The Science Delusion. 10 dogmas of modern science

[Aloysium]

. . . A secular inquisition if you will is controlling the minds of people.

Science is a human activity that could be utilized to explore the wonders of creation.
Being a social institution, it is under the influernce of political and economic forces: manipulated and used to meet their various ends.
For example, to maintain the human murder machine of abortion, a certain view of life has to be inculcated in the general population. We are to see ourselves as sacks of chemicals. Doing so, it becomes obvious that the tiny sack of chemicals that is a baby has no right to exist if it cannot sustain itself independently.

 

[Area_Man]

Correct, proof is not a technically correct term when discussing theories and I will refrain given your experience in this area apparently.

Seeing that you have done some research and are familiar with the scientific method you would know how very weak the theory of evolution is given that from all observations mutation is a degenerative process where information can only be lost, and not added. Therefore, it is completely impossible to go from a bacteria to a multicellular animal with all it’s complexities. Furthermore, there is definitely a consensus in the field of genetic about the mutation process and no specialty in this area is needed to understand this. Unfortunately, this undisputed mechanism is all but ignored by scientists like Dawkins who propose theories based on emotion and wishful thinking rather than the scientific method.

As far as your question regarding the alternative cause for the origin of life what is clear is that evolution had nothing to do with it. Probably more troublesome is that a singularity could appear out of nowhere violating known principles of thermodynamics and start the universe. Worse still is wackoos like Hawkings promoting all types of foolishness again not based on the scientific method but wishful thinking only. Here is an excerpt from an article about Hawking’s ideas that make Marvel comics look like science:

• He closed by outlining “M-theory,” which is based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another famed physicist, Caltech’s Richard Feynman. Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed.

Why are you using the big bang theory and Hawkings’ writings on the origins of the universe to challenge the theory evolution? Evolution doesn’t make any claims about the origins of the universe. Evolution doesn’t even make any claims about the origins of life on planet earth. Evolution is an attempt to explain the diversity of life on earth.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

There is no proof of course but since it has become accepted many people feel like it can’t be challenged. A secular inquisition if you will is controlling the minds of people.

This is fantasy in your opinion?

plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000191

 

[Rin]

Okay, can’t resist this one.

Probably more troublesome is that a singularity could appear out of nowhere violating known principles of thermodynamics and start the universe.

“it seems that science of today, by going back in one leap millions of centuries, has succeeded in being witness to that primordial Fiat Lux when, out of nothing, there burst forth with matter a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and reunited in million of galaxies.”

–Venerable Pope Piux XII, in response to Lemaitre’s proposal of the Big Bang theory.

I could continue the cycle of arguments from authority here, but I’ll refrain.

 

[Area_Man]

This is fantasy in your opinion?

plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000191

Another:
Evolution of biological complexity
pnas.org/content/97/9/4463.full

 

[Catolico65]

Why are you using the big bang theory and Hawkings’ writings on the origins of the universe to challenge the theory evolution? Evolution doesn’t make any claims about the origins of the universe. Evolution doesn’t even make any claims about the origins of life on planet earth. Evolution is an attempt to explain the diversity of life on earth.

If it will make it easier for you address my points regarding evolution first then the origin of the universe.

Also, since you apparently want to give me a lecture on semantics and how to distinguish between two processes please explain to me your experience in the area of sciences.

 

[balto]

What is occuring here is the logical error of equivocation.
Catolico65’s definition of evolution is not the same as that for Area Man.
Neither’s points concerning the other’s comments are valid.

Exactly. When evolutionists talk about things like gene mutation, common descent, and natural selection, they are correct. When they say things like “evolution shows that life came about by a strictly material process” or “evolution shows that there is no goal or final state of life” they are making metaphysical claims that is not necessarily implied by the science in either direction. The same could be said about a theist that says that such-and-such a material process shows that God does exist as it is also a metaphysical claim that is not necessarily implied because someone could say that there is a natural process but we just don’t understand all of it yet. This is why these “science vs. theism” debates are usually fruitless.

 

[balto]

LOL…

I can’t help but chuckle that he’s questioning Science…by putting it up to “rigorous scientific testing and investigation” !!!

.

Yes it is kind of silly . It’s like the inverse of scientism (i.e. the view that all knowledge is scientific while refusing to substantiate that claim scientifically, which is impossible to do anyway under those assumptions) if it doesn’t have a formal name.

 

[Catolico65]

Yes it is kind of silly . It’s like the inverse of scientism (i.e. the view that all knowledge is scientific while refusing to substantiate that claim scientifically, which is impossible to do anyway under those assumptions) if it doesn’t have a formal name.

