You are pretty amazing, BroJoeK....you insist on calling me a liar. The first time you called me that because I mentioned that secular science teaches that life began in a “mud puddle”. I then gave you four currently popular High School text books that put that forward.
The second time you called me a liar for “trying to pretend that my religion (incidentally, it is not religion, it is faith) is science.” I’ve not done that. I’ve been careful to separate the two both in my posts to you and Fawn. I’ve even said that I don’t care that Creation is not taught in Science class....still...I’m a liar for saying something that I never said.
Now you’re calling me a liar for saying that there are only two ways that life could have come about...on it’s own or by the hand of a Creator. If I am a liar, I’m in good company. Here’s a quote from George Wald of Harvard University, a Nobel Prize winner who says the same thing:
“There are two possible explanations of how life arose: Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God….There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others but that leaves us with only one other possibility...that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.”
If there’s a third possibility, then perhaps you can clue both Professor Wald and myself in on it.
Let me address some of your direct comments:
****So a scientific theory on the origins or evolution of life, by definition, must be a materialistic - natural theory.****
I’ve said that that’s fine with me in previous posts.
****science is LIMITED by what the physical evidence allows.****
Please remember that evidence has to be interpreted...if your only paradigm is that evolution occurred you are left with interpreting the evidence only in an evolutionary framework. This is circular reasoning, wouldn’t you agree?
It might be a good time for another quote from an evolutionist. This is Richard Lewontin, a research professor at Harvard (PhD in Zoology), it’s quite eye-opening:
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
I think he supports my point rather well. No it doesn’t matter if it makes sense, it’s the only road they are willing to travel.
****The physical evidence shows fossils in geological strata, rising from simple early forms to more complex modern features****
This is simply not true...I know there are a lot of text books that say that...but it’s not true. The fossil record shows stasis. It does not show gradual change.
I know....I’m a liar. I guess I’ll have to back up what I say with a few more quotes from evolutionists.
This one is from Niles Eldridge. He and Stephen J. Gould (an icon on your side of the argument) came up with the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium to try to explain why the fossil record does not show a simple to complex gradual change as you say it does:
“It is, indeed, a very curious state of affairs, I think, that paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately, they’ve known for over a hundred years that such is not the case...It’s the only reason whey they can correlate rocks with their fossils, for instance...They’ve ignored the question completely”
Here’s another one....This is from an article in “Scientific American” on “Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record” article is from the November/December edition in 1975:
“The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. Not only do characteristic and distinctive remains of phyla appear suddenly, without known ancestors, but several classes of a phylum, orders of a class and so on, commonly appear at approximately the same time without known intermediates...If we read the record rather literally, it implies that organisms of new grades of complexity arose and radiated rather rapidly”
****The DNA evidence shows greater similarities among more closely related species than among distantly related species.****
I’ll just make a simple comment on this....it would be the case under either scenario and is not a persuasive argument either way.
Bill Gates once said that the information found in DNA was “like a computer program only far, far more complex than any computer program ever written.” I’ll just say this...it takes intelligence to write a computer program and by the way, as information theory is being developed it is pretty much trashing the idea of information coming from any source other than intelligence.
****But where you have an enormous wealth of physical evidence, such as the fossil and DNA records, then science can have a literal field day, developing hypotheses and theories as to how all this came about NATURALLY.****
They can develop all of the hypotheses and theories they want. There may not be a natural/material answer to the question. I’m not at all against them doing that....they should research the snot out of all of them. That’s how science advances.
****And here’s the bottom line: science deals only in the natural material world, and its defenders accept only natural material theories to explain it. So if the evidence (or lack of evidence) can’t support a scientific theory, then science has NO ANSWER for that question.****
You know what BroJoe...I wish that were true....they keep trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It would be ok with me if they said something like “well, the most promising line of inquiry that we have right now is xyz but we currently have no explanation.” They really don’t ever do that.
****Where science has NO ANSWER, then of course, you are perfectly free to plug in WHATEVER ANSWER your religion or philosophy suggests. But YOU MUST NOT CALL YOUR ANSWER “SCIENCE,” BECAUSE IT IS NOT.****
I don’t.
****Your refusal to acknowledge these basic concepts is what makes you a liar, and that’s a fact by definition, not a personal attack.****
I hope you can see by now that if I say something, I’ll only say it if I can back it up.
If it is an opinion that I give you, then by definition it can not be a lie....it can only be opinion.
In short....if you insist on calling me a liar, then you are a liar.
To be clear: I consider the anti-evolution arguments of Creationism or ID-ism to be a Big Lie, worthy of a Goebbels in it's flaunting of truth -- and so, necessarily it's proponents are Big Liars, and that would include you.
