The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Specified Complexity is a nonsense term, it is been totally discredited. Stop using it please unless you can explain how it works and isn't discredited.

...please restrain yourself and allow myself and Malty_T (who appears to be pursuing a definity line of enquiry) to communicate without interruption...

...please consider Malty_T to be your chosen delegate ... and let him proceed with his enquiry.

kiffer

J C wrote: »

...I agree with you on all points!!!!

....this is a first ... three or four posts in a row where we agree totally !!!!!!!:D

...probably won't continue ... but I am enjoying it while it lasts!!!:D

Ah I'm sure we can keep agreeing for a few more posts... But I've got a party to be at... More to come tomorrow.

J C

pts wrote: »

Can you explain to me why Evolution requires "new functional biomolecules to 'arise'". You might have done it before, but I'll be honest and admit that I haven't read this whole thread. Maybe you could humour me and re-explain it.

....Materialist Evolution postualtes that life has evolved from very simple molecules to Man. Such a putative development would require vast numbers of "new functional biomolecules to 'arise'" all along its supposed continuum down the generations from our supposed pondslime ancestors.

pts wrote: »

Also, in regards to irreducible complexity do you have any example of a system which is irreducible complex? That argument was tried in the Dover trial in America but faired very poorly.

...Dembski may have been 'caught on the hop' by some of the arguments put to him on the stand ... and, as a court witness, he didn't have the normal discretion to adjourn to consider and research his answers fully. I can assure you that all of the objections raised by Evolutionists to ID have been scientifically examined and found to be invalid.

...every biomolecular system is observed to be irreducibly complex, after allowance has been made for back-up redundancy / systems (that are THEMSELVES Intelligently Designed and irreducibly complex).
Irreducible complexity means that when a critical component is removed, the system CEASES to function ... therefore we can conclude that such a system couldn't have been built up 'piecemeal' as Evolution would have us believe ... but was an 'all or nothing' creation...with all critical systems being put in place simultaneously at the start.

Evolutionists counter that some systems today may have had DIFFERENT useful functions before they started doing whatever they do today ... but this doesn't get over the problem ... its a bit like saying that a length of wire running from the ignition to the engine in a car could have been formerly running to the lights ... the problem is that the car couldn't have run AT ALL without the wire going to the engine and both the lights and the engine would have no electricity without the engine working in the first place.
While the lights (and the wire thereto) might be an ADDED luxury, the wire between the ignition and the engine is ESSENTIAL to the whole functioning of the vehicle and therefore must logically be there in that role at ALL TIMES and from the beginning - so that, even if it COULD have an alternative use, it could not have been performing that function, because it is critically required between the ignition and the engine AT ALL TIMES...for the car to run at all.:D

J C

kiffer wrote: »

Ah I'm sure we can keep agreeing for a few more posts... But I've got a party to be at... More to come tomorrow.

..I thought you were going somewhere with your fire and flood scenario ... but I was wrong!!!:D:)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

Nobody would suggest that a car be built using undirected processes ... the scrap produced would simply be too great ... and ditto with living things.

The argument could be made though that, if we were to try building a car using an infinite number of permutations we would eventually succeed in building a fully functional one. -Would you agree that we live an infinite universe that allows all such possibility to exists? Through time, and even more permutations we would know what car is best for serving our purpose and we may choose to keep the others just in case they become useful at a later point just in case the need should arise to improve the original car, or perhaps even to merely provide the 'parts' to sustain an older version.

Also, it would seem self evident that any version that lacks the crucial wire going to the engine would not continue pass that stage, thus only the permutations that have the wire connected to the engine would be followed, brake-pads to the wheel and so on and so forth.

By all means correct me if you see flaws in the argument.

Also, thanks for the car analogy, the word specified was beginning to burn my little brain

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

The argument could be made though that, if we were to try building a car using an infinite number of permutations we would eventually succeed in building a fully functional one. -Would you agree that we live an infinite universe that allows all such possibility to exists? Through time, and even more permutations we would know what car is best for serving our purpose and we may choose to keep the others just in case they become useful at a later point just in case the need should arise to improve the original car, or perhaps even to merely provide the 'parts' to sustain an older version.