You hit the nail on the head. This is what I run into all the time, people throw around the term science like it was a non debatable “concept” that is not to be questioned. Ironically, the majority of people who do this appear to have little educational background in the sciences. In essence they believe in something that they do not understand and worse do not feel the need to question it either, and yet they ridicule Christians for believing in fairy tales. Well at least we know what we believe and understand, they don’t even have that.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

You hit the nail on the head. This is what I run into all the time, people throw around the term science like it was a non debatable “concept” that is not to be questioned. Ironically, the majority of people who do this appear to have little educational background in the sciences. In essence they believe in something that they do not understand and worse do not feel the need to question it either, and yet they ridicule Christians for believing in fairy tales. Well at least we know what we believe and understand, they don’t even have that.

There is much debate in science, that is what science does. Claims are tested.

The abstract to the article that I posted - Evolution of a New Function by Degenerative Mutation in Cephalochordate Steroid Receptors

Abstract

Gene duplication is the predominant mechanism for the evolution of new genes. Major existing models of this process assume that duplicate genes are redundant; degenerative mutations in one copy can therefore accumulate close to neutrally, usually leading to loss from the genome. When gene products dimerize or interact with other molecules for their functions, however, degenerative mutations in one copy may produce repressor alleles that inhibit the function of the other and are therefore exposed to selection. Here, we describe the evolution of a duplicate repressor by simple degenerative mutations in the steroid hormone receptors (SRs), a biologically crucial vertebrate gene family. We isolated and characterized the SRs of the cephalochordate Branchiostoma floridae, which diverged from other chordates just after duplication of the ancestral SR. The B. floridae genome contains two SRs: BfER, an ortholog of the vertebrate estrogen receptors, and BfSR, an ortholog of the vertebrate receptors for androgens, progestins, and corticosteroids. BfSR is specifically activated by estrogens and recognizes estrogen response elements (EREs) in DNA; BfER does not activate transcription in response to steroid hormones but binds EREs, where it competitively represses BfSR. The two genes are partially coexpressed, particularly in ovary and testis, suggesting an ancient role in germ cell development. These results corroborate previous findings that the ancestral steroid receptor was estrogen-sensitive and indicate that, after duplication, BfSR retained the ancestral function, while BfER evolved the capacity to negatively regulate BfSR. Either of two historical mutations that occurred during BfER evolution is sufficient to generate a competitive repressor. Our findings suggest that after duplication of genes whose functions depend on specific molecular interactions, high-probability degenerative mutations can yield novel functions, which are then exposed to positive or negative selection; in either case, the probability of neofunctionalization relative to gene loss is increased compared to existing models.

Do you think they are lying or manufacturing evidence,choosing to ignore it not willing to provide your evidence or ???

I’m curious what support you have to your claim, that evolution is impossible through mutation.

 

[Catolico65]

Exactly. When evolutionists talk about things like gene mutation, common descent, and natural selection, they are correct. .

Please understand gene mutation involves the loss of genetic material and complexity cannot increase. Genetics is also a science and as such should be subject to the normal standards of the scientific process and peer review.

 

[Catolico65]

There is much debate in science, that is what science does. Claims are tested.

The abstract to the article that I posted - Evolution of a New Function by Degenerative Mutation in Cephalochordate Steroid Receptors

Do you think they are lying or manufacturing evidence,choosing to ignore it not willing to provide your evidence or ???

I’m curious what support you have to your claim, that evolution is impossible through mutation.

This is a good point. First, it is clearly established that mutation is a degenerative process. Nonetheless, certain mutations can be beneficial, like the case you presented and for humans, sickle cell anemia. Nonetheless, given that low genetic complexity, relatively speaking, of single celled bacteria there is no way to mutations to increase complexity. Here are a couple of references for you:

1. Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, Lee M. Spetner, P.h.d.,
2. Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome , John C. Sanford

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

This is a good point. First, it is clearly established that mutation is a degenerative process. Nonetheless, certain mutations can be beneficial, like the case you presented and for humans, sickle cell anemia. Nonetheless, given that low genetic complexity, relatively speaking, of single celled bacteria there is no way to mutations to increase complexity. Here are a couple of references for you:

1. Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, Lee M. Spetner, P.h.d.,
2. Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome , John C. Sanford

How are you defining complexity?

I find this blog entry interesting and pertinent.

sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/05/deflated-ego-problem.html

 

[Aloysium]

Another:
Evolution of biological complexity
pnas.org/content/97/9/4463.full

I am not qualified to comment seriously on this article.
I wish you were because I have many questions.
I do not know why you posted this if you cannot.

Firstly, from the intro:

A recent information-theoretic (but intuitively evident) definition identifies genomic complexity with the amount of information a sequence stores about its environment.

In this paper, we skirt the issue of structural and functional complexity by examining genomic complexity. It is tempting to believe that genomic complexity is mirrored in functional complexity and vice versa. Such an hypothesis, however, hinges upon both the aforementioned ambiguous definition of complexity and the obvious difficulty of matching genes with function.

