Should SDAs have a scientific theory of creation?

[Laodicean]

What does that possibly have to do with anything I have said. When you receive penicillin you are not injected with fungal spores. Drugs are not bacteria or fungi. Most everything used did come from some type of organism as they search for the components involved but that does not mean that the molecular components still carry the genetic information of the source. The drugs are made of the effective chemical molecules.

RC, I will admit that I don't know what exactly you are saying. And what on earth does the structure of ampicillin have to do with what you and Solja were discussing? You have lost me entirely, and I deserve it, since you weren't even talking to me. That's what I get for meddling

Stay well, and peace be with you and me ....

 

[Avonia]

In the case of SDA scientists, if they embrace macroevolutionary theory, I am tempted to think that, surely, it must be because they don't want to be ridiculed, else why would they accept theories that tend to undermine their SDA (seventh-day Sabbath/second advent) worldview?

This statement saddens me.

 

[Avonia]

Alexander Pope might not have appreciated that allusion.

So interesting you bring Alexander Pope up in this thread: (OK, maybe I brought it up first!)

"Slave to no sect, who takes no private road, But looks through Nature up to Nature's God."

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

RC, I will admit that I don't know what exactly you are saying. And what on earth does the structure of ampicillin have to do with what you and Solja were discussing? You have lost me entirely, and I deserve it, since you weren't even talking to me. That's what I get for meddling

Stay well, and peace be with you and me ....

I think that is one of the big problems when we talk science with those who have no scientific training. They don't understand what we are saying and then when they read something of a scientific nature they don't understand that either and misinterpret what was being said.

This becomes an even bigger problem when the science is attempted to be interpreted through a particular religious tradition.

By the way the structure of ampicillin is a simple molecule. Genetic material inside a cell, any kind of cell, is far more advanced and made up of amino acids known as DNA (see image below).

Why this is related is because you said this statement:
"Solja247, don't let RC's superior attitude (bless his/her heart) intimidate you. You were right when you said "Resistant bacteria is resistant because the body does not recognise it anymore (as it has lost genetic information) So it still has de-evolved."

That statement is false. The body still recognizes drug resistant bacteria. It has not lost genetic information the genetic information has changed allowing the bacteria to resist the affects of a drug. It has not de-evolved it has evolved and it is now in a position to continue to live and reproduce and spread making it more able to survive which is the basis of natural selection, the more able to survive, survive and reproduce. That is evolution.

Then you moved on to drugs having no relation to what we were talking about but it most have seemed relevant to you.

 

[Avonia]

Genetic material inside a cell, any kind of cell, is far more advanced and made up of amino acids known as DNA (see image below).

RC, I thought you might enjoy this TED video - if you haven't seen it already: David Agus: A new strategy in the war on cancer | Video on TED.com

 

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by Laodicean:

"In the case of SDA scientists, if they embrace macroevolutionary theory, I am tempted to think that, surely, it must be because they don't want to be ridiculed, else why would they accept theories that tend to undermine their SDA (seventh-day Sabbath/second advent) worldview?"

This statement saddens me.

Why does it sadden you, Avonia? I'm not suggesting that SDA scientists should reject any evidence that would undermine their worldview. I am suggesting that there is no basis for embracing a theory as poorly validated as macroevolution, and if an SDA scientist is convicted and grounded in the SDA worldview -- that of an involved Creator who is remembered every seventh day, and of a looking forwad to the second advent of Christ (or why else would they carry the name SDA) -- then it must be something other than the scientific evidence (or, rather, nonevidence) that would undermine their worldview. Is it fear of the ridicule that is used by mainstream scientists to keep creation theory at bay? Or is it just a case of being over-awed, dazzled, even overwhelmed by the majority opinion?

 

[Avonia]

I am suggesting that there is no basis for embracing a theory as poorly validated as macroevolution, and if an SDA scientist is convicted and grounded in the SDA worldview

I would hope that my child is not grounded into any religious view - but rather that religion helps ground my child in her knowledge of Creator. Just as I hope that all inquiry - including science - helps ground my child in her knowledge of Creator.

Because of this, I respect her path of inquiry. At the moment, because she is in an Adventist school, it is her view that God created in six literal days. I don't "correct" her by imposing my view. As she continues learning, she will reach her own conclusions. I have no preference whether her's are similar to mine. But I do have a preference that she is able to inquire openly.

 

[Laodicean]

Okay, RC, you have moved me stir my lazy brain back into action on this subject, so I will attempt again to engage you on it.

I remember now why I interjected when I did. Solja247 had said the following:

"Resistant bacteria is resistant because the body does not recognise it anymore (as it has lost genetic information) So it still has de-evolved."

