Is U.S. Becoming Hostile to Science?

Ah, this is likely to be incorrect.

Holy fact or sexist bullshit, most everyone agrees that the story of Eve, re: the Serpent predates the year 1005.

------------------------------------------


Kevn, I must say, with regard to abiogenesis and statistics, the atheists *do* have a point.

Abiogenesis got its big boost from this experiment, where four very simple compounds, water, methane, ammonia and nitrogen gas were placed in the presence of electrical discharges (i.e. lightning):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

"At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 21 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant."


This is why the atheists believe as they do.

Insofar as the universe is huge beyond imagining, chock full of organic compounds, and conditions as in the experiment are not all that rare.

To be honest, I find natural explanations quite compelling. Life arising from compounds seems far more likely than... a god simply willing himself to be one day, then making all this stuff.

Perhaps Kendra is right. Perhaps the searching for the method of creation is rather like looking for the edge of the Earth.


Kevn, yours is a voice of faith. But... why Christianity? I do see that you look at the world, and from that deduce a designer of all things... but why the Christian version?

It is a very honest question - what gives you the surety, the faith? No hostility or ridicule is intended, I simply seek to understand you.

To help a little with your question, for me it has been a series of events and the teachings of my family as a child that has made Christian faith a constant in my life. It is not easily explained such as a story or book report. It is something that is felt...more emotional. People experience different disasters and celebrations in their lives whcih can be looked at in several different aspects. Usually when one is raised in a religious home, they carry those beliefs over into adulthood (not everyone, but some do.)

I did. I only broadened my spectrum of thought when I went to school and learned more about what other people believe and why the believe ...or don't. However, it has always been my faith that has been the steadfast anchor in my life. I personally have overcome many personal tragedies and have much to be thankful for.

And as far as surety...there's always that grain of doubt. What if there is not? What if this? What if I am wrong? I feel better clinging to what I know comforts me and keeps me inspired. So I continue to allow my soul, my spirit, my being to grow in faith while learning more about the world from several different point of views.

Although you and whoever may not be Christian or anything at all perhaps religiously, I am able to take your point of view and absorb it. It's a beautiful thing to have your own beliefs and opinions. Imagine if we all believed the same thing how boring this conversation would be.

I just wish that people could discuss religion and such from an inquiry point of view instead of preaching and trying to get others to see things their way. If I listen to you and I like what I am hearing, I may want to hear more. I may even change my mind about my own beliefs. But if you are telling me that I am wrong for believing something and telling me that your way is the right way, I don't think you'll get your point across very well.

There's so much we can learn from eachother if we just listen.

Cheers Desmond!

That's very insightful, thank you. To be honest, I have rarely met anyone that admitted to doubt of any kind, when in contrast I am personally filled with more doubt than anything else.

In a way, perhaps I had a similar experience - I am the son of an agnostic, which is about as far as I'll go into it - I spent years of growing up simply... questioning.

Perhaps doubt is *my* faith... but it is a very unfulfilling one. I'd gladly exchange it, but it's a sort of catch-22, unfortunately.

Edit: fixed the quote-bracket thingy

It's a common theory about Revelation. The seven heads of the beast correspond to the famous seven hills of Rome.

Actually we were discussing creationism and why it is not science. You're the one who changed the subject to abiogenesis when you ignored my request to show how creationism fits the definition of a scientific theory. By showing the lack of full understanding of abiogenesis it does not make creationism any more scientific.

...actually... the wheel (and therefore science in this opinion) is known to predate Christianity by some 3000 years now...
http://www.uvi.si/eng/slovenia/background-information/oldest-wheel/



I agree - IMHO religeon should not have any interaction with the school system other than to provide students with the evidence that there are other belief systems in existence (to help prevent religious bigotry, and promote the acceptance of others' beliefs). A young person's primary religeon and religious beliefs should be catered for outside of the educationary system by their family and closer society.

It is the parents' right to choose whether allow the child to make up their own mind about which (if any) religeon to follow, or to submit their child to the ritual brainwashing that is part and parcel of a young person's involvement in any of the major religeons. I guess you can tell where my beliefs lay from that statement!



See what I mean?



"openly subject to change".... hmmm - kinda like the Christian religeon then?

My own personal feeling on religeon? To quote the late, great Douglas Adams:

"It's rather like a puddle waking up one morning - I know they don't normally do this, but allow me, I'm a science fiction writer - A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: 'This is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me so neatly... I mean really precise isn't it... It must have been made to have me in it.'"