The model that they are employing may be analogous to some extent with what one observes in nature, but as they admit, they have made a number of assumptions whose applicability will require much further research.

The fact is that in reality, the complexity that we observe is not like an increase on a particular axis, but is rather more like the introduction of a new one.
Animals are to plants as a two dimensional graph is to a line. Mind enters into the picture.
Human beings are analogous to adding a “z” axis to the “x-y” of animals.

As to “randomness”, I wonder how they determined the sort of code, to be used to derive such a process. Again, is this applicable to the “randomness” that may occur in nature.

Consider that randomness requires an underlying order: two dice, tossed randomly, will only produce numbers from 2 to 12.

Let’s say someone is doing a drug study.
Generally 40% of people will respond to placebo. There are reason’s for that number, although it is “random”.
An antidepressant for example is considered to be effective if one gets a 60% response.
The factors involved in depression and its improvement are considered to be the same in both groups, so the increase with meds is considered significant.

As far as we know scientifically, the randomness we see in nature, could include the will of God.
It is a factor that cannot be isolated, but would be like the factors that underlie a steady 40% response to placebo.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Do you think they are lying or manufacturing evidence,choosing to ignore it not willing to provide your evidence or ???

I’m curious what support you have to your claim, that evolution is impossible through mutation.

I have no reason to believe the authors manufactured their data.

I don’t understand what you think this article is saying.

There is adaptation in nature and differences in morphology and minor variances in physiology among human beings clearly has made it possible for us to live in very diverse extreme environments.

Now if the article were about a Branchiostoma floridae producing a symphony, I might be convinced that there was more going on than I had imagined.

 

[balto]

You hit the nail on the head. This is what I run into all the time, people throw around the term science like it was a non debatable “concept” that is not to be questioned. Ironically, the majority of people who do this appear to have little educational background in the sciences. In essence they believe in something that they do not understand and worse do not feel the need to question it either, and yet they ridicule Christians for believing in fairy tales. Well at least we know what we believe and understand, they don’t even have that.

Oh believe me I am well aware of this kind of thing, having spent the last couple of years working on a Ph.D. in biochemistry . In fairness though, I think that many people in the scientific fields don’t realize all of the materialist assumptions that can be bundled up with genuine science. Not that they’re not allowed to have their own metaphysical understandings, but they need to be careful not to take scientific data further than it can go. Helping them to see the implicit assumptions in a lot of their reasoning could provide useful.

 

[balto]

Please understand gene mutation involves the loss of genetic material and complexity cannot increase. Genetics is also a science and as such should be subject to the normal standards of the scientific process and peer review.

I understand what you’re saying and I think you and I both agree that a purely physical model of the universe has to make incredulous appeals to randomness to make the evolution of life work out which is why we reject such models. The physical facts are what they are and should stand alone, appeals to randomness presuppose a materialist metaphysics whereas an teleological metaphysics explains all of the physical data just as well. Occam’s Razor can’t be applied to this right off the bat because you would have to see how well each theory explains the metaphysics, which is the realm this discussion needs to be elevated to. Science, as useful as it is, cannot answer these questions.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

1. Gene mutation is degenerative and cannot create complexity, that is a fact which you can certainly verify.

I have no reason to believe the authors manufactured their data.

I don’t understand what you think this article is saying.

There is adaptation in nature and differences in morphology and minor variances in physiology among human beings clearly has made it possible for us to live in very diverse extreme environments.

Now if the article were about a Branchiostoma floridae producing a symphony, I might be convinced that there was more going on than I had imagined.

It was in response to Catolico65’s first point above. Is symphonic production the benchmark that evolution has to hit?

All joking aside, what level needs to be demonstrated for your satisfaction for the strong probability of the evolutionary process? Is your rejection faith based, data driven or a combination?

I haven’t had a chance to read or research the two books that Catolico65 offered up as counter arguments to evolution. At first blush I am skeptical in that one is a physicist and the other although a biologist is also a young earther. I will try and keep and open mind about the data they present.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Generally 40% of people will respond to placebo. There are reason’s for that number, although it is “random”.

Where are you getting the 40% number? I think it’s generally around 1 out of 3 people.

 

[Catolico65]

How are you defining complexity?

I find this blog entry interesting and pertinent.

sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/05/deflated-ego-problem.html

Moran points out that evolution has been accepted since the time of Darwin and that those who oppose are considered unscientific. Nonetheless, Darwin proposed his theory based on observations with no knowledge of genetics, hence the problem. Moran would appear to try to resolves the obvious issues with evolution since the discovery of the gene, but honestly the fact that he calls anyone “IDiot” who disagrees with evolution seems unprofessional and smacks of having an agenda. In other words he is in my opinion a poster child for what is wrong with modern science, emotion and desire influence results. That is not how research is supposed to function.