"Genetic Death": The Evolution Meat Grinder

BernardR wrote:

With regard to the "Infinite Universe", Bill Bryson, in his book, " A Short History of Nearly Everything" ( described by the the New York Times as a book "destined to become a modern classic of Science Writing) writes:

"It is natural but wrong to visualize the singularity as a kind of pregnant dot hanging in a dark, boundless void. But there is no space, no darkness. The "singularity" has no "around" around it. There is no space for it to occupy, no place for it to be. We can't even ask how long it has been there--whether it has just popped into being like a good idea or whether it has been there forever quietly awaiting the right moment. Time doesn't exist. There is no past for it to emerge from."

And some people have more difficulty with the concept that God is Omnipotent!!!

This is all irrelevant to a discussion of a theory of evolution. A theory of evolution does not stipulate cosmic origins, Massagato. I'm not surprised, though, to see you trot out this hoary old chestnut--the concept is a bête noire for the poofism crowd.

0 Replies

Bernard wrote-

Quote:

3. I find myself in the same camp as Darwin, Miller and Behe. I do believe in a creator.

That says nothing about God.

If everybody in the world believed in God it would still say nothing about God.

"Do you ever wonder what it is God requires?
You think he's just an errand boy to satisfy your wandering desires. "

When You Gonna Wake Up? Bob Dylan.

What matters is the social effect of a belief, or otherwise, in God.

What you should say is that Darwin expressed a belief in God in order to comfort Emma and probably others. It is a bit presumptuous to declare that he actually believed in God. It cost him nothing to express the belief and he probably made money from doing so by having his books rendered more acceptable.

These guys you are quoting are in show business.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

15 Phuckin K. Jeezus!!

15K?

I've had kidney stones on half a dozen occasions, each one requiring a trip to the emergency room. Total cost so far.

$0.00

0 Replies

Wilso, dont get me going. The "free market access to health care" is another US born euphymism for "money talks. all others refer back to previous statment, ," Weve reduced health care for an additional 40 Million since Bozo and the boys have ascended the throne.

The kidney stone costs were even better than that , theywere 18,500 because an additional CAT scan was requested by the bones mechanic.
The health system in the US is corrupt and not as available to the masses. My company pays about 1850 a month for the principles because we are over 50, and we still have copays . Ive made it a policy to scrutinize all bills under a side agreement with our insurance carriers. If we feel that theres "too much bullshit tech diagnosis" going on, we blow the whistle.
In an area like ours where the regional medical centers are 50 miles away, weve found that the very doctors that we go to for all the treatmenst, have financila interests in the very labs they use. SO we get screwed in many different directions. PA is a corrupt state where the government even runs the booze purveyors.

Now when I read the articles that show how the UK is healthier, one of our locals did an in depth investigative report about why. The conclusion arrived at , by lots of data and demographic breakdown , is that where the statistics stack up for "white middle classes" is where the lower ends of the scale dictate that certain people dont go to physicians as a routine, whereas in UK, medical help is more accessible to everyone.

The problem with single party rule is that no one party can be trusted. They always carry their agendas . Look what happened in texas, a lot of GWBush's policies were reversed after he became our president. Even Texas couldnt pull those policies off with a straight face and a cklear conscience.

0 Replies

I see no response from the learned chemist, Mr; Farmerman.

Spendius then excoriates my belief in God and states( without proof) that Darwin probably put the phrase into the end of Origin of Species to assuage his wife and others.

Do you have proof of that?

You run right over the beliefs in God stated by Miller and Behe.

I again refer you to the statement made by Mortimer Adler. I trust you are familiar with his writings and reputation. I will highlight part of his statement for you.

"The conclusion that God exists HAS NOT BEEN PROVED OR DEMONSTRATED...I AM PERSUADED THAT GOD EXISTS, EITHER BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OR BY A PREPONDERANCE OF REASONS IN FAVOR OF THAT CONCLUSION OVER REASONS AGAINST IT."

If, Spendius, you can offer incontroverable proof that God does not exist, I will consider it. In the interim, I will agree with Darwin, Miller and Behe that God does exist and therefore, since, as Adler so marvelously argues, he is omnipotent, God can do anything. Even be a biochemical mechanic.

0 Replies

Bern

Quote:

I again refer you to the statement made by Mortimer Adler. I trust you are familiar with his writings and reputation. I will highlight part of his statement for you.

"The conclusion that God exists HAS NOT BEEN PROVED OR DEMONSTRATED...I AM PERSUADED THAT GOD EXISTS, EITHER BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OR BY A PREPONDERANCE OF REASONS IN FAVOR OF THAT CONCLUSION OVER REASONS AGAINST IT."

