Religion and science

[riverbabe]

Lye, I believe in God who is total LOVE - actually I think of God as the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent force of love that is the ground and source of all being. As for the Bible, I believe that if God wanted to preserve for us His original divinely inspired words, He would have preserved for us the originals. However, He did not. The original manuscripts are lost forever. I believe that each of the books of the Bible was written by (and/or edited by and/or added to or subtracted from) one or more authors who had his/her own agenda and to address particular concerns in the context of the time period in which each was set down and/or changed.

But Jesus was real, and something profound happened back in the first century CE. Some of the teachings of Jesus, recognized and accepted as most likely authentic, are those of the "Q" teachings that run through Matthew and Luke and, also some that are thought to be present in the Gospel of Thomas. I believe that Jesus was an Apocalytic Prophet who expected the Kingdom of God to appear at any moment and that those presently in power would be overthrown and those who were powerless would inherit the Kingdom. His teachings reflect the total upheaval and reversal in the order of things such that "the last shall be first, and the first last." I could go on and on, but much has been already been said on this thread, and I will not add further to it from this point on.

[ParkTwain]

There's always Russell's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Or, are we talking about a "God of the gaps" form of religion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

[ParkTwain]

One more essay

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

Who is Theodosius Dobzhansky?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky

[ParkTwain]

Isn't evolution "just" a theory?

http://www.geocities.com/ginkgo100/faq.html

//
3. Isn't evolution just a theory, not a fact?

This isn't really a good question, because it assumes that a theory cannot be a fact. So to answer this question, a few definitions of terms used in science will be necessary first.

A law is a general statement about how nature behaves which has been shown to be valid over a wide variety of experimental conditions, while a theory is an explanation of why laws work (Giancoli 1995). Both can predict the results of future experiments; the difference is that theories explain laws.

The definition of a "fact" is fuzzier. The (Oxford Dictionary) lists five different definitions. For this argument I assume a definiton of "something known or shown to be true." It isn't a scientific term. Theories, laws, or single data could all be considered facts.

Evolution is a theory. It explains a wide range of observed phenomena in the fossil record, in the modern morphology of organisms, in the biochemical makeup of those organisms, etc. It is so widely verified that it is considered by biologists to be a fact, i.e. it has been shown to be true.
//

[riverbabe]

Bravo!

Nice set of links, Sir Park. Very nice set of links! Thank you. River

[Karel]

http://www.geocities.com/ginkgo100/faq.html

//
3. Isn't evolution just a theory, not a fact?

This isn't really a good question, because it assumes that a theory cannot be a fact. So to answer this question, a few definitions of terms used in science will be necessary first.

A law is a general statement about how nature behaves which has been shown to be valid over a wide variety of experimental conditions, while a theory is an explanation of why laws work (Giancoli 1995). Both can predict the results of future experiments; the difference is that theories explain laws.

The definition of a "fact" is fuzzier. The (Oxford Dictionary) lists five different definitions. For this argument I assume a definiton of "something known or shown to be true." It isn't a scientific term. Theories, laws, or single data could all be considered facts.

Evolution is a theory. It explains a wide range of observed phenomena in the fossil record, in the modern morphology of organisms, in the biochemical makeup of those organisms, etc. It is so widely verified that it is considered by biologists to be a fact, i.e. it has been shown to be true.
//

Thanks Park! This should make clear that the everyday use of the word theory ("I have this theory that ...") is really not the way the word is used in science. Evolution is also a fact because it has been observed. Creationists usually object to this by saying that what was observed is only microevolution, and that macroevolution has not been observed. But they cannot give a definition of macroevolution that would not put large parts of the theory of evolution into question. So science is really rather happy that what Creationists call "macroevolution" has not been observed.

What science calls macroevolution is a matter of scale: the accumulation of so many small changes by microevolution that a new species can be said to have come into existence. Speciation has been observed too, so macroevolution in the usual scientific meaning has been observed, too.

Regards,

Karel

[Karel]

When I talk about the satisfaction reading up on science can give, I feel this answer to the question how the cavefish lost its eyes is just too beautiful not to share.

Regards,

Karel

[Lyehopper]

When I talk about the satisfaction reading up on science can give, I feel this answer to the question how the cavefish lost its eyes is just too beautiful not to share.

Regards,

Karel

I agree that the ability for a species to adapt to it's surroundings is fascinating! I love to hunt rabbits. The ones around here are pretty much brown in color with a white "cotton tail". Their color allows them to hide in the (brownish) underbrush undetected by predators.... In areas where snow abounds there are "snowshoe" rabbits. Their white color allows them to hide in the (whitish) snow undetected by predators. A God who is wise enough and intelligent enough to have created a rabbit and a cavefish certainly has the ability to program within these species the ability to adapt (over time) to their surroundings. When you find the fossil evidence of a cavefish evolving into a rabbit, please PM me....

[Karel]

I agree that the ability for a species to adapt to it's surroundings is fascinating! I love to hunt rabbits. The ones around here are pretty much brown in color with a white "cotton tail". Their color allows them to hide in the (brownish) underbrush undetected by predators.... In areas where snow abounds there are "snowshoe" rabbits. Their white color allows them to hide in the (whitish) snow undetected by predators. A God who is wise enough and intelligent enough to have created a rabbit and a cavefish certainly has the ability to program within these species the ability to adapt (over time) to their surroundings. When you find the fossil evidence of a cavefish evolving into a rabbit, please PM me....

Smart move, Lye! But I'll do the PR myself, in that case.

And I would not hesitate to publicize that fact, even when it would put much of the theory of evolution in jeopardy.

BTW, interesting to see you that one of your buddies is Elmer Fudd!

http://www.wiseacre-gardens.com/buttons/pics/sounds/elmer002.wav

[Rob]

It is so widely verified that it is considered by biologists to be a fact, i.e. it has been shown to be true.

Not all scientists are in agreement on this. Here's a Web site with some material you might find interesting: A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

[Karel]

It is so widely verified that it is considered by biologists to be a fact, i.e. it has been shown to be true.

Not all scientists are in agreement on this. Here's a Web site with some material you might find interesting: A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

• Claims of skepticism are worthless without reliable evidence as a basis for the skepticism. Such evidence seems to be lacking. But if this list actually has meaning it should be easy to come up with convincing evidence supporting the claim. This would be far more convincing than the list itself could ever be.
• Compared with all the scientists who accept evolution, 600 scientists is a minuscule amount. The National Center for Science Education has compiled, as a parody of lists such as that from the Discovery Institute, a list of more than 700 scientists all named Steve, or with variants of that name, who support evolution. How many Steves are on the list of the Discovery Institute? (Steve's are estimated to form 1% of the population.)

There are also problems with the formulation of the dissent:

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

One of the problems is that no scientist whatsoever would ever discourage skepticism and careful examination. To call this dissent however, would surprise the large majority of those scientists. Another problem is that the theory of evolution is not confined to random mutation and natural selection as mechanisms. Sexual selection, genetic drift and symbiosis are also recognized mechanisms. Again, concrete evidence against the theory of evolution would be much preferable.

I am much obliged to Creationist Claim CA111.1: Over 300 scientists express skepticism of Darwinism (The list is apparently doing the rounds since 2001.)

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

Claims of skepticism are worthless without reliable evidence as a basis for the skepticism.

Claims of evolution being a fact are worthless without reliable evidence as a basis for their alleged veracity. Re how life originiated: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened. [. . .] Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”—Dr. Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, 1981, p. 19

This statement is as true today as it was when it was written twenty-six years ago.

[Rob]

Interesting:

"Over the last 25 years, biologists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells – complex circuits, sliding clamps, energy-generating turbines and miniature machines. For example, bacterial cells are propelled by tiny rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints and drive shafts.

"Biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these necessary proteins and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Dr. Behe's terminology, 'irreducibly complex.'

"This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or 'selects' functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet the flagellar motor does not function unless all of its 30 parts are present. Thus, natural selection can 'select' or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can't produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion.

"Natural selection purportedly builds complex systems from simpler structures by preserving a series of intermediate structures, each of which must perform some function. In the case of the flagellar motor, most of the critical intermediate stages – like the 29- or 28-part version of the flagellar motor – perform no function for natural selection to preserve."—Stephen C. Meyer, The Dallas Morning News, Jan. 29, 2006, excerpt

[Karel]

Rob, I want to propose a point of order. I really love to field the problems you pose me (especially as they are not really difficult to field), but in the interest of the rest of my life, I am considering one post a day on this topic.

Because the risk of entangling different arguments and replies is great, I want to reply to your "evolution of life post now", breaking my resolve right at the start.

The fact that biologists have no answer to the origin of life is not relevant to the theory of evolution. This may sound strange, as life is commonly said to have evolved from non-life. While this is true, the word "evolution" in that context does not refer to Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution takes the existence of life for granted, and only is interested in the evolution of living entities.

Take for instance the start of the Wikipedia article on evolution:

Evolution is the process in which inherited traits become more or less prevalent in a population over successive generations. Over time, this process can lead to speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All extant organisms are related by common descent, having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor.

That ancestor was alive already. Compare also the article on abiogenesis, where the word evolution is often mentioned, but a clear distinction is made concerning Darwinian evolution.

This is completely in accordance with the last sentence in "The Origin Of species":

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Of course the discussion of abiogenesis is important for biology, but only as a complement to the theory of evolution.

If you want to continue to discuss this point, please say so and I will await your reply. If not, I will answer your other post tomorrow.

Regards,

Karel

[Websman]

Vulcans did not participate in evolution... We were genetically engineered