I'm not sure if Solja was referring to the host or the resistant bacteria that had lost genetic information, but regardless, I felt your answer was irrelevant when you said the following:

"...Just to help you out a little the drug resistant bacteria are drug resistant in the Petri dish it has nothing to do with the body's antibodies not recognizing the bacteria."

I did not see how your answer followed his statement. As to the exact mechanism of how bacteria become resistant, whether by gene transfer or by chemically modifying the antibiotic, or modifying the target site so that it becomes unrecognizable by the antibiotic, or by loss of genetic information, as proposed by Solja -- he would need to research that statement further if he is to stand by it -- it certainly does not mean that
bacteria are drug resistant only in a Petri dish. They are resistant in vivo as well as in vitro. And that was why I supplied a quote that showed that the Petri dish was not the only place that resistance occurred.

Of course, this is probably not what you were intending to mean, but that would not be the fault of the nonscientist (me) but the fault of the scientist who failed to express himself clearly.

Further, just because bacteria have developed resistance, this does not necessarily mean that they have evolved into a new species. They are still bacteria. Yet it is this local change (or microevolution) that is used by evolutionists to claim that macroevolution occurs, that one species can evolve into an entirely new species; i.e., a dinosaur morphing into a bird, or a single-celled organism morphing into a human....given enough time.

A more reasonable and supportable position would be that development of resistance to an antibiotic in a life form would be the result of an inherent ability to vary and adapt to changes in the environment. Nothing more.

 

[Laodicean]

I would hope that my child is not grounded into any religious view - but rather that religion helps ground my child in her knowledge of Creator. Just as I hope that all inquiry - including science - helps ground my child in her knowledge of Creator.

Because of this, I respect her path of inquiry. At the moment, because she is in an Adventist school, it is her view that God created in six literal days. I don't "correct" her by imposing my view. As she continues learning, she will reach her own conclusions. I have no preference whether her's are similar to mine. But I do have a preference that she is able to inquire openly.

I think you give the wrong meaning to "grounded", Avonia. By "grounded" I don't mean an unthinking, brainwashed belief. I mean that if an SDA scientist has studied his beliefs to the point where he is sure of its foundation and feels it is based on reason, and finds that it contributes to a living relationship with his God, that such a convicted scientist is not going to easily give up that view when a poorly supported theory like macroevolution comes along, just because it is held by the majority. If he is grounded (in the sense of sure of what he believes) and yet embraces macroevolutionary theory, then it makes me think that there has got to be some other reason at play, not because he has been swayed by the evidence.

Please note that I am always referring to macroevolution. That is where the point of contention is. Evolutionists like to conflate micro and macro and then claim that macro is a fact when it is only micro that is a fact, and then they go further to say that because creationists oppose the macro (which they label only by the generic term of "evolution") that therefore, creationists are anti-scientists. That is just smoke and mirrors, not truth.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

it certainly does not mean that
bacteria are drug resistant only in a Petri dish.

Arrghh!

All that is needed to falsify a statement is one example which shows the statement false. I never said it only occurs in a petri dish, why would anyone care if drug resistance only occured in a petri dish?

Critical thinking is a skill. Take the time to develop it.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

RC, I thought you might enjoy this TED video - if you haven't seen it already: David Agus: A new strategy in the war on cancer | Video on TED.com

Thanks I will try to watch it all later. Right now by watching to the 2 and a half minute mark I can see he is oversimplifing. Saying cancer diagnosis is simply pattern recognition. As a cytotechnologist recognizing the shape of cells is how we identfy cancer and precancerous cells but that is not the end of it (histology is pattern recognition though as it looks at tissue level). He goes on to say there is no molecular tests used but that is untrue. The Pathologist will order immunohistochemical tests and especially flow cytometry for Lymphomas. Which gives very specific answers. The immunohistochemical panels narrow down the focus and identify the source of the cancer cells which is important to know when deciding the treatment.

They also do molecular tests such as identifing the specific microsatellite on a gene which causes the oncogenic tendancy of a cell. But those are like 3,000 dollar tests and we are limited by the treatments we have so it does not help a lot to do that test but within a few years the technology will make it affordable. Actually the greatest changes will come with engineered cancer treatment drugs as drugs are custom made at the atomic level (nanotechnology)

His focus on prevention is good. But Children get cancer healthy young people get cancer in fact certain disease are only found in younger people like testicular cancer like Lance Armstrong had.

Actually I finished listening while writing this.

 

[Laodicean]

RC, I thought you might enjoy this TED video - if you haven't seen it already: David Agus: A new strategy in the war on cancer Video on TED.com

Avonia, I know this post was not directed to me, but I listened to David Agus and found the lecture to be fascinating! Fascinating! Fascinating! Plus here's a man thinking outside the box, with ideas that are fresh, innovative, and just plain exciting. I imagine he will have an uphill battle getting past the status quo, but more power to him! And, I loved his recognition of proteomics. A lot of answers lie in this fledgling field. I remember thinking, when I first read about proteomics, that this is exactly where research should go, straight into this new frontier. It is bound to reveal a lot of exciting information about how our amazing bodies work.

 

[AzA]

Laodicean --
Let's zoom out from content for just a second.

Imagine with me two circles, one small, one large.
In deference to the largeness of God, let's designate the large circle "knowledge of God" (KOG) and the small circle "knowledge of religion" (KOR)

There are many ways to model the relationship between these two circles. In my ideal model, the small circle is embedded in the larger.
I was raised by people who grew to encourage me in that direction.

My people did not teach me to treat the smaller circle as if it were the larger: they did not teach me to conflate KOR with KOG. I learned to do that elsewhere (no, I won't tell you where! ). I'm happily unlearning that lesson.

What I got from Avonia's comments earlier was a thought along these lines: pursuing knowledge only so far as KOR necessarily limits one's experience of knowledge-of-God because KOR is the smaller circle. Opening up the pursuit with knowledge-of-God as the target instead may allow one to access KOR. But KOG is not dependent on KOR.

I'd love to see you and Avonia explore that thought. I just wasn't sure if it had reached you yet.

A secondary comment -- for what it's worth: If we assign motives to people that we have not yet engaged, we're assigning prematurely. Some fundamentalist atheists do this by assuming any of the following: that religious people have not engaged their respective religious beliefs in a logical or systematic way; that religious people are using their religions to mask a universal sense of insignificance and a fear of death; that religious people depend on the subjectivities of religion to avoid facing the objectivities of routine material life; that religious people defer their free will and judgment to religious authorities...

There may be some religious people who do any or all of these things. But it would be premature for an atheist to so tag any religious person he/she hadn't spent time in dialogue with. Tagging before dialogue is not in good faith.

I think it might be helpful for you to initiate dialogue with some active, publishing Adventist scientists. If you do, you can ask about their research, their experiences, their backgrounds, and their views. You might need to assure them that you are simply interested in learning about them and their process -- as the mother of a young science-inclined man -- and you have no interest in questioning their religious sincerity or character. Of course I couldn't vouch for whatever they might wish to share with you, but if you were successful in making and sustaining contact, I think that would be valuable.

You might start with a department chair or two. If they aren't able to talk with you directly, ask them to recommend a faculty member.

 

[Avonia]

My people did not teach me to treat the smaller circle as if it were the larger: they did not teach me to conflate KOR with KOG. I learned to do that elsewhere (no, I won't tell you where! ). I'm happily unlearning that lesson.

A sad product of this confusion is the gap between parent and child that occurs when the parent is so bound to their view that they can not celebrate their child's.

How nice when a "good Adventist" celebrates their child becoming a "good Hindu."

At the moment, I can't think of a more relevant insight to the topic of this thread.

 

[Laodicean]

Laodicean --
Let's zoom out from content for just a second.

Imagine with me two circles, one small, one large.
In deference to the largeness of God, let's designate the large circle "knowledge of God" (KOG) and the small circle "knowledge of religion" (KOR)

There are many ways to model the relationship between these two circles. In my ideal model, the small circle is embedded in the larger.
I was raised by people who grew to encourage me in that direction.

My people did not teach me to treat the smaller circle as if it were the larger: they did not teach me to conflate KOR with KOG. I learned to do that elsewhere (no, I won't tell you where! ). I'm happily unlearning that lesson.

What I got from Avonia's comments earlier was a thought along these lines: pursuing knowledge only so far as KOR necessarily limits one's experience of knowledge-of-God because KOR is the smaller circle. Opening up the pursuit with knowledge-of-God as the target instead may allow one to access KOR. But KOG is not dependent on KOR.

I'd love to see you and Avonia explore that thought. I just wasn't sure if it had reached you yet.

I like your circles illustration, AzA. I, too, would put KOR inside of KOG. For me, KOR is the way we learn more and more about what KOG consists of, or of what God is like. We need KOR. I think sometimes people mix up religion with religiosity and then religion gets a bad rap due to the annoying qualities of religiosity, or due to an incorrect KOR.

One thing I didn't understand is your statement that KOG is not dependent on KOR. Is it possible to get to know what God is like without KOR, where KOR consists of ideas related to the nature and personality and will and purposes of God? I can see how KORiosity becomes an obstacle when these insights from KOR become a list of dos and don't by which we hammer ourselves and others into "place" whatever that place means to us in our religiosity.

So if, as you say, KOG is not dependent on KOR, then where do you get your information about the God that you worship? Without KOR, we would be left with a vague and amorphous "warm fuzzy" re some Force that runs the universe, and that's about it. We are left with not much else, unless we make up ideas of our own of what that "warm fuzzy" (or maybe "cold prickly"?) does or does not do in relation to ourselves. I'm sure that you don't believe in making up stuff. So please explain that statement for me.

KOG, the way I see it, is not based on feelings, but on an understanding that grows out of specific information about God. Of course, in understanding what God is really like, feelings can follow...or not. It is wonderful when there are good feelings, but not a disaster when there come days when feeling fades away and all we have left is the facts in which we have placed our faith.

Tell me more about how you see it.

 

[Laodicean]

A secondary comment -- for what it's worth: If we assign motives to people that we have not yet engaged, we're assigning prematurely. Some fundamentalist atheists do this by assuming any of the following: that religious people have not engaged their respective religious beliefs in a logical or systematic way; that religious people are using their religions to mask a universal sense of insignificance and a fear of death; that religious people depend on the subjectivities of religion to avoid facing the objectivities of routine material life; that religious people defer their free will and judgment to religious authorities...

There may be some religious people who do any or all of these things. But it would be premature for an atheist to so tag any religious person he/she hadn't spent time in dialogue with. Tagging before dialogue is not in good faith.

I agree. And thanks for the reminder, should I forget and indulge in similar judgmentalism.

 

[Avonia]

Is it possible to get to know what God is like without KOR

Just as possible as with it. We are in the middle of Creator's creation. It's on all sides of us.

KORiosity

Good one.

Without KOR, we would be left with a vague and amorphous "warm fuzzy" re some Force that runs the universe, and that's about it.

Your experience of Creator/creation is concrete. How you understand the broader fabric is about your perception of how these experiences connect to everything around/inside you.

Religion is largely the overlay of others' perceptions on your experience. This can be valuable. But it's not the same as gnosis/knowing. Although ideally it leads to it.

 

[Laodicean]

I think it might be helpful for you to initiate dialogue with some active, publishing Adventist scientists. If you do, you can ask about their research, their experiences, their backgrounds, and their views. You might need to assure them that you are simply interested in learning about them and their process -- as the mother of a young science-inclined man -- and you have no interest in questioning their religious sincerity or character. Of course I couldn't vouch for whatever they might wish to share with you, but if you were successful in making and sustaining contact, I think that would be valuable.

You might start with a department chair or two. If they aren't able to talk with you directly, ask them to recommend a faculty member.

sorry about splitting up your post like this, AzA, but I'm answering during my work pauses.

I suppose I could consider this suggestion, but truth to tell, I'm really not interested at the moment in dialoguing with scientists. I've had my fill of that over the last decade. I must admit that I have not dialogued with SDA scientists...well, except one time after a seminar. The subject was problems that creationists face in the world of science, and one of the problems was accounting for the geological column. At the end of the presentation, I collared the speaker (I forget who it was now) and asked him whether it was possible that the geological column could have formed quickly, over thousands of years instead of over millions or billions of years, due to local floods every so many years. He did not laugh at me, thankfully. Who knows, maybe they have considered that possibility and have either shot it down already or not .

Anyway, that was the extent of my interaction with SDA scientists. Of course, any chance I get, I'd probably love to pick their brains, but that is not a driving desire in me right now.

Right now, I'm just interested in gabbing with fellow believers and sharing insights back and forth. It is fun just to play with ideas and see where they take us.

 

[Avonia]

KOG, the way I see it, is not based on feelings, but on an understanding that grows out of specific information about God.

It might be interesting to have a thread about knowing/thinking/feeling.

Laodicean, when you walk past somebody and know their heart hurts, because you can feel it, that's information. When your heart is lifted by viewing God's creation - that's information.

Emotions are rich with information. This is why in the field of emotional intelligence we sometimes speak of emotions as information animated - or information in motion.

You can always trust your emotions - they are what they are. The question is knowing something about their origin and path into expression. Knowing their nature.

 

[Laodicean]

Avonia, I'm just learning my way around this forum and would like to know how you get those bolded quote marks to show up? When I hit the "quote" button on a post, it gives me just your quote minus the previous quote. And if I hit MQ, nothing shows up for me. Wish I had all the time in the world. There's all kinds of cute buttons and icons and thingamajigs to check out on this forum, if only I had the time to explore more. Instead I'm hoping for a quick path to "know-how" ....