1. Mainstream science (Big Bang) does NOT believe that the Universe is infinite in either time or space.
2. Life originated on the SURFACE of one (relatively) cold planet ... and 99.999999999999999 repeating ad infinitum of the matter in the Universe isn't suitable for 'experimenting' with life ... it is either found in the centre of planets like the Earth, in million degree stars or close to absolute zero outer space away from stars...so we don't have the matter or the time for such undirected processes to do anything of note.
3. The number of non-functional permutations for ANY ONE biomolecule is practically infinite ... and the functional ones are very limited ... and that is why we don't assemble cars using undirected processes ... and ditto with the original asembly of life.
4. The number of non-functional combinations for a specific 100 chain single protein is 10^130 ... and the number of electrons in the Big Bang Universe is only 10^82 ... only the appliance of intelligence could narrow down those permutations in any practical fashion ... and remember this 'Universe Defying' feat would have to be achieved billions of times to produce the NEW functional biomolecules required all along the supposed line of descent from single celled organisms to Man !!!

Malty_T wrote: »

Also, it would seem self evident that any version that lacks the crucial wire going to the engine would not continue pass that stage, thus only the permutations that have the wire connected to the engine would be followed, brake-pads to the wheel and so on and so forth.

... that was precisely my point ... the irreducible complexity of core features today rules out the Evolutionists counter argument that life-critical systems today had DIFFERENT useful functions before they started doing whatever they do today ... and developed their current Specified Complexity via other (less complex) uses in the past.

Therefore, even if some biomolecules (or their supposed pre-cursors) COULD have had an alternative less complex use (or indeed actually have a different simpler use), they could not have 'gotten' to their current complex life-critical use via this route, because they are critically required in their current function AT ALL TIMES...for the organism to live at all.

...to use the car analogy, you would always have to have a fully functional wire from the ignition to the engine, break pads, wheels, gears and other ESSENTIAL components (all of which are 'bristling' with Specified Complexity) right from the very start ... or you wouldn't have a viable car ... ditto with critical biochemical pathways, critical structural proteins in critical organs, and the thousands of other life-critical inter-cellular and intra-cellular components that are observed to be present in living organisms.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Also, thanks for the car analogy, the word specified was beginning to burn my little brain

...I know the feeling, it is a complex new area of science that we are all grappling with. Who knows, it may be replaced by a better idea in future ... but I would ask all Evolutionists to keep an open mind about it. By all means pick logical holes in it, if they exist, but don't reject it outright because of an a priori commitment to Materialism!!!

Materialists should also consider how they address the following POSSIBILITY:-

What if God exists and He created life?

Could I suggest the following constructive approaches by Materialists to this possibility:-

1. Ignore it and concentrate on trying to rule out the possibility, by proving that Materialistic processes did it / could do it ... while allowing other scientists to freely get on with evaluating the evidence for and against the hypothesis that 'An Intelligence did it'.

2. Evaluate it as a possibility and use objective observations to try and prove it one way or the other. Just because you are a Materialist doesn't mean you shouldn't evaluate the possibility of inputs from non-material entities, like intelligence in the 'origins' process ... you ALREADY scientifically evaluate the evidence for intelligent action every day, if you are a forensic scientist anyway.
Equally, Creation Scientists are happy to investigate Materialist explanations for phenomena ... and they accept that many phenomena (BUT not all phenomena) are adequately explained by Spontaneous Materialistic Processes...see my exchange with Kiffer over the past two pages, on this issue.

What is NOT acceptable, is to rule out from scientific consideration, the possibility that there was an intelligent input into the emergence of life and to suppress and discriminate against the scientists who are pursuing scientifically legitimate investigations into whether 'some intelligence' did it.

Civil / civilised behaviour should follow a 'live and let live' philosophy ... with Materialists according respect to Intelligent Design and Creation Scientist proponents ... and vice versa.

