Scientific IMAX films too controversial for the South

Yeah, my answer also fits in with the way that I believe that we have both predestination AND free will. Most people can't keep those two concepts in their heads at the same time, but I think that both are at play in everyone's lives.

 

There are too many different subpoints to this discussion for me to address more than a couple. And forgive me for jumping in and (probably) not getting back to this for a while today. But suppose, for the sake of argument, that the God described in the Bible does exist. What then do we make of the following?

What I suggest is that if the God of the Bible exists, living things (and non-living as well, of course) should be expected to attest to His characteristics. One of these characteristics that is repeatedly emphasised is that God is one God and we are not to worship anything else. If each species had a completely different means of transmitting genetic information it would be easy to conclude that the biological evidence points to a few different gods out there each doing their own creative work. Or we could make a secular conclusion that all life did evolve and each individual species evolved its own special means of transmiting genetic information. But with a single staggeringly beautiful method we are left with only two conclusions. The first possible conclusion is that one God is the creator of all life and is infinately wise and intelligent, leaving his signature design in every living creature. The second is that difficulty and improbability of spontaneous life on earth is to such an extent that we could only hope for it to have arisen once, transmitting its genetic material by one method alone from which all life branched, had life been any easier to develop or had there been any other possible method we would see evidences of that by now.

To touch lightly on a second issue about the micro/macro distinction: I think it can be quite consistent to believe in one and not the other but for a slightly different reason than the one that MadMax expressed. Micro evolution is essentially "small changes" within a species. That is its basic definition. It is an observable phenomenon that I think any educated person would agree about. Macro evolution is the change from one species to a new species by some method. MadMax was pointing out that it is easier to believe in micro evolution because we can see it but macro evolution isn't seen. Sishir Chang explains that if micro-evolution is observable, macro-evolution is a reasonable inference even if it is not observable.

And why isn't macro-evolution observable? Or is it? The evolutionary answer is simple: we don't live millions of years so we can't watch it happen. Yet in a sense it is observable by simply studying all the species that now exist and observing their common traits that no doubt came from common ancestors. Is it as JayZ750 suggests, do creationists just not have particularly warm fuzzy feelings towards their chimp cousins and prefer to thimk of themselves as special? For some creationists, I think there is a grain of truth to that.

But again I would suggest thinking about it from a creationist standpoint for a moment. What does the Bible say about speciation? Not much. Except that God makes the species and declares that they are to reproduce "each after their own kind." What does that mean? If one species evolves into another new species, macro evolution, then they aren't still reproducing after their own kind. But before we jump to the conclusion that the Bible has just been proved wrong right there, there is some evidence that this is in fact the case. The creationist answer to why we don't see macro-evolution taking place is that it really isn't possible. That one or more biological safeguards have been put in place to allow a certain amount of variation within a species but not speciation. The fact that for all major functions and charactoristics of a species their are several copies of the relevant gene within the DNA is one. Another may be the RNA back-up that was discussed in the following article on NPR yesterday:
Plant's Genetic Repairs Astound Scientists
Another piece of evidence to consider is the "Black Box" phenomenon most clearly discussed by Behe and already mentioned in this thread.

Now if we look at these pieces in the puzzle assuming that God does exist, we would probably conclude that these are meant to point to His existence and furthermore His infinite wisdom and intelligence in creating not only the means by which genetic information is passed on to each generation but also the means by which mutations are prevented from being passed on, thus preserving the beauty of each individual species.

And if we look at these pieces from an evolutionary point of view we would conclude that despite difficulties in overriding the basic blueprint of a species, speciation can and has occured. These safeguards, in fact, have evolved to protect those excellent and wonderous advances in the genetic composition of a species from reverting back to a less well adapted design.

As a side note to this tangental discussion, I would think that many of the things that Christians assert concerning the depravity of mankind would suggest that the problem they have with evolution is not with the possibility of having chimp cousins. After all, observe the behaviour of our human relatives...

All of this to say that I think JV is quite right. The problem is not that creationists aren't considering scientific evidence. Nor that evolutionists aren't considering scientific evidence. The problem is that the evidence is going to be considered in light of a philosophical perspective. If the existence of God is not a possibility in your mind, obviously we have evolved and God had absolutely nothing to do with it. And I believe if you discuss the subject with an evolutionary biologist (and have had this discussion was a few) they will happily admit that the most fundamental assertion of evolution is just that: God had nothing to do with it. Christians who believe in evolution believe something a bit different from classic evolution and different from what evolutionary biologists believe. Generally they believe God created all species using evolution as His method and thus smoothing over any difficulties that could not have been overcome had He not intervened.