. Is the point to clip and post quotes or is it instead to debate something? My quote from Huxley trumps Adler's. So What?

PS , Im an ex chemist.

As far as BEhe and Miller , Ive replied about 2 times re: both. Miller is a religious man who doesnt allow a god into his lab or his teaching of bio. I think that that is such a good idea since , like Adler and Huxley both recognize, we cant prove or disprove god, whereas, following NAture, we can certainly run the underlying topics to ground.

As far as "talking over and/or not answering", youve done a good job ignoring the concept that Irreducible complexity is just a point of convenience where the lazy, purposely ignorant, or the rigidly doctrinaire dont know how or wish to proceed farther, ( a hint of what Behe got handed to him at a symposium). Yet you just ignore these items and proceed as if youre somehow anointed with the facts. Sorry, aint buying any of it Bernie.

0 Replies

Bernard wrote-

Quote:

If, Spendius, you can offer incontroverable proof that God does not exist, I will consider it.

If God exists He can do anything,as you rightly say, which includes bringing the world into existence 2 minutes ago with everything as it is just now right down to all your memories,beliefs and the fossils in the rocks.

I obviously cannot prove anything at all one or the other and neither can anybody else nor will anybody ever be able to. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to think about it either except insofar that belief in God is a fact in large numbers of people and will translate into social effects.Such a belief is a fact for other Gods and has been in the past for probably thousands of Gods and often with negative effects.

What I think can be shown is that a belief in our God has social and psychological effects,when taken in moderation, which are probably beneficial to the individual and to society. That is a subject which those who don't believe in God have more or less refused to debate on another thread possibly because they are a bit nervous about the inexorable logic of unbelief on a mass scale. One advantage for them if they would debate it is that it would enable them to get off the merry-go-round.

Quote:

Spendius then excoriates my belief in God and states( without proof) that Darwin probably put the phrase into the end of Origin of Species to assuage his wife and others.

Do you have proof of that?

It was certainly the impression I got from reading Desmond and Moore's biography. But I would agree that is not clear proof. He certainly mixed on friendly terms with a number of prominent atheists and allied himself with them against the clergy. His wife is on record as expressing fear that he would go straight to hell. Mentioning a Creator did ease the publication of Origin and helped it to sell. He was supposed to have been worried about having to face a charge of blasphemy.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

I again refer you to the statement made by Mortimer Adler. I trust you are familiar with his writings and reputation. I will highlight part of his statement for you.

"The conclusion that God exists HAS NOT BEEN PROVED OR DEMONSTRATED...I AM PERSUADED THAT GOD EXISTS, EITHER BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OR BY A PREPONDERANCE OF REASONS IN FAVOR OF THAT CONCLUSION OVER REASONS AGAINST IT."

Allow me to highlight what is factual in that statement of Adler's:
" ... The conclusion that God exists has not been proved or demonstrated ... "

And what is opinion predicate to personal preference:
"I am PERSUADED that God exists ... "

I indeed am most familiar with the late Dr. Adler, and for various reasons and by assorted criteria fond of, his writings, his Great Books Project, and by-and-large his philosophy, despite, or perhpas due to his at the end becoming a devout Roman Catholic (as close as an Abrahamic religion can get to intellectual honesty, IMO). I also have had the pleasure of having attended a few of his lectures - and have had the honor of actually talking with him (briefly, and the conversation had nothing to do with the matter here at discussion). I'll note his speaking voice was a bit less sonorous and stentorian than his writings would seem to imply it might have been.

Quote:

If, Spendius, you can offer incontroverable proof that God does not exist, I will consider it. In the interim, I will agree with Darwin, Miller and Behe that God does exist and therefore, since, as Adler so marvelously argues, he is omnipotent, God can do anything. Even be a biochemical mechanic.

I submit you postulate an absurdity; with whom you or anyone else may or may not agree, regarding anything, is irelevant and wholly immaterial. What is salient pertaining to any proposition's validity is the evidence, actual evidence, supportive of that proposition. Absent actual hard evidence, all that remains is conjecture, preference, opinion. Regardless any intrinsic validity of any proposition, only actual evidence forensically, academically soundly, intellectually honestly validates that proposition. Conviction, personal preference, one's own feelings, no matter how fervently held or persuasively put, remains but opinion in the absence of confirmatory evidence. Absolutely no actual evidence, confirmatory or negational, may be found pertaining to the question of the existence of any god or gods; any question of any such thing or condition of being remains unresolved, debatable, conjectural, opinion at best. Personally, though I am strongly skeptical of the validity of any theology-dependent proposition, I am not PERSUADED either way. My Opinion is that all theological constructs are unlikely, given that neither evidence nor probability argue for the validity any theologic proposition

A work of Adlers you might do well to digest is his 1940 How to Read Great Books - any respectable library or bookseller should be able to provide you with a copy.