We DON'T have to agree with each other to respect each other ... and as this thread proves, disrespect on one side, breeds disrespect on the other side!!:D

I can see why Materialists are so fearful ... they are currently in 'pole position' controlling the major acaedemic institutions and they certainly don't want to let this power 'slip through their fingers'!!!
I too would be very uneasy (because of the threat to my worldview) if the evidence was stacking up against Creation, the way that it is stacking up against Materialistic Evolution.
However, as rational beings, we must all overcome our Worldview ... or develop an alternative one, when the observable evidence demands such a change ... as is the case with Materialistic Evolution.
Going into denial and repeating senseless and unfounded mantras about the abilities, qualifications and morality of eminent Creation Scientists does NOTHING to support Evolution ... although I can see how such a 'smokescreen' could buy time while the Materialists desperately try to 'get their ducks in a row' on Evolution and come up with some/any reasonable Materialistic Explanation for all of the Complex Specified Information observed in living organisms.

...coming out with simplistic mantras that 'Evolution is the result of time, mistakes and selection' destroys your credibility ... and may even cause people to not believe you IF you were ever to discover a viable Materialistic mechanism for the origins of life and its supposed subsequent development !!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

1. Mainstream science (Big Bang) does NOT believe that the Universe is infinite in either time or space.
2. Life originated on the SURFACE of one (relatively) cold planet ... and 99.999999999999999 repeating ad infinitum of the matter in the Universe isn't suitable for 'experimenting' with life ... it is either found in the centre of planets like the Earth, in million degree stars or close to absolute zero outer space away from stars...so we don't have the matter or the time for such undirected processes to do anything of note.
3. The number of non-functional permutations for ANY ONE biomolecule is practically infinite ... and the functional ones are very limited ... and that is why we don't assemble cars using undirected processes ... and ditto with the original asembly of life.
4. The number of non-functional combinations for a specific 100 chain single protein is 10^130 ... and the number of electrons in the Big Bang Universe is only 10^82 ... only the appliance of intelligence could narrow down those permutations in any practical fashion ... and remember this 'Universe Defying' feat would have to be achieved billions of times to produce the NEW functional biomolecules required all along the supposed line of descent from single celled organisms to Man !!!

5. Main stream science does not believe molecules such as modern proteins formed through random iterations :rolleyes:

You are basically ignored exactly what evolution explains and then using this as an argument against evolution. Utter nonsense, even for you JC.

J C wrote: »

Therefore, even if some biomolecules (or their supposed pre-cursors) COULD have had an alternative less complex use (or indeed actually have a different simpler use), they could not have 'gotten' to their current complex use via this route, because they are critically required in their current function AT ALL TIMES...for the organism to live at all.

Not in the past. They only become critical once the new function has evolved. When the function doesn't exist they aren't necessary. Whales only need flippers when in the water. When they were living on land the legs that evolved into flippers didn't need to be flippers, they were happy being legs.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

5. Main stream science does not believe molecules such as modern proteins formed through random iterations :rolleyes:

...fair enough ... well then the only viable current alternative, that I am aware of is that they were Intelligently Produced by an intelligence or intelligences unknown!!!:)

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Therefore, even if some biomolecules (or their supposed pre-cursors) COULD have had an alternative less complex use (or indeed actually have a different simpler use), they could not have 'gotten' to their current complex life-critical use via this route, because they are critically required in their current function AT ALL TIMES...for the organism to live at all.

Wicknight
Not in the past. They only become critical once the new function has evolved. When the function doesn't exist they aren't necessary. Whales only need flippers when in the water. When they were living on land the legs that evolved into flippers didn't need to be flippers, they were happy being legs.

...perhaps non-life critical functions like flippers could theoretically have developed from other less efficient limbs in water (but you would still have to overcome the IMPOSSIBLE odds stacked against the development of all of the NEW biomolecules needed for such a development!!!

However, the point that I was making was in relation to life-critical systems. In the case of these systems, even if some biomolecules (or their supposed pre-cursors) COULD have had an alternative less complex use (or indeed actually have a different simpler use), they could not have 'gotten' to their current complex life-critical use via this route, because they are critically required in their current function AT ALL TIMES...for the organism AND its ancestors, to live at all.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

Mainstream science (Big Bang) does NOT believe that the Universe is infinite in either time or space.