 

Intervened in his own method?

 

Yes, there are some complications in this position. But it's not my position so someone else will have to explain that.

 

Mrs. Valdez:

If there is only one god as the bible says? Why does it even need to say I am the only god? Doesn't that imply there are other gods out there just don't believe in them? I am just a little curious.

 

I see your viewpoint but still think it has to be a bit deeper than that. Because otherwise you are just arbitrarily choosing a point at which to begin to have the philosophical debate, when, in fact, up to that point you were quite comfortable with the scientific aspect.

Multiple genes of the same type, RNA backup, this is all scientific data. Data that, you'll note, neither you or I can observe (though a scientist can test for).

So why, in this instance, at the crux of the micro-evolution / macro-evolution argument, do you decide to say: "I trust the evidence, observable, historical, anectodal, etc. on micro-evolution but won't trust the scientific evidence anymore in regards to macro-evolution."

Is it just because, as MadMax says, macro-evolution isn't observable? I respect that opinion, but don't find it enlightening in the least - as mentioned, that is the case with a lot of things.

I'm not questioning the appearance of "God" in the topic, but the placement of that appearance.

Maybe it's just something about the term "Christians who believe in evolution " that irks me. But, the issue with some of these modern (relatively speaking), traditional religions is their ability/inability to incorporate science as it arises. Three centuries ago, the idea of evolution didn't exist, so Christians didn't have to find a way to incorporate it into their world view. Now that the age of the earth and, at least, the generally theory of micro-evolution, have become more accepted, that world view has to change.

I'm not faulting a religion that allows its practitioners to be flexible - surely, that should be a plus. But I am curious as to whether or not the old world view, say of the 17th century, can now be concluded to have been wrong, based on what we now know the be much much much much much more likely - say that the world is more than a few thousand years old. And, if it is the case that the religious based world view back then was wrong in light of new "evidence", what's not to say the religious based world view today isn't wrong in light of the fact that new evidence will undoubtedly arise in the future?

Quite simply, if in the next 100 years the reasons for RNA back-ups, etc. become quite clear from a scientific standpoint, will the micro-evolution/macro-evolution split then just have to creep further along the line of knowledge, etc.?

Weird stuff.

 

Jay -- interesting points. science 50-60 years ago...before the advent of Big Bang...was saying the universe was eternal. that was the popular view. that contradicted the Bible big time. definitely contradicted the idea of a Beginning.

then the Big Bang Theory comes out. still just a theory...but definitely one that can square with the Genesis account, prompting Nobel winning physicist, Arno Penzias, to say: "The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Pslams and the Bible as a whole." That kind of statement 50-60 years ago would have been scoffed at. yet, Big Bang remains a theory.

but understand this...the Bible doesn't speak as a science text. i think it might in some senses...it presumes a beginning; but a beginning of what?? it talks about there being nothingness and darkness. and then there was light..and form..and substance where it appears there wasn't any, from the text. it does not purport to describe the scientific process by which that happened. it does not pretend to explain how creatures came to be, other than that they were created by Him. ultimately your argument is with those that interpret the Bible in such a way as to say, "if it's not there, it didn't happen." The Carl Everetts of the world who say since the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, there really weren't dinosaurs.

 

Because the world was polytheistic...and God was being clear about his own nature. That's how I read it, anyway. People were turning to worship of all sorts of things...so God was called the "one, true God" and things like that.

that persisted even into New Testament times. When Paul addresses the folks at Mars Hill, he points out how they have all these gods they worship...and then explains about the Hebrew God...the one, true God.

 

To add towhat MadMax answered, the problem isn't simply polytheism or worshipping statues but worshipping anything besides God. I grew up thinking of worship as literally bowing down to some statue but if you look at the many passages in the Bible that discuss this, it seems plain that it includes relying on and/or living your life trying to aquire things such as wealth, power or beauty. Wealth, power and beauty all exist and all compete for our attention although there is no personhood behind any of them.

 

If that is the case then I guess Americans have not learned too much what Christianity really means despite the number of people who call themselves Christians.

 

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! could not have been better stated.

 

Everytime I try to get out they just keep pulling me back in.....

Good thing its a slow workday

Mrs. Valdez you raise some excellent points like the Senor Valdez. I'm going to have to skip responding to a lot of them but will try to hit the ones I think are most important.