0 Replies

timber-

Don't you ever get fed up of going through all that "absent actual hard evidence" stuff. You're banging your head against a wall with it. It is a psychological and sociological matter exclusively. There is nothing else to think about.

On the theology I'm afraid you are simply being pedantic. Again it is a question of finding ideas which are thought to be beneficial by experts who have no nepotistic connections. The C of E allows its ministers to marry and is widely known as The Conservative Party at prayer as a result.

I'll put it as gently as I can. A prominent feminist writer,I don't think it was Greer but I'm not certain,said that the Catholic Church was a "fertility machine" and she is getting close. No ordinary person thinks he can follow the strategy in a championship chess match and chess is easy compared to taking Europe out of the Dark Ages and up to here. How come you think you can understand theology when there's a whole bureaucracy working on it full time and with vast archives of experience to consult. Do you really think it is so simple that the likes of us can plumb its depths. Do you think you know better? You cannot seem to accept that the majority of people are fairly simple-minded. They need leading to safety and the Catholic Church does provide a leadership which is,more or less,properly recruited.

I think you have a bit of a thing about the thought of you being led by the nose. I don't have that. I don't mind at all. Ah-the luxury of a hot soak and off to the pub. How did they manage to do that? More power to 'em is what I say. Lead me to the trough maestro and watch me guzzle.

I would actually prefer being led than doing the leading. One of the reasons for poor political leadership is that only barm-pots ever offer themselves. I feel sorry for them. Fancy engineering the permissive society and having to watch us erks get all the shagging. That's enough to cause a frisky bishop to grind his teeth off.

0 Replies

Dear Mr. Timberlandko I do own Adler's book- "How to Read a Book" and have found it instructive. P. 233-"Obviously, everything cannot be proved, just as everything cannot be defined"

Again, I am willing to be persuaded.

I am more than willing to listen to arguments that prove that God does not exist.

In absence of such arguments, I will state that there is a possiblity that God does exist and, in the words of Dr. Adler--

"I am, therefore, willing to terminate this inquiry with the statement that I have reasonable grounds for affirming God's existence"

I can and will go into Adler's thesis in his book-"How to Think About God" to show exactly why he feels he has "reasonable grounds for affirming God's existence".

Throughout this discussion, no one has commented about the agreement of three of the experts cited( Darwin, Miller and Behe) that God does exist.

If those three worthies can make such a statement, who am I to doubt them?

Mr. Timberlandko-You call for hard evidence of the proposition that God does exist.

May I then call for evidence that he does not exist?

Failing a resolution depending on evidence, can we then rely on the statements made by the persons who are involved in this argument concerning "Irreducable complexity"?

You see.Mr. Timberlandko, Miller himself has noted that "true knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason"

I will agree with Dr.Kenneth Miller.

0 Replies

The only claim I make regarding the existence of a deity is that there is no evidence one way or the other. Just as nothing precludes the existence of a deity, nothing mandates it. I too am persuadable, though through decades of inquiry and despite the efforts of many, I remain unpersuaded, either way.

0 Replies

I think you are wise, Mr. Timberlandko. I, however, because of my past experiences and upbringing, do indeed believe in the existence of God and therefore find no problem with Dr. Behe's conception, as Dr.Miller puts it, of God as a "biochemical mechanic".

As my learned professor who taught Shakespeare once put it after a particularly fierce class debate on the character of Hamlet--

Well, Bernard, one really can't prove that, but you may, of course, believe it. I do not. If you are right, God bless you and if I am right, God Bless me.

What a wonderful way to terminate a discussion!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

Bernard wrote-

Quote:

Well, Bernard, one really can't prove that, but you may, of course, believe it. I do not. If you are right, God bless you and if I am right, God Bless me.

What a wonderful way to terminate a discussion!!!!!!!!

It's an efficient way to terminate an educational process.

0 Replies

You may indeed be correct, Spendius, but the learned Dr. Miller does not agree with you. I quote from a lecture to his students( You know, of course, that Dr. Miller, the author of "Finding Darwin's God" and the biochemist who takes issue with Dr. Behe's claims concerning "irreducable complexity) said: "True Knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason"

I can't argue with the learned Dr. Miller on that score. Can you?

