Talking Religion...

[buckeyegrad]

By "Intelligent Design," I refer to the current mantle under which Creationism masquerades. Dr. Miller and I both regard evolution as the vehicle through which God has created the current mosaic of life on earth.

Interesting use of the terminology. As a creationist, I fall into the camp that thinks it needs to keep itself distinct from ID since as I was referring to earlier, theistic evolution, which is what I would describe as your belief, is a form of ID since there is intent/design behind the mechanism.

Then again, as one who does hold microevolution to be true, but under the direction of a God who actively interacts with His creation, I guess I hold a particular veiw of theistic evolution as well.

The politics involved with these terms certainly would be interesting to study.

 

[BayBuck]

That's a bit rich, coming from someone who is "certain" of so many things for which he has no evidence apart from stone age books

Like I said, you are the one operating from a position of apparent certainty here. My own faith is not dependent on the kind of evidence that meets your own standards of proof, but nor is is intimidated by your Enlightenment age arguments.

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=328Q79GoR7g]YouTube - Blackadder II - Teaching Baldrick Mathematics[/ame]

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG9kqmhWMbk]YouTube - Blackadder II Comedy Breasts or Devil's Dumplings[/ame]

 

[MaxBuck]

Interesting use of the terminology. As a creationist, I fall into the camp that thinks it needs to keep itself distinct from ID since as I was referring to earlier, theistic evolution, which is what I would describe as your belief, is a form of ID since there is intent/design behind the mechanism.

Evolution as a general rule of life on earth has been "proven" (in the same way that the theory of gravity has been "proven"), and is not a matter of "belief." How life began is a matter of belief or faith, not of science, and is therefore within the realm of theology as I see it.

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

Evolution as a general rule of life on earth has been "proven" (in the same way that the theory of gravity has been "proven"), and is not a matter of "belief." How life began is a matter of belief or faith, not of science, and is therefore within the realm of theology as I see it.

False. At the risk of being repetitive here, the origin of life is an entirely scientific question. It lies in the realm of organic chemistry. Any model or theory proposed by researchers to explain some aspect of the origin life can be tested empirically. Thus, two scientists of different "faiths" or "religions" or "theological convictions" can look at the same evidence and evaluate whether or not it supports the given model.

Since different people have different faiths, saying that something is within the realm of faith means that there are different (and possibly contradictory) answers to the question. Not all of them can be true. At most one of any bunch of contradictory claims can be true. If you rely on evidence and data to throw out the false or improbable claims, then you are doing science.

 

[Ttown]

Where did the very first thing that ever was come from? What did it evolve from ?

 

[MaxBuck]

False. At the risk of being repetitive here, the origin of life is an entirely scientific question. It lies in the realm of organic chemistry. Any model or theory proposed by researchers to explain some aspect of the origin life can be tested empirically. Thus, two scientists of different "faiths" or "religions" or "theological convictions" can look at the same evidence and evaluate whether or not it supports the given model.

Since different people have different faiths, saying that something is within the realm of faith means that there are different (and possibly contradictory) answers to the question. Not all of them can be true. At most one of any bunch of contradictory claims can be true. If you rely on evidence and data to throw out the false or improbable claims, then you are doing science.

You're wrong. Science has not shown the origin of life to "lie in the realm of organic chemistry."

I don't dispute that ultimately contradictory claims of different faiths cannot all be "true," but the best science can do is posit that there is the possibility that life sprang from non-life through chemical means. There really isn't any way to "prove" (or disprove) such a hypothesis in the way that evolution has been proven - short of creating life from non-life in vitro.

 

[Brewtus]

Where did the very first thing that ever was come from? What did it evolve from ?

Good question. Where did God come from?

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

You're wrong. Science has not shown the origin of life to "lie in the realm of organic chemistry."

I don't dispute that ultimately contradictory claims of different faiths cannot all be "true," but the best science can do is posit that there is the possibility that life sprang from non-life through chemical means. There really isn't any way to "prove" (or disprove) such a hypothesis in the way that evolution has been proven - short of creating life from non-life in vitro.

No you're wrong! :pirate2:

Seriously though, have you ever wondered how we define living things and distinguish them from non-living things? I mean, there are many more living things than just plants and animals. Not all living things "breathe" or "eat". Even crystals "grow." Do we say crystals are "alive"?

The hallmark of a living thing is DNA. The origin of life is a question along the lines of "where did DNA come from?" (to simplify it a great deal). Looking for the origins of DNA is a supremely chemical (and therefore scientific) question.

QED.

 

[MaxBuck]

No you're wrong! :pirate2:

Seriously though, have you ever wondered how we define living things and distinguish them from non-living things? I mean, there are many more living things than just plants and animals. Not all living things "breathe" or "eat". Even crystals "grow." Do we say crystals are "alive"?

The hallmark of a living thing is DNA. The origin of life is a question along the lines of "where did DNA come from?" (to simplify it a great deal). Looking for the origins of DNA is a supremely chemical (and therefore scientific) question.

QED.

I hope your vocation isn't in science. What you seem to regard as "proof" isn't very rigorous.

Were you by any chance involved in that whole WMDs-in-Iraq thing?

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

I hope your vocation isn't in science. What you seem to regard as "proof" isn't very rigorous.

Were you by any chance involved in that whole WMDs-in-Iraq thing?

Where did I say anything about "proof"? I didn't mention the word in my post (unless you're referring to the QED part). I merely pointed out to you why the origin of life is a scientific question.

You are resorting to ad hominem attacks instead of pointing out what you think is wrong with my argument. You don't make a good debating partner.

 

[BayBuck]

At most one of any bunch of contradictory claims can be true.

That is a statement absolutely lacking in nuance, which is a key to reconciling matters of faith with the complexities of modern life.

You are resorting to ad hominem attacks instead of pointing out what you think is wrong with my argument. You don't make a good debating partner.

Pardon me for subjecting you to another of those loathsome ad hominem attacks (glad you're getting good use out of your Fallacy 101 textbook), but that sure sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Gatorubet]

That is a statement absolutely lacking in nuance, which is a key to reconciling matters of faith with the complexities of modern life.

Brawndo - its got what plants crave.

 

[muffler dragon]

Yes I understand. Your perspective of God sounds very Jewish, but you must also admit that it is not the only one. In a sense you share some of Coyne's misgivings about Miller's reconciliation of God and evolution. If his interaction with humanity is non-observable or incomprehensible as you say, what use is it trying to find his hand in biology or in evolution or in molecular genetics? What use is any such reconciliation?

1) Yes, my perspective is very Jewish. And, yes, I realize that it's not the only one. I hope that, with that being understood, you now realize why Jerry's comments don't really jive with where I'm coming from as far as G-d and science.
2) According to www.m-w.com, reconcile means the following:

1 a: to restore to friendship or harmony <reconciled the factions> b: settle , resolve <reconcile differences>2: to make consistent or congruous <reconcile an ideal with reality>3: to cause to submit to or accept something unpleasant <was reconciled to hardship>4 a: to check (a financial account) against another for accuracy b: to account for

It is the emboldened portion that describes my understanding. Thus, I believe there can be "friendship or harmony" between a belief in G-d and science. That's all.

Heretic! We devout Catholics have just the right thing for you...
From Wikipedia:
The knight of Hohenberg and his servant, accused sodomites, are executed by burning before the walls of Z?rich in 1482.
Source: Diebold Schilling, Chronik der Burgunderkriege, Schweizer Bilderchronik, Band 3, um 1483 (Z?rich, Zentralbibliothek)

Si, yo soy un "Heretic".

Because Biblical literalism is a relatively new idea and came out of fundie evangelical Christianity. Right?

This would be a rather good summation. I would couple it with a sense of apathy as well. But that's neither here nor there.

Evolution as a general rule of life on earth has been "proven" (in the same way that the theory of gravity has been "proven"), and is not a matter of "belief." How life began is a matter of belief or faith, not of science, and is therefore within the realm of theology as I see it.

Max:

From what I have written, would you agree with what I have written from my POV regarding abiogenesis and such? I'm not looking to build a consensus; instead, just wanting to know if we're on the same page.