Here is this is the biggest problem with attempting to do a scientific proof of creationism because apriori you have to immidiately start with the belief that God exist and then you go from there. In this case you're putting the idea of the evidence and going straight to saying that well the fact that all organism use DNA, which isn't true but we'll leave that aside for now, so therefore this is a sign that God has created all organisms. Under the scientific method you're not supposed to start from an apriori position, unless you're trying to disprove something, but start with observation and from there you move on to exploring the most logical hypothesis given the observable phenomena. The problem with saying, "well clearly this must be the work of God" is that you aren't deriving your hypothesis but instead jumping to an assumption based upon a belief apart from the observable.

If the scientific method is to be taken strictly it neither denies or supports the existence of God but if God were considered to be a valid hypothesis for species differentiation or the creation of life then the next step must be scientifically prove the existence of God.

As I've said before I won't call evolution a fact but will stand by that it is the best scientific idea that we have going. So yes its a perfectly rational to believe that it didn't occur that way bu then the onus is to prove the counter using the methodology given. While we can make a presumption that God exist and that similarities across species is the the hand of God that becomes a copout to the pursuit of knowledge because anything can justify the hand of God. That I had fish for lunch today is the hand of God because Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes.

We aren't left with two conclusions. There are an infinite number of conclusions that can be drawn including there is no causality at all and everything just came to be at this moment in time or that its all just an illusion. The problem comes down to proof and willingness to subject an idea to a logical system of testing and empiracal proof.

We know a lot but compared to the vastness of the Universe or even the Earth alone we know nothing. Its certainly possible that new evidence could completely throw evolution down but that's the point of science to constantly prove on one hand and disprove on the other. The point of faith is to believe which would mean any contradictory evidence should be ignored.

First off again this is having to apriori accept that God decreed this, but leaving that aside this is again a misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution doesn't dicate that one species will engage in a wholesale movement into being another species but that some members of that species who have particular traits that benefit them in a particular environment will prosper while those without the other traits die out. The trait that allows the survivors will continue to breed with each other further enhancing that trait until the original descendents no longer resemble the original. Further with random mutation new traits are introduced that either give an advantage and survive or don't and die out. This process isn't neat and clean and in many cases remnants survive like coelocanthes or lungfish. So in short they are still reproducing each after their own kind its just that they've adapted to such a degree as to be very different.

To explain this lets go to Max's bat and whale example. Say you have a group of rats and some of them go to live by the ocean and some to the forest. The ones in the forest discover that if they can leap farther and stay in the air longer they can better keep from being eaten so the ones who can stay aloft longer survive while the ones who don't die out. Eventually after millions of years traits that support being airborne predominate and are refined in successive generations to the point you get a bat, a flying rat. The ones by the ocean discover the ocean is a great source of food and the ones who swim best succeed and reproduce and swimming traits get emphasized so eventually you get whales, giant swimming rats. We can see such differentiation already when you consider that ottors, ferrets and voles are essentially the same animal so an otter is really just a swimming weasel, a ferret a ground dwelling weasel and a vole a digging weasel they've just specialized to their environments to the point that they're different species. That was exactly the kind of specialization that Darwin saw on the Galapagos to form the theory of evolution.

 

This is where I get lost on evolution. If I understand correctly from what I've read in the past, you have about 10 million possible years to get from that common ancestor to the current whale and bat. Each "change/inbetween" organism survives about 1 million years. That means you have essentially 10 organisms that get you from whale to bat. First...not sure I can imagine that. Second...where is the fossil record to support that? Again, that comes back to statistical paleontology, which is interesting to read up on. But it seems the fossil record should be teeming with examples of at least a few of those transtiionary organisms. It doesn't.

* -- the above is not an argument based on faith or religion.

 

If I understand you correctly you are saying that you don't understand why I would accept some scientific data and reject other scientific data when there isn't any perceivable difference between the two sets of data. So that you observe that I am arbitrarily picking a point after which I don't trust science.

This is not exactly the case. For one thing, I don't trust scientists as people any more or less than I trust anyone else. For another thing, I don't immediately trust any research, scientific or otherwise. It isn't that I reject scientific findings that have to do with macro-evolution. There's actually quite a number of studies that I have read on other subjects that I thought were poorly designed or came to questionable conclusions. No, I wasn't a science major but a philosophy major. However, my university put a great deal of effort into shaping graduates that had a fairly comfortable grasp on the hard and soft sciences and on analyzing research.

I would disagree that the examples I gave were things that I can't observe. If what you mean is "look at with the naked eye" or "watch develop in my living room" then of course I don't observe it. But neither I nor any scientist mean that when they say that something is observable. What is meant is that a technician can give us the data on something. What we make of that data is another story. Scientists have been known to play with the data but that is not what I am alledging here. For the most part, I accept the data that is used as evidence for macro-evolution for the same reason that I usually accept the data used as evidence in any other research area. I accept it because it is more expedient to do so than to double-check every technicians work. But given that data, I don't reach the same conclusion. Why not? Because data needs interpretation and interpretation is done within a philosophical framework. Different philosophical frameworks will yield different results.

Since I am not a Christian who believes in evolution, someone else should probably back up that view. But that does not mean that I do not "believe" in science. What I do believe, if you're interested, is that all creation testifies to the glory of God. I also believe that God created people to be curious about the world around them. He gave us brains that work reasonably well and a desire to use them and we should expect that as history unfolds we will constantly be discovering new things and more and more details about how things work and can be put to use. I don't think He created the fossil record to confuse us not because He hasn't the power to do so but because it would be inconsistent with who He reveals Himself to be.

Christians and non-Christians alike ought to be eagerly learning about whatever new data comes to light. But we should not be passive recipients. Your image of a special line that Christians draw concerning what will and will not be accepted is interesting but I hesitate to accept it as a fair description. Personally, I have not drawn any such line. I think it is only fair to point out that many evolutionists run into similar problems as they attempt to reconcile the theory with their philosophies about life in other areas. In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Dennett fiercely defends evolution but at the same time calls us to face up to the implications evolution has about morality, equality amoung people, death, etc. What he points out is that evolutionary theory suggests that there is no real reason to believe that "all men are created equal" but that in fact some are just better than others. But that rubs us the wrong way so we welcome the theory with open arms in the science class but allow it no further than that. But if evolution is the way we got here, I think we should fully embrace that as truth even if that doesn't sit well with us.

 

I fully agree.

 

Agreed. I was just pointing out in reference to the earlier stated observable comment, macro-evolution is observable in the same way.

I don't know. Seems to me that interpretation should not be done with a philosophical framework, but within all philosophical frameworks. Conclusion, on the other hand, is often based on just one framework.

In your case, at least, it sounds to me as if you are still interpreting the macro-evolution data from a scientific framework and a faith-based one, and it is your resulting scientific interpretation that leads you to a conclusion based on the faith-based and not scientific philosophy.

But what if, as history unfolds, we discover that God doesn't exist at all? Not what I think will happen, but I recognize it as a possibility.

I haven't read the book, but I'm sure he explores his implication that evolutionary selection equates to better or worse, which I don't find to be true, per se.

 

Sishir Chang,

It's getting late in the day and I don't expect to have time to get back to this so I'll try to address the thrust of your arguement.

I think you misunderstood my post. I was NOT trying to provide a proof of the existence of God. I don't believe that is possible and if it is possible, I don't think it can be done within the realm of science. The reason for this is that if God exists, his relation to the created world can be compared to an architect/builder's relationship to a house. If you go and search throughout the house you probably will not find the architect anywhere in it.

The reason why I went down that path supposing God did exist was to demonstrate the way in which both the creationist and the evolutionist can openly embrace the data available and yet not agree about what that data suggests.

As to your rebuttal about my mentioning of the idea of "each after their own kind" I apologize for my shorthand way of addressing the subject. I have been taking for granted that everyone here has a robust understanding of evolution. I am, of course, well aware that the theory does not suggest that a fish laid an egg that hatched into a bird. The evolutionary process would be considerably easier to see in retrospect than as it developed because one never knows what small mutation may become part of the chain of mutations that, after hundreds of thousands of generations may lead to distant cousins being members of completely different species. All the same, however gradually it occured and over however many generations, it would be a case of not reproducing after ones own kind.

If you are still discussing this come next Monday, perhaps I'll put in a word. Until then, have a great weekend

 

It is nice too see these informative civilized discussions instead of You are a republican moron or you are a p**** democrate type debates.

 

a-freaking-men. aside for a few exceptions, i have found tremendous respect here from people about my faith, though i know it seems extremely odd to some people. i always appreciate that. i've seen it from everyone in this thread...you, included pirc. again...that is very much appreciated.

 

Isn't everything by definition a transitionary organism?

I think most people have problems with Macro-evolution because it's really hard to wrap your mind around something that takes literally millions upon millions of years to happen. We're just not set up to perceive things that way.