Even if they do not believe it (which I disagree with and think that they do), they could always possibly be wrong about the universe not being infinite. After all, aren't we arguing that mainstream science's belief in evolution is wrong. I see no reason why I can't assume mainstream Big Bang to be wrong, it is only a theory after all.
So, if the universe was infinite, and better yet there were an infinite number of universes in existence.--- I'm not sure you are aware of the many worlds theory but is one such theory that predicts the possibility of an infinite universe whereby everytime an action occurs, the universe will split so that all possible actions can occur. For example, in some universe I am still a devout Christian, in another ...I'm dead. --

and 99.999999999999999 repeating ad infinitum of the matter in the Universe isn't suitable for 'experimenting' with life

Even though I disagree with that percentage, A 0.0000000...1 % fluke is always possible ya know;) - No designer necessary.

and the number of electrons in the Big Bang Universe is only 10^82

Cool, I never knew that was the predicted number of electrons, must research it! Thanks
Edit the calculation of that number is interesting, because it's so elegantly done. It does ,however, seem to be based on the size of the observable universe (a lower limit), the actually universe may be several orders of magnitude bigger, hence the need for an even greater number electrons. But, thanks again that was a cool fact to learn to today

What if God exists and He created life?

The rebuttal there could be : What if God exists, and he chose to create life via a process similar to evolution? Imo, evolution does not disproof the existence of a deity, nor does it prove it. Although you are free to show me that I'm wrong in either case.

We DON'T have to agree with each other to respect each other

Yep true,

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...fair enough ... well then to only viable current alternative, that I am aware of is that they were Intelligently Produced by an intelligence or intelligences unknown!!!:)

No the viable alternative is Neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution you ding bat. :rolleyes:

Intelligent Design is not even a scientific theory, it cannot be tested or falsified. It is just an uneducated guess.

J C wrote: »

...perhaps non-life critical functions like flippers could theoretically have developed from other less efficient limbs in water (but you would still have to overcome the IMPOSSIBLE odds stacked against the development of all of the NEW biomolecules needed for such a development!!!

Flippers are life critical functions in whales JC. You ever seen a whale without flippers? They would drown within a few hours.

Life critical functions can evolve. Evolution is not a simple process of adding function so the opposite is not a case of simply removing it. You cannot remove flippers from a whale without it dying, but you can evolve flippers from legs over long periods of time.

Your whole argument or irreducible complexity is null and void. Game over, you lose.

J C wrote: »

However, the point that I was making was in relation to life-critical systems.

Your point was stupid. I think that has been established already. Life critical systems can evolve just as easily as non-life critical systems. More specifically non-life critical systems can evolve into life critical systems if the environment changes, totally invalidating the idea of irreducible complexity.

J C wrote: »

In the case of these systems, even if some biomolecules (or their supposed pre-cursors) COULD have had an alternative less complex use (or indeed actually have a different simpler use), they could not have 'gotten' to their current complex life-critical use via this route, because they are critically required in their current function AT ALL TIMES

Nonsense, they are only critically required in the current state of the species, just like flippers in whales

They would not be critically required in older states in different environments. Again irreducibly complex has been invalidated. It is an argument from ignorance and stupidity.

Fanny Cradock

J C wrote: »

...Militant Atheists are ...

Far too many generalisations on this forum of late. Anyway, I'll leave you to get back to the topic.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Evolution is not a religion, it is a fact in exactly the same way as gravity is a fact.

I can observe gravity in action. I cannot see evolution in action (No, fruit-flies mutating into wingless/double winged fruit-flies doesn't count). The historical evidence that is interpreted as supporting evolution is disputed by scientists equally as well qualified to speak as those who assert in favour of evolution. Competing theories, each with its own problems.

You could spend the next 20 years studying the mountains of evidence proving its existence but instead you insist that it's not there.

The evidence is there - it just does not support evolution or creation unequivocally.

Scientists do not have vested interests here,

Yes, they do. A prejudice against creation by God; or the fear of speaking out against the establishment.

they accept evolution because every single piece of evidence in existence supports it.

Have you overlooked these pieces of evidence that support a young earth?
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

If that was not the case or if any actual contradictory evidence existed the theory would be dropped.