But, PLEASE DON'T TAKE OFFENSE. After all, the essence of your Creationist / ID argument is: Science is a Big Lie. So, the very core of the debate is, who is the Big Liar -- or possibly, who is a Bigger Liar? You or science?
I'm just a guy, a regular Joe you might say. I "pound sand" for a living. I have some education -- it's not in science, but I still think I know the difference between science and religion. It's a matter of definitions. Where science deals ONLY with the natural, material physical world, religion involves the supernatural, spiritual, divine, etc.
So I've been thinking all week about a perfect example in which every reasonable person can see and admit the obvious Hand of God in action, in our lives today -- and yet there is not a shred of "scientific evidence," to "prove" it.
My example, of course, is the recent ditching of that airline plane in the Hudson River. Who could NOT see God's Hand in saving those passengers? Sure, the pilot was heroic, the rescuers courageous, the passengers just amazing. But in the end, does anyone seriously doubt that God reached out and saved all those passengers from certain death? If so, I'd question YOUR sanity!
And yet, there is not a single piece of scientific evidence to support my assertions. Science, literally has NOTHING to say about this. It can't, because science does not deal with the non-physical world.
Of course, most (all?) scientists are just as human as you or I, and can see it as clearly as we do, but that is their personal religious view, and must not be reflected in their scientific work.
Do you start to get the idea? The Hand of God does not need our scientific research to "prove" it. Indeed, science by definition cannot "prove" it. And yet it is there, clear as day, for all the world to see and appreciate.
So, science does not deny the Hand of God, science simply has nothing to say about it. And I doubt very much if God takes any offense at that.
Bottom line: Darwin's theory of evolution is very simple in concept: more or less random genetic mutations (some less random than others) cause some individuals to be better or worse adapted to their environments, which can lead whole species over time to change in the direction of those better adapted.
Of course, I see the Hand of God acting at every stage in this process, and I'd say, anyone who can't see that, who insists on more "scientific proof" of GOD (!), is at least religiously blind, and possibly not even sane.
But to go even further, and insist that science is all a lie, that PHYSICAL evidence somehow "proves" evolution invalid or the tenets of Creationism / ID-ism correct, is just, imho, well, outrageous, despicable and unacceptable.
So, by definition, Creationism / ID-ism is a Big Lie, and its proponents Big Liars. I'd say, you guys ought to be ashamed of yourselves, and you ought to stop doing it.
Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought I was "debating" a Creationist / ID'er, whose purpose in life is to get "Creationism" by some other name taught in public science classes.
That is, after all, what this whole argument is about. Otherwise, NO ONE would even care what you believe about your religion or science. And you can certainly teach your kids whatever you like about it in your home school, or religious school or private school -- when it's a matter of personal choice, then believe whatever you want, for crying out loud.
And, I'm certainly NOT going to attempt arguing YOU out of your "Young Earth Creationism," (or whatever you call it). My ONLY point is: you cannot teach that in PUBLIC schools under the name of science. Yes, you could teach it in classes on philosophy, or religion, or history or even "cultural studies," etc. But it's not science, and you can't pretend it is.
Now, if it turns out that we agree on these points, then there really is no "debate" going on here, I'd say. And I'd also apologize for any misunderstanding. And we should also apologize to Free Republic for taking up so much of their computer file space with our ardent "agreement." ;-)
You don't give the date of this quote, but I've said before, such ideas are mistaken on several levels, and every thinking scientist (are there any "non-thinking" scientists?) should clearly understand that.
First of all, there's an endless list of possible ways that life COULD HAVE first arisen on earth. You don't even have to think hard to list a handful:
Second of all, your claim that: "Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others..." is an absolute falsehood IN THIS CONTEXT, which I have explained to you before, but you don't seem to understand, and keep claiming.
What Pasteur & other scientists conclusively demonstrated was that MODERN life forms cannot "spontaneously" self-generate in sterilized environments. Today we consider that a "no-brainer."
But NO hypothesis about the origin of life on earth assumes such a thing. Instead, the scientific assumption is that "life" began as: non-living atoms and molecules combined and formed over many many eons into more and more complex structures. Eventually, some of these non-living structures could be said to have some life-like functions. And, at that point, evolution takes over, with random mutations, combinations and natural selection promoting the ever-better adapted forms.
Now, I recognize your argument about the problem of organic complexities -- it's often claimed there's not enough time in the universe to allow all these combinations to form randomly. But I think that claim purposely "misunderstands" what was going on.
A much better understanding is that various useful features of living cells developed somewhat simultaneously amongst many different "forms," which then absorbed and combined with each other in ways that proved more and more successful.
So, instead of it taking billions of years for a single complex chemical combination to randomly happen, some portions of this could grow in billions of different "cell" types, later absorbing and combining over a much shorter period of time.
