Pasteur and spontaneous generation

[grimbly]

Sorry, these threads kinda take on a life of their own and do tend to wander (some may even say they evolve). If it seems that way, I apologize cause I'm not trying to pick on you. The point I and others have been making is that the information argument is a red herring. We can't even define what it is, or how to measure it, yet the argument has been promoted that somehow, someway information proves evolution can't happen. All I'm saying along with everybody else is "Lets see the numbers". Unfortunately the argument sometimes gets muddled across all the cross chatter (and yes I'm guilty of that too).

 

[withreason]

Sorry, these threads kinda take on a life of their own and do tend to wander (some may even say they evolve). If it seems that way, I apologize cause I'm not trying to pick on you. The point I and others have been making is that the information argument is a red herring. We can't even define what it is, or how to measure it, yet the argument has been promoted that somehow, someway information proves evolution can't happen. All I'm saying along with everybody else is "Lets see the numbers". Unfortunately the argument sometimes gets muddled across all the cross chatter (and yes I'm guilty of that too).

a very respectable reply grimbly; and I absolutely agree with you. as a creationist, i have to address many questions by faith, I may not have a great deal of knowledge in this subject, but, I also am confronted with some serious faith issues from the progress of science. It is only My firm conviction to faith that allows me to overcome some of these issues. and I know that the advancement of knowledge in DNA has been remarkable, yet it is still in it's infancy...and 98% is still theory,hypothesis, and outright speculation. so, until absolute is attained! I will question!

 

[Brennan]

I dont mind you asking me a specific question! but dont accuse me of being vague, when we have been generalizing for the last 5 or 6 posts, is there something specific I mentioned that you would like me to define ??

Information being lost: when and how? The best I've got is this:

when arguing the transition from fish to mammal, now we are talking about a loss of information, and that at a substantially high level

What information has been lost? Why is it at a 'high level'? This makes no sense to me at all.

 

[withreason]

Information being lost: when and how? The best I've got is this:What information has been lost? Why is it at a 'high level'? This makes no sense to me at all.

well..
J. Wittbrodt, A. Meyer, and M. Schartl
answered that very question with this....

Why are there more genes in fish than in mammals?
Total genome duplications (increases in ploidy) and individual
gene duplications obviously played an important evolutionary
role in shaping the vertebrate genome.

they blamed it on gene duplication.
it will take me some time to find it, and I have to work tomorrow, but, I will post it!

 

[grimbly]

well..
J. Wittbrodt,A. Meyer,and M. Schartl
answered that very question with this....

Why are there more genes in fish than in mammals?
Total genome duplications (increases in ploidy) and individual
gene duplications obviously played an important evolutionary
role in shaping the vertebrate genome.

they blamed it on gene duplication.
it will take me some time to find it, and I have to work tomorrow, but, I will post it!

Found it, haven't read it yet
http://www.evolutionsbiologie.uni-konstanz.de/pdf1-182/P081.pdf

 

[grimbly]

maybe it's just me, but I don't understand why fish having more genes (if they do) is some sort of problem. Fish are complicated too. They see, hear,smell,feel, taste, metabolize, and enmasse move to the other side of the lake, every time I put a boat in the water. In short they're complicated critters just like us (as far as biochemical systems goes), so I wouldn't be surprised if we had comparable gene count. I guess I'm missing the significance of the argument.

 

[Brennan]

well..
J. Wittbrodt,A. Meyer,and M. Schartl
answered that very question with this....

Why are there more genes in fish than in mammals?

Answer: goto google; search for 'fish genes'; find this article. Ray like fish have more copies of certain genes than mammals. Why do they have more copies? Well because there's a mutation mechanism for copying genes (which sounds to me suspiciously like a mechanism that would increase the information in a genome), which has happened more times in fish than mammals for these particular genes since the lines split. That's a looong time ago.

BTW I see no reference in your post to information being lost. Are you trying to suggest that fish genomes are longer because information was lost en route to humanity? Well here's news, the "largest known genome belongs to the single-celled amoeba Amoeba duria, with over 6 billion base pairs.[1] ". (That's from wiki btw). And guess what? Scientists don't care! Length of genome does not mean something is from further up the ladder evolutionarily speaking. Look: the process changes information, adds stuff and takes stuff away. This creationist blurb about 'lost information' is a total white elephant.