Have a fun day

Actually science evolved between the late 1300s and the mid-1800s - a long process. The Greeks developed something like the scientific method, except that logical inquiry was substituted for physical experiment. Scholars in the Islamic caliphates came close by 1100 AD - Galen's investigation of human anatomy is the best known example, although it was mostly taxonomic - but Muslim religious reform killed scientific development by 1300. And also killed the chances of Islam becoming the dominant world civilization.

So it was left to the Europeans to do both....

I'll point out once again for those who are slow of perception, and sticky of opinion - science is about method. Religion is about belief. Both are practised by human beings and subject to their whimsies and fantasies, hence any comparative behaviors by scientists and theologians. However, one claims to be a solid method for investigating nature. The other claims to know the secrets of the universe.
There is a difference between those two claims.

"What's sickening is a bunch of creationists trying to tweak the science cirricula to suit thier own needs, which is what is happening in Kansas - or so it seems."

How true...the nuts are taking over the country-thanks in large part to the present administration. Intelligent design? Horse manure! I am so sick of right wing bible thumpers trying to change this country into a theocracy.

Desmond,

TY for the comments.

To start, as you can see from wikipedia, the 1953 experiment didn't produce a living cell. Even though it was highly controlled by intelligent beings, it failed to produce a creature that reproduces itself. The very fact it can't be done with all our "science" knowledge is more evidence for ID. Of course, we can't expect too much from a science that can't even cure the common cold.



That aside, let me answer your question concerning my faith.

I haven't discussed my personal faith in this thread, so you assume I am Christian based on the scriptures I posted. I can quote the Koran as well as several other religious books. However, you are correct in your assumption, I am indeed a follower of Christ's teachings.

Why am I a follower of Christ's teachings you ask? Well, He teaches us to love our enemies, do good to those who despise us. Can you think of any of His teachings you would say are wrong/bad? He is humble and loving, selfless to the core. He is the perfect role model.

Hey Desmond,

TY for the comments.

To start, as you can see from wikipedia, the 1953 experiment didn't produce a living cell. Even though it was highly controlled by intelligent beings, it failed to produce a creature that reproduces itself. The very fact it can't be done with all our "science" knowledge is more evidence for ID. Even if intelligent scientists could create a living cell it would only prove it takes intelligence to produce it. Of course, we can't expect too much from a science that can't even cure the common cold.



That aside, let me answer your question concerning my faith.

I haven't discussed my personal faith in this thread, so you assume I am Christian based on the scriptures I posted. I can quote the Koran as well as several other religious books. However, you are correct in your assumption, I am indeed a follower of Christ's teachings.

Why am I a follower of Christ's teachings you ask? Well, He teaches us to love our enemies, do good to those who despise us. Can you think of any of His teachings you would say are wrong/bad? He is humble and loving, selfless to the core. He is the perfect role model.

Actually, we were discussing the beginning of life, in terms of whether it was a creator who created the first living cell or was it abiogenesis, which can't be reproduced from either side.

Awesome. Informative and beautifully colorful.

What books must one read to get the same things in their head as you have? I know. It's innate intelligence, isn't it? Oh well.

~Ulrika~

How exactly does our scientific achievements up to 1953 equate to 'all our "science" knowledge'?

1953 considered the bleeding edge of technology to be:

IBM's 701 EDPM "defence calculator" for the Korean war effort

The "clog-free" spray valve

The Measels Vaccine

Colour TV Broadcasts

Radial tires

Con-Tact paper

The world's first instant iced tea

Saran Wrap

Hardly the "sum of all our knowledge" I think you'll find we've advanced a little since then!

In addition, how does one failure to produce a result in a scientific experiment constitute "evidence" for ID? I really don't understand how this equates.

Please read the thread to understand why I was commenting on a 1953 experiment another poster had brought up to suggest there is validity to abiogenesis.

The sum of all our scientific knowledge still has yet to cure the common cold.

The failure to reproduce abiogenesis even with highly intellient scientists suggests even with intelligent design abiogenesis hasn't been replicated.

Why not just ask me to answer my own question?

I was asking you to explain the claim "The very fact it can't be done with all our "science" knowledge is more evidence for ID." - something you have yet to do in any of your posts...



Again, I don't see how citing an instance where something has yet to be achieved in anyway enhances your position? We can: map genomes; clone human embryos; 'print' new body parts (admittedly still in it's infancy) - are any of these achievements worth more or less than curing the billions of different cold viruses? The comparison means nothing.

Hi

I was trying to make this point with Kevn earlier. My problem with any form of Creationism being regarded as Science is based on my opinion that their Holy Books are books written, translated and edited over the last couple of thousand years. There were many.. many, other religions before any of the modern ones, and there will be many more to come.