Finally, Professor's Wald's religious opinions should be irrelevant to a discussion of science. I've said before, I believe that God DID create the heavens, the earth and all it's creatures, and I think He did it through the processes described by scientific theories such as evolution.
So, imho, Professor Wald (whose name I've never before seen) sets up a false choice, which he really ought to be ashamed of, and should retract (yes, there's a lot of shameful argumentation seen on this subject!)
Please remember that evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory, and there IS NO other scientific theory, or even widely accepted hypotheses, about how life may have developed on earth. Creationism / ID-ism is not science, cannot become science, because there's no physical evidence for it.
All the examples I've seen for so-called "evidence" of ID-Creationism are nothing of the sort. To me they merely point to somewhat interesting scientific questions, that could keep workers busily investigating for many years.
Now, let us just suppose, for sake of argument, that someday is found, deep down in the geological column, the remains of the Jedi spaceship that crashed into a previously sterile earth, bringing along small life forms which eventually populated the planet. Then we would have at least some scientific evidence which might lead us off in a new direction.
But until some such event happens, evolution is the only real scientific game in town. Much as you might, for your own religious reasons, wish otherwise.
By the way, if you really wanted to think about how science operates, then consider Newton's laws of motion verses Einstein's theories of relativity. Einstein did not "disprove" Newton, he merely showed that under certain circumstances, Newton's laws don't really apply. Think about it...
schaef21: I think he supports my point rather well. No it doesn’t matter if it makes sense, it’s the only road they are willing to travel."
I've now said many times: by definition, science ONLY deals with the natural, material physical realm. I've also said there are other realms in which much of TRUTH may exist. But these realms are not science, and should not be taught as science. Do we really disagree here?
schaef21: This is simply not true...I know there are a lot of text books that say that...but it’s not true. The fossil record shows stasis. It does not show gradual change.
schaef21: I know....I’m a liar. I guess I’ll have to back up what I say with a few more quotes from evolutionists."
My statement above is literally true, and so you are a liar, despite your quotes, for attempting to deny what is obviously the case.
The fact is, the geological column inerrantly shows life moving in only one direction: from primitive to more advanced. There are, for examples, no elephants mixed in with dinosaurs, and no dinosaurs found in Precambrian rocks. That's a simple fact which you cannot honestly deny. Indeed, if it were ever truly found to be false, then all of science (!) would be overturned. But to date it has never been.
Your quotes from Eldridge and Scientific American (1975!) deal with the question in evolution about the rates of change in species over time. Darwin assumed that species changes were slow, gradual and continuous.
More recent research has shown this not to be the usual case, that where a species is well adapted to its environment, and the environment doesn't change much, then neither will the species -- sometimes for hundreds of millions of years.
Possibly the best known example of that is crocodiles, which are pretty much the same today as the fossils found of them in geological strata long BEFORE the dinosaurs!
But, where the environment changes rapidly, it can force many extinctions, AND relatively rapid evolution on the survivors.
This is what the fossil record obviously shows, and to deny it is to deny what's obviously true, and does not speak well of your character.
schaef21: You know what BroJoe...I wish that were true....they keep trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It would be ok with me if they said something like “well, the most promising line of inquiry that we have right now is xyz but we currently have no explanation.” They really don’t ever do that.
BroJoeK: ****Where science has NO ANSWER, then of course, you are perfectly free to plug in WHATEVER ANSWER your religion or philosophy suggests. But YOU MUST NOT CALL YOUR ANSWER “SCIENCE,” BECAUSE IT IS NOT.****
schaef21: I don’t."
Look, I only know what I read, and I read Scientific American regularly, have now mostly finished Eugenie Scott's book "Evolution vs. Creationism." None of these talk the way you characterize them. In fact, when a careful scientist like Scott talks about science, she takes pains to point out just what science does & doesn't do, or what science can or cannot say.
She also carefully points out the differences among:
Now, if you want my humble opinion (?), I'll tell you just where I think your problem begins: you MISTAKE the word "science" for capitalized "TRUTH." It's not, not by a long shot. Science deals ONLY with one branch of "truth," and that's the branch of the the natural, material physical realm. Outside this area are whole realms of TRUTH which science can't touch. And I think if you understood even that much, you'd have less of a problem with this subject.
schaef21: I hope you can see by now that if I say something, I’ll only say it if I can back it up.
schaef21: If it is an opinion that I give you, then by definition it can not be a lie....it can only be opinion.
schaef21: In short....if you insist on calling me a liar, then you are a liar."
It appears obvious to me that someone is lying here, and I can't conceive that it's science. But when I read the arguments of ID-Creationists, I get a sense of slimy, creepy & really disgusting attempts to pervert the truth for strictly religious reasons. I'll say again, I think it's a Big Lie, and it's a shame if some truly decent people are caught up in it!