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 ...
Some denominations may differ on interpretation. It essentially is a trichotomous view of anthropology laid forth in Scripture, with fallen man as dichotomous prior to the regeneration of the spirit by the Holy Spirit.
The term 'image' is probably an accurate interpretation of the Hebrew. One might think of an image of a function upon a paricular dimension as an exact mathematical expression of the term's meaning, although the etymology of the word originated in Hebrew prior to the mathematical meaning.
That was a story. God came in person to tell us who He was. In particular, He said no one knows the Father, the God of the OT except through Him. Who was of course the God of the OT. Jesus is the portrait of God.
[Evolution is as believable as Bill Clinton on a golf course.]
Bill Clinton has been witnessed and videotaped many times, on many golf courses.
:^)
I wouldn't believe the 'toon regardless of where he's at. I think the poster was refering to the 'toon's scoring.
Then he should have referred to creationism.
No, the design argument for God's existence goes back a ways. Philosophers have been trying to prove/disprove God's existence for a long time. This page gives a superb summary of the ongoing debate. ID is based on an argument used by Thomas Aquinas. My post was a critique of that argument.
If a design includes things like these, I conclude that the designer is incompetent or indifferent. Are these evidence of paternal love and justice? On the contrary, they are compelling evidence that the much-balleyhooed deity of Western monotheism doesn't exist. Calling the problem of evil a "bugaboo" doesn't dissolve it.
Ah, now you've got to define "good" and "evil." The dictionary defines each in relation to the other, so dictionary definitions are useless. However, if one were to distill down all the ethical codes successful societies have practiced, "good" can be defined as that which promotes the survival of society, and "evil" as that which harms society's survival chances. Murder would then be evil because it places a strain on society by leading to mistrust between members, reduction in the number of folks that can keep society functioning, and possibly additional murders as in a vendetta. It then becomes in society's best interest to remove the cause of the trouble, either through removing the murderer (incarceration or death) or through something like having the murderer pay weregeld. Either way the problem is solved and equilibrium is reestablished.
The study of God and His persons as used in language helps amplify many doctrines of Scrpture.
The Son of God, our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, is human and God, now in a very real glorified, ressurrected body, in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father.
Your choice of words as a 'portrait' is interesting. My first impression was that it diminished His diety, although I'm not sure of your meaning. The garden of Eden has been allegorized by some in order to avoid controversy between evolution and creation, although other problems arise with this tactic.
I always assumed that if the Truth about the creation of the universe came to light, everyone would go instantly insane, and we'd cease to exist. But that's just me.
In the matter of human rights I think you have to qualify what kind of religion, what kind of monarchy.
Ceratimly the MiddleEastern idea of absolute gods was intimately connected with their idea of absolute monanchy. And this idea moved into Rome and France.
However the Teutonic/Norse Gods were in mamy ways men writ large, and a large part of the mythology dealt with the miatskes and errors they made. Given that, the reflection of the god in the king could be expected to be similarly imperfect.
So while the King could only rise to that position by a claimed descent from Odin, he still needed the approval of others, whteher they were other nobles claiming simliar descent, or all landholders, or all free men. This leads to idea of restrained kingship,
Behind this is idea why Northern Europe got the idea that anyone could question the power of the King - the idea of individual soveriegnity.
This is starting to remind me of a discussion I has maybe here, but I suspect over on the old Salon board (yes there were a few conservative/libertarians registered there) on the theory (I suspect from Victor Davis Hansen) that the idea of individual autonomy and rights would rise in what might be called PIFE (Peninsular, Island, Fiord, Esturine) communities like the Aegean and Northern Europe. Here the terrain limits overland communication and allows greater independence of idividual farmers from any central government - as distinct from open land regions or irrigation empires.
So human rights are not granted by the gods, but secured by the security by which you hold your property.
In thes threads, the starting poing usually gets lost. I was discussing the European monarchs, and asking why, if the Christian religion was the inspiration for freedom, it took so long for the rulers to notice, and why some of their heads had to be chopped off to get their attention.
Would killing someone outside of one's society be murder & therefore "evil"?
The Chinese fossil fraud was committed by a someone who wanted to sell the thing (i.e. for pure monetary gain) and not by a professional researcher. It was evolutionists who uncovered the fraud. In fact, although I have long had a passing interest in scientific fraud, I'm only aware of ONE SINGLE case -- Piltdown -- of intentional deceit (presumably, the hoaxer not being known for certain) committed by an evolutionist.
In fact the incidence of fraud in evolutionary science is outstandingly low compared to virtually any other field (e.g. biomedical science where fraud -- relatively speaking -- abounds, psychology or even physics). In general the incidence of fraud tracks the amount of money spent on research, thus the high incidence in biomedical science.
tell them the truth about Lucy for instance, she is a chimpanzee
Oh, good lord, where are you getting this "truth"? Not even creationists say this!
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.