here on Earth. :rolleyes:

Noting you never answered the question: Please quietly list the top three assumptions for your alternate age assumption. 🙂
Click to expand...
Big is better, because it makes the point.

Mutations rates do not make the age of the earth. Only pointing out more assumptions that relate to discussion points made on this thread.

Oh yes indeed the constants matter.

But I may point you to this:

Scientists: Earth May Exist in Giant Cosmic Bubble

I believe that science needs to reexamine its processes, methods and assumptions as far as pronouncing age. How old do I think it is?

Older than 12000 years. How much older I do not know.
 
When I demonstrate the uniqueness of the human species in comparison to all other species, I can claim that the reason our species is peerless is that its unity as a species is guaranteed by descent from two mating founders.
Click to expand...
But if the two mating founders hypothesis is falsified by science, as science is able to do, since that is not a spiritual but an empirical claim, then your support for the uniqueness of the human species falls with it.
Science does a great job when it focuses on our anatomy. But since our soul is spiritual or non-material, it cannot be submitted for study in the same way DNA can.
Click to expand...
But many traits traditionally associated with the soul can be, and are, investigated by science, including moral feelings, prayer, and religious experience itself.
This brings us to a somewhat unresolved question regarding research results. Can one really say that either the results exist or there is nothing? In other words, can the *mutually exclusive or" say that the particular conclusion excludes all other possibilities?
Click to expand...
Try thinking of it in the aristotelian categories of potential and actuality :D. A possibility is like a potential; it may be, but it may not. An actuality is real, and no longer potential. So there is no controversy about results; if they exist, they exist. I wouldn’t say the “only alternative is nothing.” I would say that the only alternative is not knowing whether there is something or not, and therefore being unjustified in being definite one way or the other. In other words, the fact that something is possible is not a positive reason to believe that it exists or doesn’t exist. That question has to be determined in the context of what we know, not what we don’t know.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
No. I’m basing my statement on the fact that in order to move forward, science does and must embrace assumptions.

You’re barking up the wrong tree, by the way. I don’t have an interest in the age of the earth. It’s irrelevant to religious experience. Argue with posters who apparently are invested, some to a passionate degree, in the age of the Earth.
Click to expand...
I’m not bothered either, and will no doubt be told it’s folk like me who are bringing about the downfall of life as we know it, etc. 🙂
 
Charlemagne_II said:
SGW

Maybe you haven’t read enough of my posts to know this, but I’ve already met God. Several times, in fact. I spent 16 years as a devout, prayerful, churchgoing Christian, both Catholic and Protestant (about half and half), so you can be pardoned for thinking I know nothing about relating to God, feeling called, glorifying and serving him. But now it is just too incredible to believe. I suspect that you are so sure that your faith is true that you can’t imagine anyone who shares it ever deserting it for the “fleshpots of Egypt”, or trading his birthright for a mess of porridge, but it happens.

You’re right. It’s difficult for anyone who has met God to believe you ever met God. You may have deluded yourself into thinking you met Him. But if you had really met God, you would never have have betrayed Him as you have.
Click to expand...
Judge not, lest you be judged by the same standard.
 
SGWessells said:
In other words, the fact that something is possible is not a positive reason to believe that it exists or doesn’t exist. That question has to be determined in the context of what we know, not what we don’t know.
Click to expand...
Will you apply this same statement to the evolution claims? I hear so often that if it is possible it is probable and must have happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top