Germ theory of disease

At the very least, educators should be allowed to teach the significant scientific evidence against evolutionary theory. That can be done without any mention of God.

Click to expand...

It can't, though. There isn't any evidence against evolution that doesn't eventually get back to problems with one bit of scripture or another.

Please provide some backup for your assertion that Pasteur was an antievolutionist - remembering that the "life from nonlife" issue refers to abiogenesis, not evolution, since evolution can occur very easily in populations regardless of how the first cell got here.

excuse me, but scientist watch germs causing disease alot. They study what it does to cells. Many release poisons that weaken walls, or your system.

how muhch do you want to bet, stormy that your aunt would have gotten better without prayer? I will bet MY religion on it. Also you are crazy if you do not seek a doctor if you are sick. If you dont want to thats fine, have fun dying from rabies, or malaria, or lyme disease. 'cause "God" sure aint gonna fix ya up there.

I most certainly do not co0me close to accepting the germ theory of disease. I think that the subject holds a good strong base for a fiction novel.

seebs,

Well, I don't think that sufficient grounds have been laid for me to believe that the Bible teaches, or that the biblical writers functioned from, a view of disease as exclusively caused by evil spirits. There are plenty of passages all over the Gospels in which Jesus heals and casts out demons.  There are many passages in which Jesus heals people's ailments with no reference made to demonic activity, while elsewhere in the immediate vicinity of those passages are pericopes detailing exorcisms.  They are obviously seen as separate problems with separate solutions.

Now, whether you believe that *any* illnesses are caused by evil spirits or not is a different matter. But do not make the mistake of thinking that all early Christians believed that all sicknesses were spiritual in cause - in fact, Jesus seemed to try to steer those thusly misled in a different direction (John 9:1-3). Besides, the doctors of the time (among whom was Luke) were not witch doctors, but people who practiced primitive medical treatments to treat physical problems.

Once again, there is no doubt that there were occasions in the Gospels in which certain afflictions are attributed to demons (e.g., the man who threw himself in the fire = epilepsy), but the majority of the time demons are mentioned as involved, the affliction was demon-possession itself.  My current cosmology does allow for occasions of spiritual oppression to manifest themselves in physical infirmities.

The usual reason cited for the apparent lack of demonically-caused sicknesses today is the change of culture.  In primitive cultures, Christian missionaries are still reporting obviously spiritual issues that manifest themselves physically.  The Christians treat these problems as spiritual problems, and whole villages are converted in sheer amazement.  Perhaps certain cultures and mindsets allow more ideal conditions for demonic activity than ours.  Perhaps Satan (yes, I believe in a devil) understands that in our Christianity-inundated society, widespread exorcisms would be "bad for business."  That is my current belief.

What the Bible *does* tell us about disease, which is good advice today, is that we should minister to the sick, and comfort them. And that stays true whether disease is caused by germs or evil spirits.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Amen Didaskomenos. Very well put.

Originally posted by seebs
Very good points... Still, I think there have been many people who interpreted the Bible as teaching that disease was a function of "spirits", and who made mistakes as a result. I think people often treat the Bible as a replacement for paying attention to the measurable physical qualities of the world.

Click to expand...

Once again, we agree.

It is proven beyond doubt, that bacteria and viruses cause deseases.

One can observe easily bacteria and not so easily viruses.

One can observe the reaction of the human immune system to those things.

One can observe the effects of bacteria and viruses on the various human cells.

One can observe the effects of certain medications to those same bacteria and viruses.

Of course there is the human factor to add. The mental situation of the human in question can influence the reaction of the immune system. But nonethless there are medications needed to help the immune system.

The observation, that germs cause deseases are at least a provable fairy tale

And your point was?

One can observe evolution--new traits, improved existing traits, natural selection, speciation, etc.

One can observe the distinct lines of evidence linking species we know for a fact to be related (dogs and wolves, cats and wild cats).

One can use those exact same lines of evidence to say other species, like humans and chimps, are closely related as well. In the end, all of them are.

One can make extremely specific, testable predictions on homology percentages between any two species, vestigial DNA, biographic distribution of life, transitional fossils, and other fundamentally different sets of data. No other model except common descent with modification is able to successfully predict these things, although they can be accomodated with ad hoc rationalizations, much like anything else you could observe in support of this theory. However, this also leads the other hypotheses to have 0 explanatory value and be totally pseudoscientific.

Of course, there is the human factor to add. The mental situation of the human in question can influence the reaction to any amount of evidence you can ever present. If they have already decided that the only evidence that will convince them is a time-lapse set of clear orbital photographs from the Precambrian to the present showing in minute detail every stage of evolution... you get the picture. Some will continue believing no matter the evidence, even if the stars spelled themselves out to read 'you bozos, I used evolution to make you!'

Similarly, if people had theological reasons to believe germs did not cause disease, but spirits did, no amount of evidence would convince some of them. They would use the exact same denial methods fundamentalists use against evolution--"you only have statistical links between bacteria and disease--show me a germ directly causing symptoms'. No scientist will be able to meet the challenge, because even with observation we can only infer and overwhelmingly corroborate that the germ is, in fact, the cause, and not something else.

The observations of germs causing disease and evolution producing the diversity of life are both as 'proven' as anything gets in science, and neither are fairy tales--except to people who have a pre-set agenda which requires them to reject the hypothesis out of hand before even attempting to understand it.

One can observe easily bacteria and not so easily viruses.


True, viruses attack in a way like this.
virus attach to cell and push a piece of itself into the cell. It pumps out some sort of simple substance..... virul protien I think...... and this causes many viruses to form withi g the cell,, eventually bursting. The viruses are then off to new cells.

Yes, but viruses are a lot smaller than the usual bacteria. Meaning one needs much better (aka more expensive) microscopes to observe them.

I am quite shocked, that there are people out there, that think, that bacteria and viruses are fairy tales...

Actually, viruses provide an interesting source for more evidence in favor of evolution.

In certain cases, viruses can insert their own genetic material into the host's genome. (HIV is an example of a virus that is very adept at this). If the insertion happens in the reproductive cells, there is a chance that the viral DNA can then get passed on to the organism's descendants.

Scientists refer to these as endogenous retroviruses, or ERVs. The human genome is in fact full of them. Where evolution comes into play is when scientists examine the similarities in ERVs between species. If two species are closely related by common descent, then theory predicts that they should share similar ERVs as well. As expected, evolution passes this test with flying colors.

The following paper illustrates one experiment where the ERV relationships were tested:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254

Initial post by seebs: "Does anyone here not accept the germ theory of disease? Does anyone here deny that the Bible clearly describes a theory of disease involving evil spirits?"

Posted later by seebs: "Very good points... Still, I think there have been many people who interpreted the Bible as teaching that disease was a function of "spirits", and who made mistakes as a result. I think people often treat the Bible as a replacement for paying attention to the measurable physical qualities of the world."

Seebs has definitely backed off his initial proclamation that the Bible "clearly" describes a theory of disease involving evil spirits. He now admits that there have been people who misinterpreted the Bible.

It's not the fault of the Bible if people misinterpret it. Newton considered the Bible to be the greatest of all books, and he certainly didn't use it as "a replacement for paying attention to the measurable physical qualities of the world." Many of the great scientists in history were Christians or theists.

Unless seebs can cite some Biblical verses that suggest evil spirits cause all or most diseases, it has become obvious that he's just blowing smoke.

It's not the fault of the Bible if people misinterpret it.

Click to expand...

I think that is seebs' point. I think he considers evolution-denial a misinterpretation of the Bible.

Newton considered the Bible to be the greatest of all books, and he certainly didn't use it as "a replacement for paying attention to the measurable physical qualities of the world." Many of the great scientists in history were Christians or theists.

Click to expand...

Kenneth Miller, Denis Lamoureaux, Glenn Morton, Keith Miller, ... maybe not "Great Scientists", but Christians - and more true to science than Duane Gish and his ilk, by far.

Unless seebs can cite some Biblical verses that suggest evil spirits cause all or most diseases, it has become obvious that he's just blowing smoke.

Click to expand...

What if he just shows that some Bible passages can be interpreted to suggest evil spirits cause all or most diseases? Would that not support his contention admirably?

"There isn't any evidence against evolution that doesn't eventually get back to problems with one bit of scripture or another."

Cantuar's statement is balderdash:

A Scientific Critique Of Evolution

"What if he just shows that some Bible passages can be interpreted to suggest evil spirits cause all or most diseases? Would that not support his contention admirably?"

Where's the beef?! So far seebs and Jerry have failed to post any relevant verses. I'm waiting.

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
"There isn't any evidence against evolution that doesn't eventually get back to problems with one bit of scripture or another."

Cantuar's statement is balderdash:

A Scientific Critique Of Evolution

Click to expand...

Cantuar, he is right. As he has clearly demonstrated with this link to Spetner, some of the so-called 'evidence' against evolution just goes back to hand-waving.

Hand-waving doesn't derive directly from any bit of Scripture - its just what evolution-deniers do to cool themselves off when they are presented with evidence in favor of evolution.

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
"What if he just shows that some Bible passages can be interpreted to suggest evil spirits cause all or most diseases? Would that not support his contention admirably?"

Where's the beef?! So far seebs and Jerry have failed to post any relevant verses. I'm waiting.

Click to expand...

The bit about the paranoid schizophrenic fellow (or two fellows) in Gergesenes who were possessed by "Legion"? Would that not qualify as a verse that could be misinterpreted to show disease was caused by evil spirits?

Do you deny that there are any passages in the Bible that could be interpreted (correctly or not) to suggest that evil spirits cause all or most disease?