Posted on 08/21/2005 1:18:04 AM PDT by MRMEAN
Compared with fields like genetics and neuroscience and cosmology, botany comes up a bit short in the charisma department. But when scientists announced last week that they had figured out how plants grow, one had to take note, not only because of the cleverness required to crack a puzzle that dates to 1885, but because of what it says about controversy and certainty in science -- and about the evolution debate.
In 1885, scientists discovered a plant-growth hormone and called it auxin. Ever since, its mechanism of action had been a black box, with scientists divided into warring camps about precisely how the hormone works. Then last week, in a study in Nature, biologist Mark Estelle of Indiana University, Bloomington, and colleagues reported that auxin links up with a plant protein called TIR1, and together the pair binds to a third protein that silences growth-promoting genes. The auxin acts like a homing beacon for enzymes that munch on the silencer. Result: The enzymes devour the silencer, allowing growth genes to turn on.
Yet biology classes don't mention the Auxin Wars. Again and again, impressionable young people are told that auxin promotes plant growth, when the reality is more complex and there has been raging controversy over how it does so.
Which brings us to evolution. Advocates of teaching creationism (or its twin, intelligent design) have adopted the slogan, "Teach the controversy." That sounds eminently sensible. But it is disingenuous. For as the auxin saga shows, virtually no area of science is free of doubt or debate or gaps in understanding.
(Excerpt) Read more at american-buddha.com ...
The God of the Declaration was tempered by the Politics of the Men.
Actually, as practiced in America, the peculiar institution was probably about as humanitarian as it ever was.
Not to say it was perfect but it beat 'Oriental" enslavemnt, Egyptian, Roman, Hellinic, American Indian, Arab, Slavic, Nordic, Teutonic, Gothic, African, Caribbean, South American and Polynesian (and others) slavery practices by leagues.
Why?
Because the practitioners were enlightened European Christians and Jews....and the climate was more forgiving. Which also why it died here but continues in more primitive cultures.
That is one take on it & has some validity. Éttiene de la Boétie's "The Politics of Obedience: Discourse of Voluntary Servitude" had gained circulation by Huguenots. In 1576 the first complete version was published by Simon Goulart in Holland. In 1581 the Dutch wrote the Act of Abjuration, their Declaration of Independence. It was in large part due to religious persecution by Spain. Compare it to our own Declaration of Independence.
the Bible has some stirring political rhetoric. Not much, in my reading, to justify individuals rising up against the government.
Christian's rose up before our nation's revolution & founding. Revolution to throw off government tyranny was consistent with Christian teachings, but before people could see things that way they had to first distance themselves from a centralized church in bed with the state.
I don't see any great universal principle invoked to justify Exodus.
??
***If the thousand year reign of European monarchs doesn't count as Christian government, then I am afraid there is no point in continuing the discussion***
May I point you to the words of Jesus...
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."
***The founders of this country were not following religion in establishing the laws and constitution. ***
They were, almost to a man, religious people. You seem to want to recast them as "atheist-in-hiding" which they certainly were not. Whatever they did, they did according to the dictates of their religiously informed conscience.
***I notice, however, that the God of the Declaration did not see fit to condemn slavery,****
You'll have to take that up with the founders.
"Miracles", for one. Miraculous events which violate scientific predictions. Feeding hundreds of people from a small basket of fish. Walking on water. Curing medically irreversible blindness by the laying on of hands.
No scientific theory includes "miracles" as observed phenomenon. That is because whatever miracles occur are infrequent, non-reproducible, and happen under circumstances which do not include scientific controls.
This is why the existence of God or miracles is not the subject of science. Assuming that a Supreme Being is omnipotent, then there are no limits to such a being's ability to create a universe completely consistent with scientific principles. Such a being can also ensure that miracles only occur under the circumstances I described, purposely preventing the incorporation of miracles into scientific theories. This can supply the ultimate test of faith in one's Creator.
Many primitive societies believe, or believed, in numerous gods, each with different powers and concerns. Miracles, at least by their standards, were everyday occurrences. Modern science has a pretty good handle on what causes fire. Primitive societies might think that a match was a pretty miraculous thing.
*** I'm no Bible scholar, but from my earliest days I could recite the Lord's Prayer***
PH, you should return to Him. He loves you.
***Sounds like monarchy to me.****
Actually I qualified my statement, "There is no divinely inspired form of human government indicated in the NT."
(specifically "...form of *human* government").
Nothing to do with evolution. The assumption was that European dominance was a "blessing" on their ancestor.
9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Like the 1969 Mets?
You are insufferably presumptuous.
If Deists & skeptics had been the only ones manning the front lines, the Crown would have make quick work of them.
***You are insufferably presumptuous.***
How so?
I can't tell if you are really trying to make an argument or if you are spoofing common creationist/ID argument styles by taking a trapping of scientific knowledge that some laypeople might remember after a high school science education left stagnant for ten years and tossing bits and pieces of information -- some properly remembered, most not -- into an attempt to attack a science that the arguer has never studied. Attempting to reference the phenomenon of time dilation (and referencing it quite clumsily ) as some kind of argument against the solidity of the theory of evolution is so bizarre and silly that I really can't tell if you're honestly dumb enough to think that you're making a point or just spoofing.
First, I note your attack style above that deftly mixes three well known rules of disinformation: Nos. 2, 5 and 6.
No. 2, Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
No. 5, Side-track opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left- wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint. Example: "This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters." Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't seem curious if the author is never heard from again.
Nonetheless, you failed to address the substance of the issues raised in the original post.
Rights, much like good and evil, exist external to God.
Since all miracles happened in the ancient past, perhaps God has left us and gone on to better things?
I disagree.
The rights mentioned pre-existed the war against Great Britain. We didn't "get" the rights by fighting the war, we got a government which was designed to be limited by it's Constitution from violating those rights.
Do you think that you have a right to life? Would it be morally or ethically acceptable to you to deprive you of that life without justification?
Do you think that you have a right to liberty? Would it be morally or ethically acceptable to you to deprive you of your liberty without justification? Would it be acceptable to deprive you of your pursuit of happiness? Perhaps you should be required to be a garbage truck driver. Such a decision would be made in a communist system.
If none of those infringements are acceptable to you, why not? Do you find them unacceptable just because we have a Constitution? Or do we have a Constitution because such infringements are unacceptable?
The Bible is full of examples where God took away those 'inalienable' rights.
It's really perceptive of you to know the state of another person's relationship with God.
***If God can bestow or take away rights, then they are not inalienable.***
This is not logical. The framers said we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights.
I guess you disagree with them?
***In a similar manner, God cannot determine what is good or evil.***
If God does, infact, exist then He created our frame of reference. We could not know "good" or "evil" apart from Him.
*** Rights, much like good and evil, exist external to God.***
Nothing exist external to God.
Suffering, misery, evil all exist within God.
300
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.