Not when the leading alternative is God creating it all.

Darwin did not start out with the idea that evolution was true and then try to prove it, he looked at variations in animals, especially in isolated areas like the Galapagos islands, and came to understand the process of evolution by studying them. The evidence came first and the theory was developed to explain the evidence.

Darwin allowed the assertions of other scientists to undermine his religious beliefs. With their presuppositions in mind, he advanced his studies in evolution:
http://creation.com/charles-darwins-slippery-slide-into-unbelief

He did not come at his research with a blank slate.

Scientists start with a blank slate and work to find the truth in any situation

Sometimes, when they have no axe to grind or line to toe to retain respectability. That definitely does not apply to the creation/evolution debate.

whereas creationists start with the assumption that the bible is the perfect word of god

Indeed they do.

and throw out anything that doesn't match with that assumption. It's bad science, if you can even call it science

They accept all the data/evidence and seek to see how it fits in with what they already know to be true.

All scientists do that. Of course, one has to be careful about deciding what one knows to be true. We know that sunlight contains ultraviolet rays; we are unsure about the possibility of cold fusion. Likewise, Christians know God Created everything, so they do not have to keep asking that question.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sam Vimes said:

I can observe gravity in action. I cannot see evolution in action (No, fruit-flies mutating into wingless/double winged fruit-flies doesn't count).

LOL :rolleyes:

I can observe gravity in action, I can't see evolution. Whats that, you have an example of evolution. You have tons of examples of evolution. Er, wait just a second **argghh** if I just *** rip out *** my eyes *** ... aha!, as I was saying I can't see evolution in action.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The historical evidence that is interpreted as supporting evolution is disputed by scientists equally as well qualified to speak as those who assert in favour of evolution. Competing theories, each with its own problems.
....
Yes, they do. A prejudice against creation by God; or the fear of speaking out against the establishment.

So scientists that think that evolution is so well supported it is safe to consider it a biological fact (ie the vast vast vast majority of them) are prejudice and biased.

But creationists are "equally as well qualified to speak" as these prejudiced biased scientists who hold to evolution.

What nonsense.

One minute you play the "well we are all scientists here aren't we, each interpretation is as valid as the next" card, and then a second later you are dismissing the vast majority of biologists as being prejudice and bias because they don't accept the Creationist ideas that evolution is nonsense.

But I imagine your handful of creationist are not prejudice or bias, right?. Millions of biologists, living and dead, are prejudice and bias. But the 50 or so biologists who are creationists, nope salt of the Earth.

This is the nonsense of the creationist movement, the desire to on the one hand be accepted by science yet with the other hand totally ridicule and dismiss science because it doesn't agree with them.

wolfsbane

Might be helpful in defining Atheist:
http://investigatingatheism.info/definition.html

Also, amusing and instructive to see Sam Harris attack the appointment of the Christian evolutionist Francis Collins:

When Atheists Cry “Heresy!”: Sam Harris Condemns Obama Pick for NIH
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/scienceenvironment/1704/when_atheists_cry_“heresy!”:_sam_harris_condemns_obama_pick_for_nih

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

When Atheists Cry “Heresy!”: Sam Harris Condemns Obama Pick for NIH
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/scienceenvironment/1704/when_atheists_cry_“heresy!”:_sam_harris_condemns_obama_pick_for_nih

Unlike the atheist academics I knew as I pursued my degrees in philosophy—atheists who were characterized at worst by a kind of quiet intellectual disdain for religion

His central argument is that he preferred it when atheists shut the fudge up and let religious people run the country. Shocking. :eek:

philologos

Francis Collins is a theistic evolutionist. Just to point that out there. His book "The Language of God" was quite interesting.

Edit: From reading the article Harris does seem to be engaging in mere bigotry though.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Francis Collins is a theistic evolutionist. Just to point that out there. His book "The Language of God" was quite interesting.

The views expressed in that book are what Harris was objecting to. As the comments at the end of Wolfsbane's article, it was not simply that Collins was a man of faith that concerned Harris, it was that he had let his faith cloud his ideas of science and biology, expressing opinions on biology that had no grounding in scientific reality and which were even sometimes contradicted by it.