There are loads of things we can't explain with science, and there are loads of theories that don't work. Although Creationism is an attractive one, it's based (or at least leans on) on an old book. True science is about not having a slanted view and just studying the facts we have through analysis. Unfortunately the only 'fact' creationists have is their Holy Books. What I find worse, and almost intolerant of other religions, is Evangelical Creationists basing their views soley on the Christian Bible. Should we accept what Buddha said about creation because its in line with Evolution?

In my opinion, that book is the only evidence Creationism will ever have unless absolutely every unanswered scientific theory on gravity, evolution, the start of the universe (assuming there was one), life on other planets, etc.. have been proven to be in-line with it. I can't personally accept it as a Science rather than a Religion.




Hehe, I know what you mean.

But actually psychologically, it's not so bad. It makes me feel lucky to be here, I wish we all did.

I appreciate the Earth so much more because if we screw our planet up at the moment, we're going to die. It's the planet we (as in all Earth life) have inhabited for billions of years. Who knows maybe we'll all be killed by business/political/religious wars before we get a change to discover the technology to inhabit another Earth-like planet.

I've got no problem with disbelieving in Heaven or any form of afterlife either. We are what we do for humanity as a whole while we're alive.

I'm not convinced about the whole Spaghetti Monster thing. The theory that we could have evolved spaghetti tentacles and stuff. I think we're only at our current stage because we've lasted so long, and the ape-style works the best. We're the most logical shape, but that's only because the most illogical shapes generally don't work.

Life could have been different, but I'm happy with the way we ended up. We're very fortunate to have survived for so many years. I hope we sort out our differences and just carry on going forwards.

This sentence is amusing because it's an amusing sentence.

~Ulrika~

The argument is, and I'm not suggesting there is proof either way, if intelligent scientists can't repeat abiogenesis, then the likelihood it could be done at all is in question. When I say it gives evidence to ID, I'm saying if we can't do it under perfect, clinical conditions, it lends credence to the idea intelligence was involved to create the first life form.

Suprisingly something that I can agree with... with the inclusion of the word 'yet'.

Bear in mind that this was the setup for the experiment...

"The Miller-Urey experiment (or Urey-Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution (the Oparin and Haldane hypothesis stated that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors; the Miller-Urey tested this hypothesis)."

...and have even a passing familiarity with scientific methodolgy and it becomes obvious that the failure of a scientific experiment to produce the expected result is not evidence for ID. It's only evidence for the fact that the original assumptions about the set up of the experiment are wrong.

Given how close they came to producing something...

"The molecules produced were relatively simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that natural processes could produce the building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them in the first place."

... in 1 WEEK, I hardly think that the favour falls on your side of the argument. All it really does prove is how easy it would be for millions of years and the basic building blocks that make up this planet to produce something that can truly be considered 'alive'. In fact, the evidence that has been produced from this line of experimentation so far really turns the argument on it's head: "Given the circumstances and ease of development of these molecules, how could life NOT form as part of a natural process?"

Allow me to post a few quotes from those with much more knowledge than any of us concerning the level of complexity one single cell has.





CARL SAGAN Cornell, "The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10 to the 12th power bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannicas.", Life, Vol.10 p.894. RICIHARD DAWKINS, Oxford, "Some species of the unjustly called 'primitive' amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopedia Britannicas.", The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p.116.



MICHAEL DENTON Molecular Biologist (Agnostic), "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?", EVOLUTION, A THEORY IN CRISIS, 1985, pp. 327-8, 342.

Funny that you should quote these two gentlemen as they are both staunch atheists. I highly recommend that you purchase The Blind Watchmaker and read it. It's one of the best explanations of evolution and arguments against intelligent design ever written.

Funny thing these "agnostics" agree the simplest living cell is far too complex to have occured randomly.

This sentence is most telling.. "Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"

Kevn,

Since you continue to avoid answering my question, I can only assume that you do not think that ID is a scientific theory. Lets check the criteria

1. nope, ID does not build on a previously tested theory but comes from a religious belief with god redefined as "an anonymous creator"

2. nope, no evidence that things were created by an outside force

3. nope, the theory is untestable

4. nope, makes no predictions that could be observed in the future which would allow us to conclude that the theory is false

5. nope, assert certainty

6. nope, requires the existance of an unproven external creator

ID is not a scientific theory. Even if current theories (note the plural term) about abiogenesis are wrong it does not make all other theories true. Each theory must stand on its own merits.

A few Dawkins quotes for you...