 

[grimbly]

Brennan.. Bad Link

 

[Brennan]

Thanks. Works for me now. This seems like a distraction from the point anyway.

 

[grimbly]

a very respectable reply grimbly; and I absolutely agree with you. as a creationist, i have to address many questions by faith, I may not have a great deal of knowledge in this subject, but, I also am confronted with some serious faith issues from the progress of science. It is only My firm conviction to faith that allows me to overcome some of these issues. and I know that the advancement of knowledge in DNA has been remarkable, yet it is still in it's infancy...and 98% is still theory,hypothesis, and outright speculation. so, until absolute is attained! I will question!

From your quote in bold: I was lucky I guess because even though I went to a parochial grade school, high school and Catholic University, I never had to face a confrontation between religion and science. I guess the approach I was taught probably was very different from what you are used to. Basically the philosophy i was taught was that good science and good religion are NEVER in conflict and if a conflict does arise, then at least one of the entities is bad. The reason why there should be no conflict is because the two activities are orthogonal to each other...good science is only concerned with figuring out how this universe works and good religion is only concerned with our relationship with God. Now if somebody tries to use science to "prove " there is no God, then they have crossed the line from physics to metaphysics and are preaching garbage. Likewise if a religion says that this is the way that the universe MUST work, then they too are preaching garbage since they too have crossed the line from metaphysics to physics. Anyway, I guess I am lucky in that I didn't have to fight that battle.

Now as you've obviously noticed, the science guys defend their turf pretty aggressively, some might even say with religious fervor. There is a reason why you get a flurry of responses. Amongst scientists there is a very strong desire to attain some truth (note small t not TRUTH™) and if they feel that something being presented is not right, they will jump all over it. Sooner or later I will post something that will be wrong and even though other posters may agree with the position I am defending, I expect that they will jump all over me and correct my mistake. Which will be just fine since I will have learned something and hopefully will not make that mistake again (Hey there's an infinite field of mistakes to pick from so it's not like I'm going to run out of them)

So where am I going with this. Well you can continue to try and attack the science but I should caution you that what we have today (even as incomplete as it is) is pretty darn good. Even though we don't know everything (and we never will), we do know enough to prevent us from backtracking to previously held positions. I think Isaac Asimov put it best in this little essay http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

So what's the alternative, I don't have any easy answers but there is a guy who did fight the same battle you are going through. May I suggest that you look into a book by Ken Miller called Finding Darwin's God. I haven't read it but people whose opinion I respect have said it's a good read. If nothing else look at the reviews at amazon .com. I t may or may not help resolve some difficulties.

And with that.....Good Luck

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well written, grimbly.

I have Miller's book and it is great.

However, I'm not entirely sure that it is suited to helping those who are struggling to find balance. It addresses the topics of YEC, ID, and TE. It also castigates Dawkins and a few others like him -- that might be healthy for those who believe that evolution = atheism.

You get the distinct sense that Miller has wrestled with the balance, yet it is largely absent in the book. I wanted more about how he thinks God works with and within it all.

Miller does believe in miracles. He references his belief about the eucharist -- but I wasn't clear if he was Catholic/transubstantiation (my first guess) or some denom. that affirm consubstantiation. In either case, some miracle occurs (in his beliefs) every time he takes communion.

YMMV

HTH

 

[Mallon]

I think Godfrey and Smith's Paradigms on Pilgrimage would be a better place to start. It certainly left an impression on me.

 

[grimbly]

Good call guys. I told him I was shotting blind, so i appreciate the recommendations. Since I found my own accommodation (through no fault of my own), I had no inclination to read up extensively in this area but rather had to rely on the opinions of others.

thanks

 

[gluadys]

Miller does believe in miracles. He references his belief about the eucharist -- but I wasn't clear if he was Catholic/transubstantiation (my first guess) or some denom. that affirm consubstantiation. In either case, some miracle occurs (in his beliefs) every time he takes communion.