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

You may indeed be correct, Spendius, but the learned Dr. Miller does not agree with you. I quote from a lecture to his students( You know, of course, that Dr. Miller, the author of "Finding Darwin's God" and the biochemist who takes issue with Dr. Behe's claims concerning "irreducable complexity) said: "True Knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason"

I can't argue with the learned Dr. Miller on that score. Can you?

I can. True knowledge cannot come from a combination of faith and reason, if by faith, you mean an unshakeable almost dogmatic belief in God.

For example, say you've come to a dead end in your research on something like say, how an eye develops. You cannot figure out how it develops naturally. So what do you do? Well, the perfect scientist would try to think up of a way to figure out how to find out how it happens.

Dr. Behe, however, has decreed that it is impossible and that God is responsible. End of story.

Well, if you state that God is responsible, that's that. You don't investigate the situation further. It could be that the eye developed through natural selection quite easily although through a very complicated roundabout way.

Yet by saying, God is responsible, you never know. You end up ignoring the matter.

Dr. Behe's position is an insult, do you know that? It's an insult, because Behe is effectively saying that God is too stupid to create an automatic system that requires no input from Him whatsoever.

Look at your Bible, for crying out loud. The only intervention that God is ever shown doing is behavioural. All he's ever done is come down to intervene and modify the behaviour of people.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

"True Knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason" I can't argue with the learned Dr. Miller on that score. Can you?

It's very glib, and it's all nice and warm and fuzzy and I'm sure the faithful love to hear it. But that doesn't make is true.

The word "knowledge" has a definition. Dr. Miller's implication that "True Knowledge" is something other than regular old "knowledge" is just preaching.

Someone please spare me from the people who like to tell us what "True Knowledge" is.

0 Replies

Quote:

BernardR wrote:
"True Knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason" I can't argue with the learned Dr. Miller on that score. Can you?

No.

0 Replies

FROM BROWNS ALUMNI NEWS

Quote:

Miller?s essay, which argues that creationists are wrong about the relationship between belief in God and the principles of evolution, is an engaging statement of one person?s need to reconcile what has been for decades a fruitless controversy. Problems arise, however, when Miller goes beyond the discussion of evolutionary biology and creationism and introduces the dictum that ?true knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason? and that ?science... can thus be enriched and informed from its contact with the values and principles of faith.? He certainly is entitled to express his feelings, but as an analysis of what science does and what science needs he his wrong. Very wrong.

Faith is predicated on belief. Often the beliefs are systematic and represent a doctrine, but they are beliefs, not bound by objective observation. Science, on the other hand, depends on unfettered inquiry, on the repeatability and reproducibility of its observation. Science is enriched by a pyramid of facts; not by faith, reason, or a search for absolutes.

The individual scientist may derive a sense of gratification related to his or her faith, but this is extraneous to the scientific enterprise and should not be construed as a part of the methods or intent of science. Faith and science are separate and any attempt to intersect them confounds and demeans the value of both.

Miller is a theistic evolutionist. This pisses off the Fundementalist Creation dudes a lot. I, for one, dont mind Millers departures from reality, it shows that all of us have deeply held biases that dont go away. Miller is a prcaticing Catholic like many of us were. He still maintains his Christian beliefs and tries to whack faith and religion into the same blocks.

0 Replies

I wonder what examples there are of science benefiting from faith and reason rather than observation and experimentation alone. Did the Bible's assertion that the earth is the center of the universe and God, making the sun stand still for a day, enable Copernicus and Galileo to determine that the sun was the center of the solar system? Do chemist have a better understanding of their atoms and molecules from reading the Bible? Did belief in God help us design a better rocket? If atheist Russian scientist had religion would they have developed a better rocket? Has anyone been able to find the dome of heaven and the pillars that support it?

http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_sky_files/image015.jpg

Faith and reason do not make close companions. Earth being created in seven 24 hour days? Is that reason or faith. A flood that covered the earth in tens of thousands of feet of water and then disappears, vanishes? Is that faith or reason. Reason says both notions are ridiculous. Faith says they're fact.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

I wonder what examples there are of science benefiting from faith and reason rather than observation and experimentation alone.

Miller didn't say that science would benefit from faith and reason. He said that True Knowledge comes from a combination of both. Science itself certainly doesn't benefit in any way from faith.

I don't know this guy Miller, and I don't know what he means by "faith" or "True Knowledge", but if all he's telling me is that for a happy life I should keep a balance between my head and my heart (intellect and emotion), then I would say that's probably good advice, because most of us humans need that balance.

But if he's telling me that the only way to really understand the world is to have [theistic] faith, along with logical reasoning, then I say he's entitled to his opinion, but he's full of crap.

0 Replies

"Genetic Death": The Evolution Meat Grinder

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know