Which is all fair enough if he was a private citizen, but Obama has put him into an important scientific position where his views are going to shape American policy towards science.

philologos

Collins' work on the Human Genome Project was impeccable, and I think that he is indeed suitably qualified for the job as much as any non-religious individual. It's plain discrimination to think otherwise merely on grounds of faith.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Collins' work on the Human Genome Project was impeccable, and I think that he is indeed suitably qualified for the job as much as any non-religious individual. It's plain discrimination to think otherwise merely on grounds of faith.

That is ridiculous. It is "plain discrimination" to think he is not suitably qualified for the job based on opinions he has publically expressed about science?

He is not being hired to work on a biology project, he has been hired to run the American NIH

Ever watched the West Wing. Did you see the episode where Bartlet was about to nominate a Supreme Court Judge for the bench until they found out he didn't think Americans had a right to privacy as protected in the constitution. Bartlet with drew the nomination because he did not feel the guy was suitable for a position on the Supreme Court.

Would that be discrimination?

Discrimination is when you unfavourable target a group based on characteristics they don't control.

Collins views on matters of science do not fall into this. They are his views. No one is inferring his views based on his skin colour, his sex, or his religion.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I can observe gravity in action. I cannot see evolution in action (No, fruit-flies mutating into wingless/double winged fruit-flies doesn't count).
LOL

I can observe gravity in action, I can't see evolution. Whats that, you have an example of evolution.

As I pointed out, fruit-fly change is not proof of evolution - just that fruit-flies can mutate into other types of fruit-fly. Mutating into something other than a fly, that would be evolution.

You have tons of examples of evolution. Er, wait just a second **argghh** if I just *** rip out *** my eyes *** ... aha!, as I was saying I can't see evolution in action.

You have mutilated/mutated into a physically blind evolutionist, but you are still an evolutionist. You will never evolve into a Christian, but you may well be created into one:
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The historical evidence that is interpreted as supporting evolution is disputed by scientists equally as well qualified to speak as those who assert in favour of evolution. Competing theories, each with its own problems.
....
Yes, they do. A prejudice against creation by God; or the fear of speaking out against the establishment.
So scientists that think that evolution is so well supported it is fact (ie the vast vast vast majority of them) are prejudice and biased.

But creationists are "equally as well qualified to speak" as these prejudiced biased scientists who hold to evolution.

What nonsense.

One minute you play the "well we are all scientists here aren't we, each interpretation is as valid as the next" card, and then a second later you are dismissing the vast majority of biologists as being prejudice and bias.

This is the nonsense of the creationist movement, the desire to on the one hand be accepted by science yet with the other hand totally ridicule and dismiss science because it doesn't agree with them.

I am not dismissing them as scientists, nor even ridiculing their theories as bad science. Their skills as scientists are immense - but subject to presuppositions and prejudices like the rest of us. It is their belief that they are above such temptation that makes them prey to it.

When they get their premise wrong, all that follows is false as a whole, even if bits are valid.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

I can observe gravity in action.

:eek: That's....that's....not even possible (you're not a super human being ?), we have very big experiments lined up and underway in the hope of seeing it in action. Perhaps what you meant is that you can see the effects caused by gravity, just like biologists claim to see the effects caused by evolution. Seeing gravity first hand ahh now we can only dream of what a day that would be

The evidence is there - it just does not support evolution or creation unequivocally.

Yes,but at the moment the evidence does seem to be in more of an abundance towards evolutionary theory. Invoking Ockhams Razor is a fact of science. Hence, until noteworthy evidence supporting creationism comes to light, there is no point in following it. Evidence, by the way, is NOT pointing out the gaps in another theory.

Yes, they do. A prejudice against creation by God; or the fear of speaking out against the establishment.

Get off your high horse, science has often being held back because scientists are afraid of the truth not being accepted by hardline estabhlishments. They are not anti-God, if God exists (and some of them believe he does) we will find out in due course.

Have you overlooked these pieces of evidence that support a young earth?
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

If you accept the universe is 13 billion years old, then you must also accept the earth is 4.5 billion. Evidence suggesting the age of the solar system and this planet is overwhelming! Indeed, our very understanding of the formation of the solar system is continuously being improved, so far though no indications to the earth being less than 3 billion years old.