YMMV

HTH

It's not clear from the book, but from other sources I understand that Miller is Catholic.

 

[withreason]

From your quote in bold: I was lucky I guess because even though I went to a parochial grade school, high school and Catholic University, I never had to face a confrontation between religion and science. I guess the approach I was taught probably was very different from what you are used to. Basically the philosophy i was taught was that good science and good religion are NEVER in conflict and if a conflict does arise, then at least one of the entities is bad. The reason why there should be no conflict is because the two activities are orthogonal to each other...good science is only concerned with figuring out how this universe works and good religion is only concerned with our relationship with God. Now if somebody tries to use science to "prove " there is no God, then they have crossed the line from physics to metaphysics and are preaching garbage. Likewise if a religion says that this is the way that the universe MUST work, then they too are preaching garbage since they too have crossed the line from metaphysics to physics. Anyway, I guess I am lucky in that I didn't have to fight that battle.

Actually, this is the strangest of all conceptual beliefs,” that conflicts between science and theology” are moot arguments. In Christianity; the paradigm can be described in one word..Faith! and faith excludes reasoning.
And from the teaching of Christ, it seems apparent that faith in believing what Mosos wrote, is an essential companion , to the paradigm established by Christ, John 5:46-47 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
The creationist that holds to a literal translation accepts this verse unconditionally, ( Christ verifying the authenticity of what Moses wrote), we conclude that the scripture is not left up to the readers translation, for the author’s meaning is not subject to interpretation, only discovery when needed! Such as Allegorical symbols, or ceremonial practice, prophecy, ect…but we look for the markers, or parallel meaning, or supporting evidence in history combined with biblical confirmation within the scripture.
When science” Evolution” attempt to merge…TE…”just for example”, the creationist identifies some very serious issues that could be defined by some, as heretical, the essential paradigm to obtain salvation.IE..faith through the belief in scripture,” the word” is being infringed upon with the clear denial of the authors intended meaning in the first two chapters of Genesis. I think most of us “creationist” are compelled by the fearful consequences of this teaching being wrong!
For example…vegetation being created on the third day, if there was a long duration of time between each day , how would life continue without photosynthesis, if the Sun was not created until the fourth day?
In Re 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
That seems to remove the idea of a re-creation.
2Pe 3:5 -
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
And when we “the creationist” see the merging of science is attempting to re-construct the paradigms of Christian faith with multiple versions of creation/evolution concepts, we ask the obvious question…what happened to faith?? Without faith ye can do nothing!
And we think of verses like ….”because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
I gather that maybe creationists are more passionat about the potential for being deceived, and deceiving those on the fringes of salvation.

 

[grimbly]

I read what you wrote and I'm going to need some time to wrap my head around it (that's just me).

However I do want to address one statement that stands out. It's this one:

I gather that maybe creationists are more passionat about the potential for being deceived, and deceiving those on the fringes of salvation.

In my experience, there is no group of people I have met, that are more passionate about not being deceived or not deceiving others than scientists. As I mentioned in my previous post, sooner or later I will inadvertently say something that is either wrong or my reasoning will be faulty (i.e. I may be right but for the wrong reasons). I expect that someone from the science side will correct me, even though they may agree with the position I am defending. They will point out my errors not because they see a chance to take a cheap shot or they get a chance to show off their knowledge at the expense of another but rather they will correct me because they share a passion for being as factual and accurate as they possibly can be. It's what's expected of people in this profession...That should be the norm and in most cases it is!

I'll address the rest of your post later.

 

[Tinker Grey]

While grimbly gathers his thoughts, I'd like to address the statement that "faith excludes reason."

For me, faith is what I need when I reach the end of the path that reason takes me down.

Christian faith is not about excluding evidence and believing 9 impossible things before breakfast.

The Heart of Chrisitianity by Marcus Borg enumerates 4 different uses and meaning of the word Faith as used throughout history. These are assent, trust, fidelity, and vision.

Real faith is trusting God to be God, being attentive to the relationship (fidelity), and trusting that the universe is fulfills God's purposes (vision). Assent is necessary, but in a trivial sort of way -- how do you trust God if you don't believe God exists, e.g.

Fundamentally, I believe God created this universe. I believe he gave us reasoning faculties and matching curiosity. The universe is to be examined and understood -- it reveals God's majesty and glory and power.

There are two kinds of knowledge: revealed and experienced. God gave us both. But when revealed knowlege and experienced knowledge conflict, what should be done? The problem with revealed knowledge is that my understanding depends on me. It depends on my background. In contrast, experienced knowledge by-and-large can be repeated and tested.

If there is a conflict, I've either misunderstood the evidence, or I misunderstand scripture. (A third possiblity is that scripture is just flat-out wrong, but we'll save that for another discussion another day.) If I test the evidence to the best of my ability and yet still find conflict, then what must be true? That my understanding of scripture must be faulty. This is natural and reasonable and inherent in the nature of revealed knowledge.

For me, then, it is quite natural to revise my understanding of the revealed to match that which I can touch, taste, hear, and see.

HTH

 

[withreason]

I read what you wrote and I'm going to need some time to wrap my head around it (that's just me).

However I do want to address one statement that stands out. It's this one:



In my experience, there is no group of people I have met, that are more passionate about not being deceived or not deceiving others than scientists. As I mentioned in my previous post, sooner or later I will inadvertently say something that is either wrong or my reasoning will be faulty (i.e. I may be right but for the wrong reasons). I expect that someone from the science side will correct me, even though they may agree with the position I am defending. They will point out my errors not because they see a chance to take a cheap shot or they get a chance to show off their knowledge at the expense of another but rather they will correct me because they share a passion for being as factual and accurate as they possibly can be. It's what's expected of people in this profession...That should be the norm and in most cases it is!

I'll address the rest of your post later.

grimbly; I do understand what you are saying, yet, the potential for being wrong within the science community can be resolved, corrected, and even understood more precisely through the discovery of error. and your colleagues are dedicated to a strict compliance of precise and accurate dialogue as well.
I did not intend to stab sarcastically at science, only to imply that the consequences are non-reversible if it turns out to be offensive to God!

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't believe it is possible to offend God in an attempt to understand his creation.

Drawing improper philosophical conclusions is another matter though.

 

[withreason]

While grimbly gathers his thoughts, I'd like to address the statement that "faith excludes reason."

For me, faith is what I need when I reach the end of the path that reason takes me down.

Christian faith is not about excluding evidence and believing 9 impossible things before breakfast.

The Heart of Chrisitianity by Marcus Borg enumerates 4 different uses and meaning of the word Faith as used throughout history. These are assent, trust, fidelity, and vision.

Real faith is trusting God to be God, being attentive to the relationship (fidelity), and trusting that the universe is fulfills God's purposes (vision). Assent is necessary, but in a trivial sort of way -- how do you trust God if you don't believe God exists, e.g.

Fundamentally, I believe God created this universe. I believe he gave us reasoning faculties and matching curiosity. The universe is to be examined and understood -- it reveals God's majesty and glory and power.

There are two kinds of knowledge: revealed and experienced. God gave us both. But when revealed knowlege and experienced knowledge conflict, what should be done? The problem with revealed knowledge is that my understanding depends on me. It depends on my background. In contrast, experienced knowledge by-and-large can be repeated and tested.

If there is a conflict, I've either misunderstood the evidence, or I misunderstand scripture. (A third possiblity is that scripture is just flat-out wrong, but we'll save that for another discussion another day.) If I test the evidence to the best of my ability and yet still find conflict, then what must be true? That my understanding of scripture must be faulty. This is natural and reasonable and inherent in the nature of revealed knowledge.

For me, then, it is quite natural to revise my understanding of the revealed to match that which I can touch, taste, hear, and see.

HTH

this is a very good post; and I believe you defined most peoples reasoning when confronted with the evidence that is observable in todays world. and, with that there seems to be individual discretion at determining what is faith? and how my belief from what I observe, can fit comfortably within my assessment of faith. and there is a merging of conflicting reasoning.
and we try to dilute the conflict at the expense of compromise....and, the compromise is always the integrity of the written word of God that we claim to believe.