As requested, this forum has been opened up in order for our members to discuss and debate current scientific issues such as stem cell research, evolution, global warming, cloning, etc., through a religious viewpoint.

Texas lawmaker wants to allow The Institute for Creation Science to be able to offer a Masters in Science.

Here is a statement from the ICR website:

“All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis. The creation record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origin and development that involve evolution in any form are false.”

I am literally speechless -- on so many levels. Young earth creationists offering a Masters degree in science. And a state that is even willing to consider this?

Of course, Syn. Because evolution is not science and science is not all about evolution nor is it tied in any way to Darwinism, which is in the realm of the metaphysical and philosophy - not hard empirical science. You can do objective experiments and get the same results without bowing at the alter of either YE theory or Darwinism or any other kind of ism. It's really amazing.

Besides, science is MUCH more than just Biology or Paleontology (which really deals more in forensics than anything else). The great giants of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics (I know - not considered a science, per se - but much of science would be non-existent without it) did not rely on or have to ADHERE to the Darwinian branch of Scientism to do astounding things - they did them in spite of the reigning "scientific" dogma of their days - and changed the world of science forever.

I'm not a YEC, bur I know several who are and are scientists and it's amazing how well they can do their research and do their jobs without a picture of Darwin hanging in their offices.

Or are you already biased against them from the outset? If so, I have to question YOUR objectivity when it comes to handling OUR science. Or is it OK for you to be biased because "any thinking person" or "any rational person" (or other such schtick) would, of course, come to the same conclusion you and the "consensus" of scientists have come to...especially when what is being objected to is NOT Science but the Scientist's Philosophy?

In the school where I studied music, it was a generally held and promoted "theory" (but of course not school policy) that you could only be a truly passionate singer if you embraced the gay lifestyle to some extent (I kid you not). Many followed their hallowed professors advise. I'm not gay so, according to that theory, I'm not a very good singer. I was, in fact, told several times that I didn't have a future in singing. But I know for a fact that I've gone further in singing than any of my gay classmates (OR my professors who didn't know what in the hell they were talking about). That's because I figured out at an early age that sexual preference (or drugs or religion or any other kind of CRUTCH) has NOTHING to do with the art of heart-felt, passionate singing. I chose to be a singer, period. You just SING, period. And people are moved and lives are changed in a small way.

Are you a scientist or a philosopher?

So save the drama of speechlessness. I'm sure you are about to become less so.

Wrong answer. Care to play again?

Not completely wrong, but it affects so many other sciences that it is pretty silly to pretend like it doesn't. The list of sciences informed by the theory of evolution is large and varied.

Hard to see how physics and astronomy come to terms with YEC.

Scientism: Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations
for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and
embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life
appropriate for an Age of Science. (I stole this definition from Michael Shermer and have trouble seeing why it is a bad thing?)

Would love to see a list of YEC doing excellent scientific research. Especially surprised that you know several of them, since the list is going to be fairly small.

Three words. Peer-reviewed research.

Unsupported assertion much?

"God did it 10000 years ago" is just not compatible with a Masters in Science.

Seriously Saint. How is this statement guiding the direction of science research at the ICR compatible with true unbiased inquiry?

"All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis. The creation record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origin and development that involve evolution in any form are false."

If you assume this before even beginning work, how can you truly be open to what the data has to say.

I'm really curious if you are just playing devil's advocate here or truly believe what you wrote in the previous post and that an institution that accepts the statement above can be qualified to do unbiased science.

Edit to add: All scientists I know are open to the possibility that the earth is young, that evolution could be disproved, that the speed of light could have been significantly different in the past eons, but the data is just not there. Show us the money Saint, since you and your YEC "scientists" are making the extraordinary claims. The null hypothesis is clear, you need to provide data for all the others. The ball is in the YEC and ID court and seems to be just sitting there.

Of course I'm playing devil's advocate - you know that I'm not a YEC. You know that I don't claim the Bible to be a science manual (although it has been a very useful archeological guide). Trying to get some discussion going.

My point is - if you met a scientist who did very good work, would you have to know their ideology or philosophy or religion in order to accept them as competent? Or would you accept their work if it was based on sound methodology and repeatability regardless of their motivation? If I had invented the knife, does it matter whether my motivation was to kill with it or to simply whittle wood? Would I be rejected by the hunters because my motivation wasn't to create a new weapon?

The hidden biases come from both corners and everyone comes to the lab with biases

I don't subscribe to the YEC ideological platform that tries to force focus and interpret all results of science through the small lens of the first few chapters of Genesis, but neither do I subscribe wholesale to Darwinism and all of it's variations that tries to explain all of reality through a strictly materialistic lens using reason (which is not material itself) - I see problems with both. Neither one should be a prerequisite to doing science.

Scientism is a philosophy and should be presented as such - openly and as a separate course; i.e. as a philosophy course, not or presented as the assumed valid platform that is so woven into the fabric of each science course that the students don't know how to differentiate between the scientific philosophy and actual practice of science itself.

What I wrote above I would apply to YEC philosphy as well.

I like the website you provided a link to - especially this one which really addresses the forum topic and the stance I personally take. What I will always oppose is when either one (Scientists and Religionists) declares, respectively, that all religion is false and a mere fantasy or that Science is incompatible with belief in God.

There is no conflict between Science and Religion (which is NOT a Holy Book or an Institution. Religion is personal, i.e. happens within the person). Only between dogmatic adherents to extreme philosophies on either side.

I think we're all going to know very soon... one way or the other.

The world as we know it is about to collapse in the very near future.

I doubt very sincerely that science will avail itself to any kind of pulp fiction salvation either.

More likely, it will be the trigger man.

Could you define 'very near future'?

I need to know how much I should worry about my RRSP (like your 401(k)).

Ah yes...the dark side of misapplied science...it takes humans to apply it (kind of like, it takes humans to twist good religion into something grotesque). In the end, it comes down to good and evil - in science and religion. Those who want to use either one toward perverted ends (can we say corrupt, sociopathic, power-hungry POLITICIANS?).

It would be interesting (from a disinterested point of view) to see how the moral relativists would view good and evil if the bomb drops. Would they still not be able to make a distinction between the two?

Near enough that you shouldn't be worried about your retirement. It's not like we're going to wake up tomorrow or next year to blue birds on our shoulders while singing "zippidy do da". Tell me you're still not that naive... please.

Every age has had a thought that theirs would be the last before the Second Coming. I'm not totally convinced it is going to happen in my lifetime, nor am I convinced it will not. I will just do as instructed in Matthew 24:42-44

"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

But of course; absolutely. No one knows. But I do know that this age cannot be compared to others. Go ahead and try.

Interesting new research on primordial soup.

This was a stumper for 40 years, but new blood and new ideas have made some significant progress. This is the cool thing about science. It doesn't settle for the "God did it" excuse and keeps poking and prodding and fiddling. I know that this new research doesn't by a long shot give us answers about how life began, but it could be a very useful stepping stone.

Cuss and discuss as my speech instructor in college used to say.

Very interesting. But in many ways, still a stumper. And in time, I'm of the opinion we will learn a lot more about the processes that "created" the vehicle that introduced life onto this planet. This is the cool thing about the thinking will-creatures called humans. We don't settle for God just "telling" us that He did it. No, we want to know HOW He did it. He then "nods" and says "well, go right ahead, my child and figure it out. That's why you have reason and logic and the scientific method!"

Nobody, whether theologian or scientist, knows the answer to how life was introduced into the non-living universe , but, whatever our stance or worldview, we all attempt to fill the gaps with something, because we abhor a void and because we know that life came about...somehow. Science is the absolute best way to approach the how question, short of direct revelation, but even if it figures out and define the mechanisms, could it account for life itself through materialist means? Could it define life beyond something that is the opposite of non-life? Could it show that life is of material essence and substance?

There are mysteries in both science and religion that scientists and religionists will try to solve, resolve and/or reconcile with known reality. There are just-so stories on both sides. But the mysteries of science and religion are of different types: mysteries of science have more to do with the observable, testable mechanisms of the relatively static (i.e., the basic elemental properties do not change, but are rearranged) material - mysteries which are solved, if they are solvable, in a non-personal, objective manner (most Theists I know believe this way, too. After all that's what science is for). The mysteries of religion, on the other hand are solved, if they are solvable, or partially realized on a personal and experiential level, and the solving of certain mysteries is necessarily a subjective (which is not a bad thing, for subjectivity is the catalyst to the recognition of any objective truth) and inner experience. But even in religious mystery, the emphasis is not on "God did it", but rather on the how and why. And we keep poking, prodding and fiddling (kind of like scientists), and the result is Theology, which is an attempt to intellectually capture the religious experience, to describe how the spiritual (transcendent), metaphysical and the physical realms correlate; i.e. how the outside world (physical), the inside world (mental consciousness and awareness of identity), and the transcendent ("spiritual") work together to form a more complete picture of reality. This can't done using deductive, inductive or reductive reasoning alone (which are sufficient for the aims of science), but requires the utilization of Illative reasoning as well. But Theology is not the same thing as Religion. The former is merely descriptive (best attempt at explanation) of the latter. The aims of Religion and Science are different, each addressing different sides of the same coin called reality. Neither is canceled out by the other and both are extremely necessary to the human experience and discernment of reality, both potential and actual.

Saying "God did it" in answer to gaps in scientific knowledge is on the same par as saying "unguided material evolution produced all of your religious inclinations" in answer to religious experience. Just as the philosophers of science have been guilty of using their own "given enough time and chance" gap filler and just-so stories to shore up their favorite spin on a theory, so have practitioners of religion been guilty of inappropriately using God to fill in the gaps of knowledge. The experience of God does not substitute for knowledge of the physical realm, nor does it trump it if the aim is to discover how the physical world works. One's relationship with a car designer tells nothing of how the car designer's car works. By the same token, figuring how a car works doesn't reveal anything about the designer, in and of itself.

That's my 2 cents.

Thanks for the article, Syner

Ding, Dong, the Stick is Dead

Sounds pretty serious...

The graph above shows what happens to the “Hockey Stick” after additional tree ring data, recently released (after a long and protracted fight over data access) is added to the analysis of Hadley’s archived tree ring data in Yamal, Russia.

All of the sudden, it isn’t the “hottest period in 2000 years” anymore.

Steve writes:

The next graphic compares the RCS chronologies from the two slightly different data sets: red – the RCS chronology calculated from the CRU archive (with the 12 picked cores); black – the RCS chronology calculated using the Schweingruber Yamal sample of living trees instead of the 12 picked trees used in the CRU archive. The difference is breathtaking.

Here’s a re-cap of this saga that should make clear the stunning importance of what Steve has found. One point of terminology: a tree ring record from a site is called a chronology, and is made up of tree ring records from individual trees at that site. Multiple tree ring series are combined using standard statistical algorithms that involve detrending and averaging (these methods are not at issue in this thread). A good chronology–good enough for research that is–should have at least 10 trees in it, and typically has much more.


1. In a 1995 Nature paper by Briffa, Schweingruber et al., they reported that 1032 was the coldest year of the millennium – right in the middle of the Medieval Warm Period. But the reconstruction depended on 3 short tree ring cores from the Polar Urals whose dating was very problematic. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=877.

2. In the 1990s, Schweingruber obtained new Polar Urals data with more securely-dated cores for the MWP. Neither Briffa nor Schweingruber published a new Polar Urals chronology using this data. An updated chronology with this data would have yielded a very different picture, namely a warm medieval era and no anomalous 20th century. Rather than using the updated Polar Urals series, Briffa calculated a new chronology from Yamal – one which had an enormous hockey stick shape. After its publication, in virtually every study, Hockey Team members dropped Polar Urals altogether and substituted Briffa’s Yamal series in its place.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=528. PS: The exception to this pattern was Esper et al (Science) 2002, which used the combined Polar Urals data. But Esper refused to provide his data. Steve got it in 2006 after extensive quasi-litigation with Science (over 30 email requests and demands).

3. Subsequently, countless studies appeared from the Team that not only used the Yamal data in place of the Polar Urals, but where Yamal had a critical impact on the relative ranking of the 20th century versus the medieval era.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3099

4. Meanwhile Briffa repeatedly refused to release the Yamal measurement data used inhis calculation despite multiple uses of this series at journals that claimed to require data archiving. E.g. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=542

5. Then one day Briffa et al. published a paper in 2008 using the Yamal series, again without archiving it. However they published in a Phil Tran Royal Soc journal which has strict data sharing rules. Steve got on the case. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3266

6. A short time ago, with the help of the journal editors, the data was pried loose and appeared at the CRU web site. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142

7. It turns out that the late 20th century in the Yamal series has only 10 tree ring chronologies after 1990 (5 after 1995), making it too thin a sample to use (according to conventional rules). But the real problem wasn’t that there were only 5-10 late 20th century cores- there must have been a lot more. They were only using a subset of 10 cores as of 1990, but there was no reason to use a small subset. (Had these been randomly selected, this would be a thin sample, but perhaps passable. But it appears that they weren’t randomly selected.)
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142

8. Faced with a sample in the Taymir chronology that likely had 3-4 times as many series as the Yamal chronology, Briffa added in data from other researchers’ samples taken at the Avam site, some 400 km away. He also used data from the Schweingruber sampling program circa 1990, also taken about 400 km from Taymir. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of pooling samples from such disparate locations, this establishes a precedent where Briffa added a Schweingruber site to provide additional samples. This, incidentally, ramped up the hockey-stickness of the (now Avam-) Taymir chronology.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7158

9. Steve thus looked for data from other samples at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size in the Briffa Yamal chronology. He quickly discovered a large set of 34 Schweingruber samples from living trees. Using these instead of the 12 trees in the Briffa (CRU) group that extend to the present yields Figure 2, showing a complete divergence in the 20th century. Thus the Schweingruber data completely contradicts the CRU series. Bear in mind the close collaboration of Schweingruber and Briffa all this time, and their habit of using one another’s data as needed.

10. Combining the CRU and Schweingruber data yields the green line in the 3rd figure above. While it doesn’t go down at the end, neither does it go up, and it yields a medieval era warmer than the present, on the standard interpretation. Thus the key ingredient in a lot of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series (red line above) depends on the influence of a thin subsample of post-1990 chronologies and the exclusion of the (much larger) collection of readily-available Schweingruber data for the same area.

Some interesting new stuff about early humans:

Oldest "Human" Skeleton Found--Disproves "Missing Link"

"Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor. The find reveals that our forebears underwent a previously unknown stage of evolution more than a million years before Lucy, the iconic early human ancestor specimen that walked the Earth 3.2 million years ago."

Of course we all know that's bogus information because if we took the biblical genealogies absolutely literally, as Archbishop James Ussher did, we could say that the Bible says that God's creation was in October 4004. That puts the earth around 6,013 years old. Stupid scientists, added too many zeros to their findings.

I personally think many of my fellow born-agains are simplistic and off-base on this. Read "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder. Schroeder is a physicist and Theologian who goes beyond the banal explanations of creation to show soberly and scientifically how the Old Testament and science are in perfect agreement.

Actually, if you read some reviews about this books you will see that Schroeder uses some numbers out of convenience to make his calculations work out

"...Schroeder's time calculations. The choice of the factor million million is NOT arbitrary. It is based off of the redshift of cosmic background radiation between quark confinement and approximately the present. It is also related to the change in temperature from quark confinement to the present. I double-checked this temperature change in "Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics: Volume II (3rd Edition)". "

"However, after years of studying, researching, thinking, and discussing, I no longer agree with the arguments I presented above in support of the book.

1 REDSHIFT
It is true that the choice of the factor million million (10^12) is not *completely* arbitrary. It is indeed based off of the redshift of cosmic background radiation between quark confinement and the present.

But there is a problem.

There were 3 primary eras during the big bang. The GUT era (10^32 to 10^27). The Hadron era (10^27 to 10^12). And the Lepton era (10^12 to 10^10). Amazing things were happening to quarks and other sub-atomic particles in all of these eras.

Now here is the punch-line: there is no scientific reason to select the end of the Hadron era (10^12) as the time when the universe "really" started. The only plausible reason I can think for selecting this temperature is that Schroeder wanted his calculations to work out. And so he personally (and subjectively) selected that temperature.

This can all be verified from the same diagram I used 6 years ago: "Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics: Volume II (3rd Edition)". Page 1162, Figure 45-24."

blah, blah, blah...

"I applaud Schroder for supporting evolution and the big bang. But when it comes to the topics of God and the Bible, he stops thinking like a scientist.

He is no longer asking: "What does the evidence say? What does it motivate us to believe is true?" He is now asking: "How can I present the evidence in a way that it will appear to support my personal beliefs, which I was not motivated to believe in by evidence?""

How many geological, cosmological, and "forensic" scientists DON'T do this?

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2009/10/16/...kins/print.html

You say in the beginning of the book that you would like to convince people that creationism is not a feasible or a viable belief system, but you also make it clear that you're not a big fan of creationists.

That's putting it mildly, yes.

Doesn't that make it difficult for a creationist to read this book without feeling insulted? Won't that hurt your goal?

No, I'm not really aiming it at creationists. I don't think they read books anyway, except for one book. It's aimed at the intelligent layperson who does read books and who vaguely knows a little bit about evolution and who vaguely knows that there are creationists and maybe even vaguely thinks that he's a creationist himself, but who is curious and wants to know the evidence.

It's just that the evidence is so enthralling, it's so exciting. It is so wonderful that here we are on this planet and we understand why we're here. And it's just a sort of ecstatic feeling to understand why you exist, and I want to share that feeling with other people.

Apart from being a smug jerk, I find this bit fascinating: "It is so wonderful that here we are on this planet and we understand why we're here. And it's just a sort of ecstatic feeling to understand why you exist."

Why you exist? Since when did science and evolution provide the why? Aren't we debating how? Did he just spill the beans on something a little more deep seeded? Does he really just reject the Bible because he's unhappy with the why the Bible provides for our existence?

Since when is there a why to even consider? If we truly evolved from rocks 4-6 billion years ago through random happenstance, then our feeble little brains and this false sense of joy brought about through the discovery and interpretation of why, is nothing more than a chemical reaction, much like bile eating away at a strip of bark in a beavers ass. A chemical reaction is a chemical reaction. Fear, hope, joy, love... these things aren't real, they're only the result of chemicals reacting with other chemicals in ways that we recognize.

Doesn't he mean... how?

Not to overstate it, but this 'why' nonsense is puzzling.

Ohioman, you've really got the "I don't trust those scientists" thing turned up high. My PhD thesis is a perfect example of the contrary. We worked for over two years on collecting data to show that our hypothesis was money. Well it wasn't. That's what the thesis said and that's what the papers published about it said. We thought X, but it looks like Y is true.

Sure, there are dishonest scientists, just like in any other demographic group. Most, in my experience are honest. I think you are being overly harsh and are exposing your biases here.

Fish - I don't know why he said why. How would have been better. It will be an interesting book to read.

Not the case at all. You know I am not that well educated. I'm no moron, I just pissed my young adult life away.
I think that we have the same way of thinking. Nothing I say will convince you to open your mind to the idea of anything other than "It just happened", as nothing you say will convince me to open my mind to the idea of anything other than "God did it".
I love science. It cannot answer everything though. Science cannot explain love. Science cannot explain "why". Science cannot explain God.
I still contend that an omnipotent God is not bound by the natural laws that He created. We will agree to disagree. If you are right, you will never KNOW it. If I am right, you will.
Nuff said.

Since there is now new evidence that the Climate Change data may have been manipulated, will scientists concede that there may be no globar warming danger?

This distrust in motive is fueled when either religionists or scientists engage more in sophistry, politics and fund-raising (through exaggeration of actual findings or benefits) and less on the unyielding, honest faith-testing of religious principles or the rigorous, unbending application and summation of the scientific process. Both Religion and Science are betrayed when the former becomes the motive of either practice and, in turn, becomes the definition of either practice in the eyes of the average layman.

The reputation of religion, especially Christianity in the Western world, has suffered because of self-appointed, and often orthodoxically ignorant "leaders" selling something other (much of it as fanciful, delusional and inconsistent as unbeguiled atheists claim) than what Jesus, the Founder, said, promoted and promised, but still attaching his name to the "package". As a result, many people have come to define ALL religion based on what they see on TV. But that is not religion at all. The package sold is a pretty, magical, near-empty box filled with vaporous substance and highly-diluted essence. People eventually reject it (and rightfully so) because it cannot sustain them, nor does it tackle and correct the deeper issues within the human soul.

Many then turn to Science because they are told it is an objective method of uncovering and/or recovering truth. And science does fulfill that role with respect to the physical realm of existence. Science is a wonderful thing - it allows us to understand and to piece together HOW things work in the material world that we find ourselves in now. We can't all be scientists in every field, so we must rely on the honest research and presentation of actual, non-exaggerated findings of the scientists in that respective field who, in turn, are open to providing their raw data to other scientists of equal training to test and verify the initial findings. Syner, your errant hypothesis seems to be a perfect example of how science should work and you let the facts lead you where they may and you accepted the findings, even though I'm sure it was difficult to see your hypothesis meet with demise. But you eliminated one possibility and contributed, thereby, to science.

But the reputation of science and scientists IS suffering now because people are questioning the motive. It's not so much that people are ignorant of science and the scientific method. Rather, it is because they DO know the fundamentals of the scientific method, but what they've seen taking place among the more high-profile practitioners of science over the past 30-40 years or so doesn't seem to follow the basic, orthodox and universal "gospel" of science. What they see is ideology du jour trumping scientific integrity, and have come, or are coming, to view such things like "review by peers" as "review by cronies" (Country Club mentality); "let the facts reveal the truth" as "We will define the truth for you and attach 'facts' that best fit our definition" (Academic Arrogance and Elitism); and "Scientific research" as "'findings' by scientists that will best support their benefactors' business interests, politics or general worldview" (Follow the Money). 'ClimateGate' is a prime example that gives credence to these views.

In the very same way the common religionist desires to live a pure, undiluted and simple personal religion, most scientists desire to only practice pure, objective and untainted science. They are not the problem, yet their reputation suffers because of what those at the top, who are concerned more about their careers than science, enforce and promote. It's not the occasional, dishonest scientist that is the issue here - it's more the system of funding that forces scientists to compromise their values and integrity in order to keep the funds for research coming. It's a problem of perception that scientists will have to correct in order for that lost faith to be restored, or else science will eventually become a sneer word, much like religion has become.

I and most theists would really hate for that to happen, as much as we hate that religion has become a derisive word by those who have been exposed only to distortions of religion. We are not anti-science at all. We are on the side of science. We place an extremely high value on both religion and science but want integrity and honesty in both.

Truthfulness in science should be an iron law

Religion and Science shouldn't be at war with each other. Rather, we should both be at war with those inside our own ranks who would distort either discipline for personal gain. THOSE are the true enemies of Religion and Science and, left unchecked, those are the ones who will demolish the good and honorable in both.

No discussion in this group for too long...
Let me open it back up with the Wikipedia article on William Overton.



What do you think about his ruling, and why?

Been there, done that, have the keyboard marks on my forehead as a reminder. I mean, climate change is a field in which there is still tons to figure out. We can discuss and argue and all have some validity to our positions. The data isn't in yet. Compared to climate change, evolutionary theory is ancient and so well documented and laid out that the only (and I really do mean only) objections to it are from religious fundamentalists who feel it threatens their faith if the bible or koran or torah isn't word for word true. I'll give you that there are young earth creationists and old earth creationists and intelligent design creationists, but they all come from the same position that if evolutionary theory is true, then somehow their faith and walk with God is diminished. I don't get it. The data is in. For like 100 years. It's an elegant theory that explains so much in so many different disciplines, some of which wouldn't even exist without the framework of evolution.

Tons of information on the Overton ruling.

That's my nutshell response and probably all I'll have time for.

Hmmmm... ancient? Seems the sub-theories change all the time. Still, there are too many missing pieces in ToE to consider it fact. Even more so in origins.
What are some examples of existing mechanisms where random mutations cause novel structures.
How did the first cell form?
Where are all the transitional fossils? I've seen a few suggestions, but nothing like the vast tree of species originating from a bacterium.

First, the theory of evolution does not address origins, if by origins, you mean abiogenesis.

Second, by the questions you are asking, I can see you haven't done much digging. Start here. Then when you are up to speed, we'll talk more.

That sounded like a watered down "go away, sonnie. Go to school. Learn reality instead of this God nonsense. When you have purged your feeble mind and are ready to fill it with wisdom, we shall in fact, meet again. Until then. away, naive.

I mean really: Answer the questions. If they are too easy, then strike them down with eloquent speech and a haughty "ah yes, the _____ theory, haha!"

If they are too hard, do the research - there are probably 10 articles just sitting under your bed or in the sock drawer that will answer my mediocre lines of questioning.
I've been waiting for how irreducible complexity was completely debunked, or was your word disproved..nah debunked is a more contemporary vernacular - let's use that.

I pointed you at the answers. If you are bored and need someone to spoon feed you the info, I'm not that person. If you are intellectually curious, then you know the answers to your questions and you don't accept them because of your beliefs. Either way, it's not my idea of fun and I am busy.

Uhhhh, so what is the point of having a discussion forum or debate if the only response is "Go look it up yourself?".
Check

Check. The whole Darwinian model today rests on the assumed premise (with absolutely nothing giving validity to that premise; a premise that violates every first principle known to man) that every living thing evolves through a process totally devoid of intelligent guidance. It is inferred, implied and outright stated that this is a necessary approach to avoid the "God of the Gaps" filler. I say that is outright bunk. There is no good intuitive nor logical reason for assuming that premise.

So, since ToE doesn't (and cannot) address abiogenesis, it really cannot use its assumed premise noted above with any logical justification. Abiogenesis IS its true premise, and since noone knows how the elements reorganized themselves in such a fashion as to become receptors of the "life spark", then one cannot simply assume that everything *after* that life spark simply happened through an unguided, random process. Nor can one ASSUME that life itself came about completely on its own.

The premise underpinning ToE does not challenge my FAITH. It challenges REASON. That's what you don't seem to get, Syner.

But that premise is absolutely VITAL to your worldview and I can understand how you cannot abide challenges to it. Your worldview would have to be radically revised and it might affect your whole belief system.

Wow, Saint, nicely done. Extra credit: count the straw men in the above. Not only have you misrepresented what I said, but also what evolutionary theory states. Plus a couple bonus unsupported assertions. Really, Saint, for such a small post (especially for you) you've accomplished a lot.

The flip side to "God of the Gaps" is "You just don't understand evolution".
Just as the flip side to "God did it" is "It just happened"
And WE are called hypocrites!
Oh yeah, I forgot about all the empirical evidence of evolution, bbt, and abiogenesis. It's here somewhere, isn't it? No, I guess I just don't understand ToE. GTE doesn't really start with BBT, ending with the present, with lot's of "it just happened"'s in between.

What is the ole biblical saying?

Seek and you will find??????


If you are really interested in some of the latest work being completed in the abiogenesis topical area I would suggest starting here:

http://www.scripps.edu/mb/joyce/publications.html

http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/early/2...74.004.abstract

You really do live in amazing times Ohioman, we as a society are getting closer to answers every single day..........

This is the point where I just sigh and shake my head. This is neither a discussion nor a debate. Telling me to go look it up myself without even referencing my questions? Looks like the opposing side is hiding something. As far as getting closer to answers every single day, I agree with you 100%. Every day each and every one of us are one day closer to knowing the truth. Those that have passed on already are right now at that point!
I doubt there is anything further for me to say as my questions have not been answered with facts nor evidence, but with sarcasm and rhetoric.

It's like you are asking us to teach you Spanish so you can read a Spanish book. Go learn Spanish on your own. Both chief and I have pointed you to really excellent summaries of facts and evidence. You could also pick up any high school biology textbook. Or geology, or astronomy, or oceanography, or paleontology, or ecology. You are asking us to teach you the very basics and, frankly, I don't think you care enough to try to learn. If you showed some effort and actually looked at some of the FACTS and EVIDENCE we've pointed you at, you might find us more receptive. Otherwise, you are another fundamentalist who wants to debate the facts with someone whose job it is to discover them. I'm not going there.

PS I had to trim to get rid of some quotes.

This is a discussion forum, not a classroom.

This is not a science forum. Nor is it a classroom. It is in the religion forum and the reason I believe it was launched was not to discuss the finer points of any one religion nor to discuss the scientific method per se. It was to discuss the supposed "conflict" between religion and science. I have long held that there is no conflict between religion and science in general, but there are major conflicts between philosophies of various religionists and scientists.

Extremes:

"God said it [in my King James Bible] and that settles it. Anything scientists find that conflict with my interpretation of that Bible is pure heresy and they ought to all be burned at the stake! Scientists are evil!"

"All religionists (especially Christians) are knuckle-dragging, delusional cavemen that believe in a sky-daddy. They insist on FAITH for all their answers and are therefore devoid of reasoning ability. It's the job of SCIENCE to kill FAITH once and for all. Faith-heads are the greatest danger to mankind's survival!"

Most of us are somewhere between those extremes. I happen to be right in the middle, but I don't see it as any kind of compromise because I believe in both evolution (yes, macro included) and the existence of a purposeful and personal God who "called" material and time into existence and upholds those through the means of natural laws.

Syner - I agree with everything that I read here (thanks for the link) and I also like what John S. Wilkes writes here. The main problem I have with the WAY science is often presented today (especially in Higher Education and in the media) is covered in the third paragraph from the bottom. That is, with the strict underpinning of the ontological naturalism philosophical point of view. I concede that most of the time (except in the case of a professor with a bully pulpit) that the scientists are not the cause of this. In any case, the last sentence in the paragraph summarizes what I believe personally and whole-heartedly. Religion (by which I mean the practice of values in which faith must play a role [after all, you don't know if values have have real value until practiced]) and Science (the discovery of facts and knowledge in the natural world through rigorous methodological testing and retesting) can both be right, but each deals with a different facet of reality. Neither field of discipline is made invalid by erroneous writings and agendas that may be brought to light within either.

I have absolutely no problem with methodological naturalism and explanatory naturalism. It's when ontological naturalism is presented AS either methodological or explanatory naturalism that I feel science has gone beyond its self-mandated scope. Conversely, when a religionist ASSUMES that every theory advanced or process used by the scientific community is philosophically underpinned by ontological naturalism, then the religionist is out of line.

I may have been out of line when I assumed that your defense of ToE was motivated by a purely ontological naturalistic stance. If so, I apologize.

I also apologize if my posts are too long for you .

Saint - This is a very well thought out and well written post. Thank you.

My stance is this. I have room for the possibility of a non-naturalistic explanation in my world view. It could very well be that I will need to use that in the case of abiogenesis. However, as I understand the data surrounding the theory of evolution and, compared to the average Joe I understand it very well (not bragging, just being real), there is still no need to invoke the God clause to explain things. Of course that doesn't mean there isn't a God, or that I am even making a claim in that direction. Just that a God's input isn't needed to explain how things have progressed on Earth.

When Ohio wants to get some debate going about this and I shut it down with a gruff "Go do some reading" it's because the debate he wants to have has already been played out 1000s of times with the same result. It sounds cocky, but reading a couple of ID/creationist websites or books doesn't qualify you to critique the science surrounding the ToE. It doesn't even get a person to the point where he understands it, which was clearly the case in Ohio's first post unless he was purposely used old and tired creationists cliches (many times debunked) to start a little tussle.

The part I don't get is why would anyone's faith in God (omnipotent, etc) be threatened if the ToE (or any scientific theory) is true? This gets at the root of what I think this forum is about. As you state, there is no need for an antagonistic relationship between religion and science as long as each stay in their respective sandboxes.