Of course, one has to be careful about deciding what one knows to be true. We know that sunlight contains ultraviolet rays; we are unsure about the possibility of cold fusion. Likewise, Christians know God Created everything, so they do not have to keep asking that question.

We did not always know what the suns ray contained.
The french philosopher Comte claimed we could never know the composition of the stars ...now we do. (Actually we knew a bit about them when he said that). Just like the Greeks knew the world was round, many people in the dark ages forgot that fact. Christians may know that God created everything, but it the goal of scientists Christian and non Christian alike to discover how everything works, not to blindly explain stuff in accordance with belief. We've gotta understand it.

Finally, even if what you're saying about Darwin's slippy-side into disbelief is true it still doesn't mean we can just dismiss the abundance of evidence his theory has to support it. Especially, when the alternatives, thus far, have much less evidence.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

The views expressed in that book are what Harris was objecting to. As the comments at the end of Wolfsbane's article, it was not simply that Collins was a man of faith that concerned Harris, it was that he had let his faith cloud his ideas of science and biology, expressing opinions on biology that had no grounding in scientific reality and which were even sometimes contradicted by it.

Which is all fair enough if he was a private citizen, but Obama has put him into an important scientific position where his views are going to shape American policy towards science.

This is the point: he had let his faith cloud his ideas of science and biology, expressing opinions on biology that had no grounding in scientific reality and which were even sometimes contradicted by it. If that were so, Harris would have a case. But is it so? Seems to me it comes down to a faith position on both sides concerning the nature of the self: an entity separate from the brain (Collins) or a mere product of the brain (Harris).

To bar a man from office because he does not tick the materialist atheist box on that is a matter of anti-religious bigotry, not scientific integrity.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

That is ridiculous. It is "plain discrimination" to think he is not suitably qualified for the job based on opinions he has publically expressed about science?

He is not being hired to work on a biology project, he has been hired to run the American NIH

Ever watched the West Wing. Did you see the episode where Bartlet was about to nominate a Supreme Court Judge for the bench until they found out he didn't think Americans had a right to privacy as protected in the constitution. Bartlet with drew the nomination because he did not feel the guy was suitable for a position on the Supreme Court.

Would that be discrimination?

Discrimination is when you unfavourable target a group based on characteristics they don't control.

Collins views on matters of science do not fall into this. They are his views. No one is inferring his views based on his skin colour, his sex, or his religion.

I have to say thank God the law disagrees with you. Harris is clearly attacking Obama's placement of Collins in this position based on his religion.

Collins is an eminent scientist, he has proven himself throughout his career. Sam Harris is merely taking shots at him because he is a Christian and disagrees with him on God's existence.

Harris thinks Collins is not qualified based on his religious beliefs. Yes, thankfully in the eyes of the law that is discrimination. He's a great scientist whether he is a Christian or not.

Atheism has no place in political decision making in a secular society. It goes both ways.

Malty T: Interesting that William of Ockham was a Christian, a Fransiscan monk to be precise.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: Interesting that William of Ockham was a Christian, a Fransiscan monk to be precise.

Not really, science owes Christianity alot but Christianity must accept that not everything science finds will be the way it was envisioned.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

As I pointed out, fruit-fly change is not proof of evolution - just that fruit-flies can mutate into other types of fruit-fly. Mutating into something other than a fly, that would be evolution.

Nonsense. That is like saying something falling from my hand is not evidence for gravity, I want to see a black hole or gravity doesn't exist.

Leaving aside that nothing is proof of evolution (do we really have to have the proof discussion again), a form of fruit fly evolving into a different form of fruit fly is evolution. It is exactly what happens in evolution, it fits evolutionary theory and is explained by it. Saying you want to see a fruit fly evolve into something other than a fruit fly is ridiculous, "fruit fly" is a human and not particularly scientific, classification. I could easily say the thing it just evolved into is not a fruit fly. I could do that but I wouldn't because your whole premise is ridiculouse. Again it is like saying something has to fall for 100 meters before it hits the ground, hitting the ground at 99 meters then gravity doesn't exist.

