The Religious Origins of Science

[Notedstrangeperson]

Most of the arguments listed here come from "What's so Great about Christianity?" by Dinesh D'Souza.

For those who don't feel like reading through a long post, my question is whether science is inherently atheist. Do the creationists here reject evolution because of lack of evidence or because they find it immoral - a tool atheists use to try and undermine Christianity? I don't think this is the case.


Science was embraced by Christianity:
By 'science' I mean (roughly) the idea that the world can be explained through mechanical means. In other words the Earth - the universe - is like a giant machine. Prior to this people believed the world was controlled exclusively by the whim of the gods. If a tree fell on you it wasn't because its roots were weak, it was because the god of the forest was angry with you. Christianity however revived the idea of a mechanical universe as it was taken as proof that an almighty designer can specifically created it.

This 'science' actually predates Christianity, it was first thought of by Greek philosophers such as Thales and Heraclitus, therefore we cannot claim Christianity actually invented science (something I suspect creationists will point out). Nevertheless it was widely embraced by Christianity in the 13th and 14th centuries, and by a few notable figures as early as 3rd century AD.

Using reason to find God:
Most of us here have heard of Augustine's and Aquinas' 'proofs' of the existance of God. When arguing against evolutionists, many Creationists try to use DNA and genetic evidence. Whether or not you agree with their arguments they are all following the same line of thought - proof of God can be seen through his creation. They do not rely on divine intervention. This type of argument is directly connected to the idea that the world runs like a giant machine.

Atheist cultures did not 'invent' science:
Ancient chinese culture was one of the earliest and most sophisticated in human history, yet monotheism never caught on in the far East as it did in the West (proof, a critic might say, that the more intelligent we become th less religion means to us). But despite this science was never inventd, or even concieved of. Why not? Beacuse:

There was no confidence that the code of nature's law could ever be unveiled and read, because there was no assurance that a divine being, even more rational than ourselves, had ever formulated such a code capable of being read.​

- 'The Grand Titration:
Science and Society in the East and West'
(author Joseph Needham)​

With this in mind is is fair to say that science and religion are incompatable, or that science is the tool of atheism?​

 

[Greg1234]

Most of the arguments listed here come from "What's so Great about Christianity?" by Dinesh D'Souza.

For those who don't feel like reading through a long post, my question is whether science is inherently atheist. Do the creationists here reject evolution because of lack of evidence or because they find it immoral - a tool atheists use to try and undermine Christianity? I don't think this is the case.

It's not so much the overall lack of evidence as opposed to the counter evidence which is contrary to what evidence should be there. Profane oriented clans tend to have a deep contempt and hatred for religion, its members and its concepts. You will typically hear the anti religion tirade from a materialist before you actually see him or her. As it pertains to the Darwinism-Creationism debate, it is becoming less of "lets look at the data" and more so, "lets do away with these [insert insult of choice] Creationists". Scientists who attain religiously laden results from data will often times receive an alternate, most times derogatory, title to distinguish him or her from the rest of the scientific community. With his data now no longer "science", scientific speculation can now be employed to refute "religious" facts because science is over religion. When inquiry into reality is influenced by such a high degree of emotion, you find that this form of impetus drives what is supposed to be a neutral tool into a perversion.

To say that science had religious beginnings is to put it mildly. What we know as religion today is the result of a lost science. If we were to lose the microscope today, the molecular sciences and the data written on them become "Harry Potter" as relatively professed by the profane. If man were to lose his eye sight today, then most scientific concepts will take a hit, particularly the study of light in its varied modes. The faculties endowed to man has not remained stagnant over the eons. And on the fabric of time you will find among the "primitive", evidence of technologically advanced influence surpassing that of today.

The texts are clear in that pertaining to the nature of life. Not just that it was created or how, but why it is directly created, and its accordance with law itself. And this is what we are finding. To leisurely wave it off because you hate religion or that you believe the past was dominated by beastmen, is thus completely besides the point.

 

[mark kennedy]

Most of the arguments listed here come from "What's so Great about Christianity?" by Dinesh D'Soeuza.

never read it but it sounds promising.

For those who don't feel like reading through a long post, my question is whether science is inherently atheist. Do the creationists here reject evolution because of lack of evidence or because they find it immoral - a tool atheists use to try and undermine Christianity? I don't think this is the case.

What it comes down to is epistemology (theories of knowledge) or how do we know that we know, what we know. Atheism starts with or is founded on a knowledge that convinces them God (gods) are nonexistent and build their knowledge of the natural world on that propositional truth. Agnostics simply assume that clear and certain knowledge of God is impossible. Then there is science, a word that literally means 'knowledge'.

The fact is that Christianity has the more balanced epistemology, with knowledge of God and nature being different in their focus only.

Science was embraced by Christianity:
By 'science' I mean (roughly) the idea that the world can be explained through mechanical means. In other words the Earth - the universe - is like a giant machine. Prior to this people believed the world was controlled exclusively by the whim of the gods. If a tree fell on you it wasn't because its roots were weak, it was because the god of the forest was angry with you. Christianity however revived the idea of a mechanical universe as it was taken as proof that an almighty designer can specifically created it.

Most pagan systems were not the purview of god's as the first cause. Before the gods were the elementals.

When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
When primordial Apsu, their begetter,
And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters mingled as a single body,
No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared,
None of the gods had been brought into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies determined--
Then it was that the gods were formed in the midst of heaven.
Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called. (Enuma Elish, The Mesopotamian/Babylonian Creation Myth)​

Primordial Apsu was not a god, it was an elemental. What science is being passed off as is really a naturalistic assumption that everything is reduced to forces of nature. That is no different then the pagan mysticism of Babylon.

My take on Christianity and science is simply this, apart from the Protestant Reformation there would have been no Scientific Revolution.

This 'science' actually predates Christianity, it was first thought of by Greek philosophers such as Thales and Heraclitus, therefore we cannot claim Christianity actually invented science (something I suspect creationists will point out). Nevertheless it was widely embraced by Christianity in the 13th and 14th centuries, and by a few notable figures as early as 3rd century AD.

Mechanical aid

Francis Bacon developed the inductive approach to science as a systematic philosophy. Discrepancies in our perception of the world of sense have to be addressed using inductive reasoning. He believed that “Our only remaining hope and salvation is to begin the whole labour of the mind again; not leaving it to itself, but directing it perpetually from the very first, and attaining our end as it were by mechanical aid. (Francis Bacon,1620). Science is about tools, mental and physical not phenomenon natural or supernatural. If you understand what the words mean and what people mean by the words they use this whole subject gets a lot clearer.

Scientific evidence

Bacon developed the philosophy of natural science but it was Newton who actually established it. He did a lot of experiments with prisms. He wanted to prove that light was actually made up of seven colors. at that time it was believed that the colors from a prism were from the prism. Newton proved that anyone who did this experiment exactly like he did would get the exact same result and natural science was born. If thousands of years for now natural science has a Genesis account of its creation, experimentum crucis would be the empirical Adam.

“If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment - the experimentum crucis - were found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory.” (White, the Last Sorcerer)

Using reason to find God:
Most of us here have heard of Augustine's and Aquinas' 'proofs' of the existance of God. When arguing against evolutionists, many Creationists try to use DNA and genetic evidence. Whether or not you agree with their arguments they are all following the same line of thought - proof of God can be seen through his creation. They do not rely on divine intervention. This type of argument is directly connected to the idea that the world runs like a giant machine.

I can't be sure but it sounds like you have confused creationism and natural theology. Creationism is based on New Testament doctrines related to original sin and the historical character of the Old Testament. There is really nothing all that mechanistic about creationism, Intelligent Design (a kind of natural theology) on the other hand argues from irreducible complexity as evidence of design, thus a designer.

Atheist cultures did not 'invent' science:
Ancient chinese culture was one of the earliest and most sophisticated in human history, yet monotheism never caught on in the far East as it did in the West (proof, a critic might say, that the more intelligent we become th less religion means to us). But despite this science was never inventd, or even concieved of. Why not? Beacuse:

There was no confidence that the code of nature's law could ever be unveiled and read, because there was no assurance that a divine being, even more rational than ourselves, had ever formulated such a code capable of being read.​

- 'The Grand Titration:
Science and Society in the East and West'
(author Joseph Needham)​

At this point I have to ask what I always ask Theistic Evolutionists, what is your definition of 'science'. This is not semantics because how you define this word determines what epistemology you are working from.

With this in mind is is fair to say that science and religion are incompatable, or that science is the tool of atheism?​

Religion and science should be kept separate for the same reasons that religion and government should be kept separate. Atheism is a philosophy that often passes itself off as science but there is a discernible difference. The pivotal role of epistemology makes the line between the two evident and obvious for one reason. Atheism can never admit God or miracles as even a possibility. Science on the other hand is simply about what can be determined by direct observation or demonstration (my definition for science BTW).

One thing has to be understood and emphasized without compromise:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Rom 1:20, 21)​

Did you ever notice that atheists never attempt to define 'God'? These verses explain why. Ask an evolutionist to define 'science' or 'evolution' and invariably the definition will be as vague and nebulous as the ethereal elementals of pagan mythology. They can name it but never really define it coherently because the atheist is a secular cleric in the temple of nature.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I think you couldn't find a Young Earth Creationist said that all science was a tool of evil invented by atheists to undermine the authority of God.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

It's not so much the overall lack of evidence as opposed to the counter evidence which is contrary to what evidence should be there.

Sorry I don't know what you mean. "What evidence should be there", could you explain?

You will typically hear the anti religion tirade from a materialist before you actually see him or her. As it pertains to the Darwinism-Creationism debate, it is becoming less of "lets look at the data" and more so, "lets do away with these [insert insult of choice] Creationists".

So the problem seems to be with individual scientists rather than science itself. But every group in the world has it's share of intolerant people - why reject science because of a few bad apples?

What science is being passed off as is really a naturalistic assumption that everything is reduced to forces of nature. That is no different then the pagan mysticism of Babylon.

This is what separates theistic science from atheistic science: theistic science saw the world as a finely-tuned machine made by a highly intelligent creator, whereas atheistic science saw the mechanical nature of the universe as an argumentagainst God. The 'ghost in the machine'. My own point is that the very idea of a mechanical universe had it's origins in religion.

There is also a distinct difference between pagan naturalism and atheistic naturalism. The pagans saw the elements as spiritual things (they must have been, how else could the gods have come from them?) - they worshipped trees, the sea, the sun as beings with souls like humans.
Atheistic reverence for nature seems to stem from the idea that the material world is all that there is. I also suspect this reverence is a fairly recent phenomenon stemming from science's ideas of the greenhouse effect and conservation.

At this point I have to ask what I always ask Theistic Evolutionists, what is your definition of 'science'.

Don't start this again. You're always asking for definitions you already know.
I gave you my definition - the idea that the universe can be explained via mechanical means, as though it were a giant machine. Or for a slightly more official definition (from dictionary.com)

"A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws."

I think that you would have a hard time finding a Christian who said that all science was a tool of evil invented by atheists to undermine the authority of God, whether they believe in Young Earth or Old Earth Creationism.

Most of the creationists here on CF are fairly good. Even when they present the wrong evidence they are still trying to argue using evidence. This doesn't go for all creationists however.

(From CreationWiki.org)
Evolution in and of itself is not immoral but it tends to remove the foundation for morality, thereby leading to immorality.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is what separates theistic science from atheistic science: theistic science saw the world as a finely-tuned machine made by a highly intelligent creator, whereas atheistic science saw the mechanical nature of the universe as an argumentagainst God. The 'ghost in the machine'. My own point is that the very idea of a mechanical universe had it's origins in religion.

What you are describing is not theistic evolution but intelligent design. No theistic evolutionist I have encountered has ever affirmed, much less defended and intelligent designer. With regards to TOE what is being affirmed and defended is not discernibly different from neodarwinism. Like Darwinism it is one long argument against special creation. Intelligent Design is natural theology:

CHAPTER ONE: "STATE OF THE ARGUMENT"

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. (Paley - Natural Theology)​

That's one of the reason I don't care about the age of the earth, old rocks and dirt have nothing to do with how life works, what the molecular mechanisms are how they came into being.

But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone?​

With biological systems the situation is much different, living systems are intricate, meticulous and purposeful. The origins of these highly complex living systems reflect the design and intent of the Designer. That is the argument that traditional Intelligent Designers emphasize and elaborate on.

the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker-that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use.​

Intelligent Design infers a Designer, forever alluding to naturalistic mechanisms responsible for naturalistic mechanisms abandons this simple and commonly held realization.

There is also a distinct difference between pagan naturalism and atheistic naturalism. The pagans saw the elements as spiritual things (they must have been, how else could the gods have come from them?) - they worshipped trees, the sea, the sun as beings with souls like humans.
Atheistic reverence for nature seems to stem from the idea that the material world is all that there is. I also suspect this reverence is a fairly recent phenomenon stemming from science's ideas of the greenhouse effect and conservation.

If you worship and serve the creature rather then the Creator the tendency is to worship created things:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:21-23)​

Don't start this again. You're always asking for definitions you already know.

I know my definition, I do not presume to know yours.

I gave you my definition - the idea that the universe can be explained via mechanical means, as though it were a giant machine. Or for a slightly more official definition (from dictionary.com)

That's not a definition, that is a generality. The word science means 'knowledge' the definition would identify what kind of knowledge and how it is made certain.

"A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws."

Not bad but with regards to evolution all we really have is Mendel's laws of inheritance, evolution in Darwinism does not reflect the operation of general laws.

Most of the creationists here on CF are fairly good. Even when they present the wrong evidence they are still trying to argue using evidence. This doesn't go for all creationists however.

Most theistic evolution is one long argument against special creation, with exceptions being few and far between. It is Darwinian in it's academic and intellectual lineage.

(From CreationWiki.org)
Evolution in and of itself is not immoral but it tends to remove the foundation for morality, thereby leading to immorality.

That is not their definition of evolution, like all creationists who seriously look into this they realize they are dealing with two definitions:

1. Biological evolution: the observable scientific fact that the genetic characteristics of species change over time, as a result of recombination, mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
2. General theory of evolution: the speculation that all life originated through purely natural processes without any act of creation (abiogenesis). It is theorized that all life on Earth originated from a single ancestral cell (common ancestry). All the biological complexity, adaptivity, and artistry on the planet is solely the result of random changes and natural selection over billions of years.(Creationwiki Evolution)

Which one do you use?

 

[Son of Israel]

I love science.
I love Jesus.
Science can't exist without God, that is the beauty of true science. It reflects God in all His creation, by which no man has an excuse.
It isn't about "rejecting" evolution.
It is about "accepting" it.
It is only a theory. Therefore it can't truly be "accepted" as anything but that. A poor one at best. But it has become a religious Darwinism cult following for atheists who push past fact into assumptive exceptance, a theory with not one shred of proof.
It's just pride.

 

[mark kennedy]

I love science.
I love Jesus.
Science can't exist without God, that is the beauty of true science. It reflects God in all His creation, by which no man has an excuse.
It isn't about "rejecting" evolution.
It is about "accepting" it.
It is only a theory. Therefore it can't truly be "accepted" as anything but that. A poor one at best. But it has become a religious Darwinism cult following for atheists who push past fact into assumptive exceptance, a theory with not one shred of proof.

You had me right up to there. Yes its an a priori assumption but the thing about Darwinism is all the evidence is proof. It's what you call transcendental in that it transcends all living history. As a matter of fact, that's the whole problem with it, it knows no bounds.

It's just pride.

There are definite ego building machinery attached.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Son of Israel]

There is no evidence. Only theory. No one can argue that.
Assumptions have never led to proof. Never once has there been a "missing link" discovered. You all know that. Why is this an issue?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

What you are describing is not theistic evolution but intelligent design. No theistic evolutionist I have encountered has ever affirmed, much less defended and intelligent designer.

Prior to On the Origins of Species Intelligent Design probably would have been the standard point of view for theists; though evolution may have challenged our idea of a 'designer' neither science or religion denies that the world appears to organise itself - without understanding of this order science would not exist.

Most theistic evolution is one long argument against special creation, with exceptions being few and far between.

You've contradicted yourself here. You're referring to atheistic evolution.
I personally prefer this definition:

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

There is no evidence. Only theory. No one can argue that.
Assumptions have never led to proof. Never once has there been a "missing link" discovered. You all know that. Why is this an issue?

Beacause there are many examples of transitional fossils. The horse and the whale are the two most common examples.

The Horse (with photographs and rough family tree
Other examples of transitional fossils

 

[Son of Israel]

None of them are "transitional fossils". That is an utterly absurb claim, again without any evidence.
Just a forced conclusion.
What christian would buy into those "assertions"??

Consider the Euglena.
The only creature with a rotor driven flagellate. Complete with armature, shaft and electrical contacts. It can instantly turn it on at 10,000 rpm, then off again.

No other creature exists of its kind.

No scientist would be so silly as to suggest that evolved. If one did, he is bereft of every tool given to science in proving this science empirically.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

None of them are "transitional fossils". That is an utterly absurb claim, again without any evidence.
Just a forced conclusion.
What christian would buy into those "assertions"??

If you genuinely are interested in what transitional fossils are and more examples this is a good website: TalkOrigins Transitional Fossils FAQ

The rotor driven flagellate example you gave was the argument of 'irreducible complexity' - an organ too complex to have evolved because if one component is removed it stops functioning. However on several occasions highly complex organs have been shown to evolve, since even a primitive basic organ (such as an eye or a wing) is better than nothing.

I don't really want to turn this thread into yet another debate over whether evolution is true or false (there are dozens of other threads), so perhaps we should ask why we are rejecting such evidence in the first place. Is God putting fossils there to trick us?

 

[mark kennedy]

If you genuinely are interested in what transitional fossils are and more examples this is a good website: TalkOrigins Transitional Fossils FAQ

The rotor driven flagellate example you gave was the argument of 'irreducible complexity' - an organ too complex to have evolved because if one component is removed it stops functioning. However on several occasions highly complex organs have been shown to evolve, since even a primitive basic organ (such as an eye or a wing) is better than nothing.

I don't really want to turn this thread into yet another debate over whether evolution is true or false (there are dozens of other threads), so perhaps we should ask why we are rejecting such evidence in the first place. Is God putting fossils there to trick us?

You mean transitions like the evolutionary giant leap from primordial soup to functional cells. Here is the irreducible complexity of a bacterium, do note that the flagellum is only one aspect of the overall complexity:

Now tell me what the common ancestor of plants and animals had in common with plant cells and prokaryotes.

Oh yea, the transitional fossils. Maybe you can tell me why we have literally hundreds of fossils representing our ancestors and virtually none for chimpanzee ancestors. Could it be that every time an ape fossil is dug up in Africa it is passed off as one of our ancestors?

Think I'm exaggerating? Consider this, while the Piltdown hoax is being passed of as a transitional fossil the Taung Child was considered a chimpanzee. Then with the demise of the Piltdown hoax it becomes one of those mythical transitionals. Raymond Dart who dug the lime endocast out of a box was the one who suggested to Louis Leaky the name 'handy man' or 'homo habilis' for his new classification group. What he did was to abandon the Cerebral Rubicon (the 600cc cut off for Homo) in favor of 'tool use' and a long list of contrived features.

No wait, there's more. Do you realize that if there were no living chimpanzees we would have no fossil evidence that chimpanzee ever existed? None of the transitionals in other taxons have the slightest bearing on the historicity of Scripture or essential Christian doctrine except the transition from ape to man. This is the vital transition that would have had to happen for us to have evolved from apes. Human and chimpanzee brains

Given that fact that mutations in brain related genes always yield severely deleterious diseases and disorders you are left with supposition and speculation rather then a molecular mechanism.

You have the unmitigated gall to come in here and pretend that these contrived fossils turn the Word of God into a lie?

Where do you guys get your nerve?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Oh yea, the transitional fossils. Maybe you can tell me why we have literally hundreds of fossils representing our ancestors and virtually none for chimpanzee ancestors. Could it be that every time an ape fossil is dug up in Africa it is passed off as one of our ancestors?

Think I'm exaggerating? Consider this, while the Piltdown hoax is being passed of as a transitional fossil the Taung Child was considered a chimpanzee. Then with the demise of the Piltdown hoax it becomes one of those mythical transitionals. Raymond Dart who dug the lime endocast out of a box was the one who suggested to Louis Leaky the name 'handy man' or 'homo habilis' for his new classification group. What he did was to abandon the Cerebral Rubicon (the 600cc cut off for Homo) in favor of 'tool use' and a long list of contrived features.

There are several hominids who distinct more ape-like rather than human, most notably Australopithecus and it's sub-species. And while hominid fossils may be few and controversial there are many other far more completed lists of transitional fossils, such as the horse I mentioned earlier.

Given that fact that mutations in brain related genes always yield severely deleterious diseases and disorders you are left with supposition and speculation rather then a molecular mechanism.

We've been though this before, over and over again. I noticed on your site you give a link to the chromosome viewer showing the damaging effects of mutations - quite a one-sided argument considering this site actually lists genetic disorders.

On a more personal note - I'm afraid your debate tactics are getting worse. You repeat the same tired old arguments over and over again long after they're been refuted, using data available to anyone. This has about as much effect as sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

You have the unmitigated gall to come in here and pretend that these contrived fossils turn the Word of God into a lie?

And now you're resorting to belittlement. The point of this thread was to show that science is not an enemy to Christianity, considering it's religious origins.

Either concede that if God created the world he also created all the fossils, including the transitional ones, or at the very least think of new ways to argue your point - insted of repeated the same ones over and over again like a broken record.

 

[shernren]

What you are describing is not theistic evolution but intelligent design. No theistic evolutionist I have encountered has ever affirmed, much less defended and intelligent designer.

Well, there's always a first, isn't there?

I believe there is a Mind who was before all things and through whom all things are held together (Colossians 1:17): I believe that Mind is the intelligence behind all that exists in the universe. Hence, I believe in intelligent design. Does that by definition then, place me in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement?

No.

... the ID movement is purported to be primarily a scientific movement—not primarily a philosophical, religious, or even popular movement. Meyer argues throughout the book that his theory about the origin of information is scientific, not religious. He makes it clear that he wants it to be considered on its scientific merits alone. I am comfortable with this. Let it be evaluated on the basis of its science. Like him, I believe in intelligent design. However, I am also a scientist. So I need to evaluate this book in the way that he calls all of us to do, as a work of science. I must consider whether this philosopher, this Christian brother, this best-selling author, and this leading debater has been successful at analyzing the data of the world’s leading scientists—people who have given their careers full time for many years to asking (and answering) very sophisticated questions about whether material causes have created information.

There is no question that large amounts of information have been created by materialistic forces over the past several hundred million years. Meyer dismisses this without discussing it. What about at the very beginning, 3.5 billion years ago? Everyone doing the science, Meyer notwithstanding, would say the jury is still out. There are some very elegant feasibility experiments going on at the present time. However, it is far too early for a philosopher to jump into the fray and declare no further progress will be made and that this science is now dead. If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public. With all due respect for the very fine people associated with the ID movement, many of whom I have met personally and whose sincerity I greatly appreciate, our hopes and dreams need to be much bigger than this. The science of origins is not the failure it is purported to be. It is just science moving along as science does—one step at a time. Let it be.
​

Signature in the Cell | The BioLogos Forum

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth;
and in the rest of the Apostles' Creed;
and, as Darwin said: "I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence."

 

[mark kennedy]

There are several hominids who distinct more ape-like rather than human, most notably Australopithecus and it's sub-species. And while hominid fossils may be few and controversial there are many other far more completed lists of transitional fossils, such as the horse I mentioned earlier.

There is no empirical reason that they cannot be considered ancestors to the Chimpanzees but that won't get headlines will it.

We've been though this before, over and over again. I noticed on your site you give a link to the chromosome viewer showing the damaging effects of mutations - quite a one-sided argument considering this site actually lists genetic disorders.

Because I am fielding the same tired old rhetoric and the above post does have a new twist. I don't like ID because they don't go far enough with the molecular mechanisms. As far as the Landmark Chromosome Viewer it's important to remind you people that mutations in genes involved in the development of the human brain are deleterious.

Now if you want to present a mutation with a beneficial effect that could explain the three-fold expansion of the human brain from apes you will be the first.

On a more personal note - I'm afraid your debate tactics are getting worse. You repeat the same tired old arguments over and over again long after they're been refuted, using data available to anyone. This has about as much effect as sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

Yea right, you guys make some pedantic rhetorical personal attacks and then do a victory dance. Notice not a single substantive point is addressed leaving the bulk of the substantive points buried in a blizzard of fallacious rationalizations. The reason you see the same arguments over and over is because you never deal with them and resort to the same ad hominem attacks almost immediately. That tells me you have no answer for it which guarantees that you will see it again.

And now you're resorting to belittlement. The point of this thread was to show that science is not an enemy to Christianity, considering it's religious origins.

Science defined as what exactly? Issac Newton demonstrating before the Royal Society in London that light is composed of seven colors is science.

Creationists have no problem with Mendel, Hunt or Crick and Watson.

• The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century.
• The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes.
• The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same.
• The last quarter of a century has been marked by a relentless drive to decipher first genes and then entire genomes, spawning the field of genomics.
  Human Genome

Either concede that if God created the world he also created all the fossils, including the transitional ones, or at the very least think of new ways to argue your point - insted of repeated the same ones over and over again like a broken record.

That's blasphemy, if I don't accept your propaganda regarding the ape fossils being passed off as our ancestors are definitive I have to call God a liar. To that I say nonsense. I need not find new ways of answering the same fallacious personal attacks. You never answered the substance of my argument made in the previous post much less refuted them. Then you make pusillanimous, circular challenges that left you defenseless in the first place.

That is not an argument, that's an ad hominem fallacy and I won't run in circles chasing it. Not when you don't even have the intellectual vigor or scientific acumen to even address the points you complain you are hearing over and over again.

The challenge for you is to first define science then you need to address the points already raised. Finally you need to abandon these insulting, fallacious and circular arguments. Then and only then can the discussion move forward.

But make no mistake, I do not jump through flaming hoops for someone who's only line of argument is to attack my credulity. I certainly don't intend dignify your blasphemous indictment against God because of fossils that turn out to be prehistoric apes fraudulently passed off as our ancestors.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[juvenissun]

With this in mind is is fair to say that science and religion are incompatable, or that science is the tool of atheism?​

I say that you think too much about it.

Science is a gift from God to human. That is it.
To a human, religious or not, he can do science.

My pet theory is that human get the ability of doing science from eating the forbidding fruit. Both God and satan told Adam and Eve the truth.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

As far as the Landmark Chromosome Viewer it's important to remind you people that mutations in genes involved in the development of the human brain are deleterious.

As well as getting your chromosomes from a one-sided source you have once again assumed that 'deleterious' and 'damaging' genes are one and the same. They aren't.
Many of the mutations on the chromosomes are linked to cancer, which is often the result of telomerase mutaions. Telomerase prevents cells from dying - when this happens it can cause tumours because cells keep replicating themselves when they shouldn't. In other words deleterious effects can actually prevent devestating mutations such as cancer.

Repeatedly insisting that 'deleterious' and 'damaging' mutations are interchangable shows an ignorance about genetics. Trying to prove that evolution is wrong by taking a list of chromosome mutation from a site about genetic disorders doesn't help either.

Creationists have no problem with Mendel, Hunt or Crick and Watson/

Which only makes their rejection of evolution all the more baffling. I've heard other creationists argue that we can only believe in genetic alterations if we assume evolution is true - but reallly it's quite the opposite. Evolution can only be shown to be true if we look at genetic alterations. Evolution basically is genetics on a huge scale. Which is why it's so strange that creationists reject the big picture.

The reason you see the same arguments over and over is because you never deal with them and resort to the same ad hominem attacks almost immediately
...
That is not an argument, that's an ad hominem fallacy and I won't run in circles chasing it. Not when you don't even have the intellectual vigor or scientific acumen to even address the points you complain you are hearing over and over again.

The challenge for you is to first define science then you need to address the points already raised. Finally you need to abandon these insulting, fallacious and circular arguments. Then and only then can the discussion move forward.

We've answered these arguments repeatedly on different threads:

You argue that most mutations are deleterious. We point out that most mutations are neutral - you even said so youself once.
You argue that beneficial mutations are too few and far between to have any noticable effect on a species. We point out that a few beneficial mutations actually have the most noticable effect on a species because they are beneficial.
You have also repeatedly insisted that belief in evolution is inherently atheistic and even blasphemous, despite statistics showing that the majority of evolutionists are not only theistic but Christian.

I'm sorry if I'm ranting at you Mark but these are your problems. They are no longer valid arguments for creationism because they have been answered and refuted several times, but you repeat them constantly. This is intellectual weakness. At least try a different argument.


N.B: Shernren That link from BioLogos Forum sounds more like atheistic rather than theistic argument; why did you add it?

 

[mark kennedy]

As well as getting your chromosomes from a one-sided source you have once again assumed that 'deleterious' and 'damaging' genes are one and the same. They aren't.
Many of the mutations on the chromosomes are linked to cancer, which is often the result of telomerase mutaions. Telomerase prevents cells from dying - when this happens it can cause tumours because cells keep replicating themselves when they shouldn't. In other words deleterious effects can actually prevent devestating mutations such as cancer.

Which is clearly a strawman argument setting up a fallacious ad hominem attack. This is what a mutation is:

Mutation can result in several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[4] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations (Mutation)​

.

Repeatedly insisting that 'deleterious' and 'damaging' mutations are interchangable shows an ignorance about genetics.

You have a nerve to call someone ignorant while making such a fundamental mistake. Deleterious is by definition 'harmful'.

deleterious (Greek d&#275;l&#275;t&#275;rios, from d&#275;leisthai to hurt) - harmful often in a subtle or unexpected way <deleterious effects> <deleterious to health>.​

In most cases, such changes are neutral and have no effect or they are deleterious and cause harm, but occasionally a mutation can improve an organism's chance of surviving and of passing the beneficial change on to its descendants.

Now if you want to contrast deleterious effects with beneficial or neutral effects but pretending that deleterious does not mean harmful is silly.

Trying to prove that evolution is wrong by taking a list of chromosome mutation from a site about genetic disorders doesn't help either.

So tell me about the directly observed or demonstrated beneficial effects from mutations effecting genes involved with the human brain.

Which only makes their rejection of evolution all the more baffling. I've heard other creationists argue that we can only believe in genetic alterations if we assume evolution is true - but reallly it's quite the opposite. Evolution can only be shown to be true if we look at genetic alterations. Evolution basically is genetics on a huge scale. Which is why it's so strange that creationists reject the big picture.

Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time. Genetics is the study of the molecular mechanisms responsible for expressed traits. You didn't make a coherent statement but it sounds like you equivocated evolution with genetics while equivocating it with natural descent. I'll sort out your fallacious reasoning later but they are coming one right after the other right now.

We've answered these arguments repeatedly on different threads:

You have never answered my arguments, enough said about that.

You argue that most mutations are deleterious.

No I don't, I argue that when mutations have an effect they are most often deleterious.

We point out that most mutations are neutral - you even said so youself once.

We are talking about adaptive evolution so neutral effects are not usually a subject of discussion. I know that most mutations are neutral and I have never argued otherwise.

You argue that beneficial mutations are too few and far between to have any noticable effect on a species.

No I don't, I never argued that there was such a thing as a beneficial effect from a mutation. What I argue when I'm not fielding these pedantic personal attacks is that random mutations are not whats responsible for most adaptive radiation.

We point out that a few beneficial mutations actually have the most noticable effect on a species because they are beneficial.
You have also repeatedly insisted that belief in evolution is inherently atheistic and even blasphemous, despite statistics showing that the majority of evolutionists are not only theistic but Christian.

No I don't, I argue that there are two definitions for evolution and you are pretending to use the scientific one while arguing for the Darwinian one. Evolution is properly defined as the change of alleles in populations over time. The Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes is another definition you never own up to.

My argument is that Darwinism is atheistic and you are arguing for an atheistic philosophy when you defend it. Evolution as it is defined in the genuine article of science causes no problems for creationists. It's the naturalistic assumptions that are passing themselves of as science that is the real problem.

It's called 'equivocation', when you use two definitions but who you are talking to is only aware of one.

I'm sorry if I'm ranting at you Mark but these are your problems. They are no longer valid arguments for creationism because they have been answered and refuted several times, but you repeat them constantly. This is intellectual weakness. At least try a different argument.

You didn't make a single substantive point, committed repeated and blatant errors and at the heart of the emphasis your argument was fallacious. Save the condescending tone for someone who is not wise to your rhetorical devices, I'm not impressed.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[shernren]

N.B: Shernren That link from BioLogos Forum sounds more like atheistic rather than theistic argument; why did you add it?

Atheistic? Darrel Falk is a Christian theistic evolutionist who accepts the Bible, and Colossians 1:17 in particular. He believes that the God of the Bible created the universe and continually sustains it by His power.

However, he was pointing out that such "intelligent design" as all Christians, even theistic evolutionists, hold to, does not compel him to therefore accept Intelligent Design as a particular American (anti-)intellectual movement. The particular crux of the Intelligent Design movement is that, as Darrel Falk summarizes, naturalistic forces cannot produce "information" (as defined nebulously by the ID folks); Darrel Falk goes on in the rest of the article to describe how the scientific jury is out on that one, and so to conclude that, although he does believe in the intelligent design of the universe by the God of the Bible, he cannot accept the Intelligent Design agenda of the misguided folks of the Discovery Institute.

And by the by, he gives the lie to this notion that theistic evolutionists are always insulting people on the other side of the fence. After Stephen Meyer responded to his review (yes, on the very same BioLogos site), Darrel Falk had this to say in his reply:

Just because I believe Steve Meyer and his colleagues are really smart, really sincere, and really have integrity does not mean that they cannot also be really wrong. My one hope and prayer—given that they have the first three qualities—is that the day will come when they admit the fourth holds true as well. In the meantime, I will hold them up in prayer and I know they’ll do the same for us.
​

On Reading the Signature: A Response to Stephen Meyer | The BioLogos Forum