And there are far better examples of evolution that you can observe, such as single cell organisms evolving into multicelled organism.

But you are never going to see a billion years worth of evolution happen in front of your eyes unless you are looking at a computer simulation (which you creationists reject because it is just a computer).

Most people wouldn't think that was necessary unless they had some ideological aversion to evolution, in the same way most people don't think it is necessary to see a black hole to accept gravity is real.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I am not dismissing them as scientists, nor even ridiculing their theories as bad science. Their skills as scientists are immense - but subject to presuppositions and prejudices like the rest of us. It is their belief that they are above such temptation that makes them prey to it.

Groan 1116 page in and you still don't get it.

They don't have a belief they are above "temptation", the scientific method recognises human bias and actively tries to work around it. That is the whole point of science!!!

And that is exactly what Creationists groups such as the Discovery Institute and AnswersInGenesis campaign to be removed from science, because without internal opinion they have nothing to support their ideas.

wolfsbane wrote: »

When they get their premise wrong, all that follows is false as a whole, even if bits are valid.

But it is not about right or wrong. Again that is the whole point of science. It is about accurate or inaccurate.

Evolution is accurate. It could still be wrong, some how, but it is accurate. That is a fact. You don't have to trust people on that, you can carry out all the experiments yourself. You don't have to trust scientists.

Evolution is so accurate that nearly every biologist in the world is happy to take it that it is fact. But again you don't have to believe them. You can measure the accuracy of evolution yourself

It doesn't matter if the scientists have internal bias. Something is or is not accurate.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Harris is clearly attacking Obama's placement of Collins in this position based on his religion.

Of course he is!

Do you think because his views are religion based they are some how not important to his public role.

Would you put Fred Phelps as head of a State run gay rights organisation and then say Fred Phelps religious views are off limits to discussion?

Jakkass wrote: »

Collins is an eminent scientist, he has proven himself throughout his career. Sam Harris is merely taking shots at him because he is a Christian and disagrees with him on God's existence.

No, he is taking "pot shots" at him because Collins has publically expressed religious opinions that put him at odds with certain principles of science and biology, and he is now head of an organisation concerned with research in those areas.

Jakkass wrote: »

Harris thinks Collins is not qualified based on his religious beliefs. Yes, thankfully in the eyes of the law that is discrimination.

Oh don't be ridiculous. It is only discrimination if you assume his views based on his religion. Collins has already made public is views.

I would love to get pointed to run a women's health organisation and then say all women are slags that create their own infections and should keep their legs shut, and then say that is my religious view so if you kick me out of this group that is clear discrimination based on my religion. :rolleyes:

Jakkass wrote: »

He's a great scientist whether he is a Christian or not.

That is some what irrelevant because his position is not as a scientists, it is as an administrator.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mutating into something other than a fly, that would be evolution.

Er, no it wouldn't.

wolfsbane wrote: »

When they get their premise wrong, all that follows is false as a whole, even if bits are valid.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

The evidence is there - it just does not support evolution or creation unequivocally.

...the observable evidence actually DOES support Intelligent Design unequivocally and it equally DISPROVES Materialistic Evolution ... and that is why the Materialists are running scared!!!!:D

...and advocating discrimination against eminent scientists like Professor Collins (who ISN'T a Creationist BTW).

...the mere fact that he is a Christian has the Atheists all 'twitching'!!!!!

...and please bear in mind that Prof Collins has headed the Human Genome Project which has decoded and mapped the Human Genome ... which is probably the most significant achievement in Biology since Profs Crick and Watson described DNA.
A measure of Prof Colins eminence is the fact that he replaced Professor James Watson (the Nobel Laureate and joint discoverer of the DNA structure) as head of the Human Genome Project!!!

...if such an eminent scientist is at risk of discrimination, because he is a Christian, what hope has an 'ordinary' scientist if these 'bully boys' have their way????

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...the observable evidence actually DOES support Intelligent Design unequivocally and it equally DISPROVES Materialistic Evolution ... and that is why the Materialists are running scared!!!!:D

Yes Wolfsbane, listen to your qualified scientists :rolleyes: