YES, EVOLUTION STILL HAS UNANSWERED QUESTIONS; THAT'S HOW SCIENCE IS

WSJ ^ | June 3, 2005 | Sharon Begley

[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.

[csense]

"The bibul is being removed from this country..."

This from someone who calls other people dumb. You, my friend, win the prize for the most ignorant statement I have yet to read on this forum. I would direct you to the Bill of Rights, but quite frankly, I don't think you have the wherewithal to comprehend it. I'm still trying to figure out how you managed to string together a semi-coherent sentence. You should do your side a favor and just remain silent.

[Thatcherite]

You, my friend, win the prize for the most ignorant statement I have yet to read on this forum.

You must skip an awful lot of posts:

"The 2LOT says evolution is impossible"

"There is no evidence for evolution"

"Scientists can make life therefore ID is true"

"Scientists can't make life therefore ID is true"

"Scientists once believed the world was flat"

and many many more ignorant fantasies, even, just listen to this one, from grown adults (apparently)...

"The biblical story of Noah describes true events that really occurred"

By comparison the OP is a model of good sense and restraint.

[TalBlack]

"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."

You cannot seriously draw conclusions about the level of competence of a being who a.)created the universe and for b.) a reason beyon human understanding. Believe in Him or don't, no one can gainsay that. But to assert that you find flaws in a thing you can't even comprehend is ridiculous.

That one of these flaws is childhood disease betrays a less than sophomoric understanding of the points in question.

If bad things happening to innocent children is is evidence of an uncaring God, then what on earth are we to make of the holocaust or the adventures of Vlad the impaler. Just a few weeks ago a drunk driver killed the 7 yr old flowergirl at a wedding that had taken place only hours before. The mother held the decapitated head in her arms while she waited for the cops. Some drunk (may he remain forever in jail) choosing to get behind the wheel means that there can be no God?

There is no excuse for failing to notice that God NEVER promises an end to suffering and pain in LIFE. In life he only promises to give one strength and stand by them IF THEY WILL BELIEVE IN HIM. The "perfect world" is entered only AFTER life is done (and may be judged).

Question: In your view WHY would an all powerful God (who could, presumably, fully right ALL wrongs) worry about this world killing an innocent child?

P.S. NOTHING can dissolve Evil. Evil is man's burden.

[TalBlack]

"God gets to do what He wants. He's just awesome that way."

You failed to point out that whan God made us imperfect HE GAVE US FREE WILL. ( Which would be useless if we were perfect).

[biblewonk]

We don't have free will.

[Petronius]

But to assert that you find flaws in a thing you can't even comprehend is ridiculous.

This works in BOTH directions: if I have no business criticising a designer due to the incomprehensibility of the design, you have no business praising him. BOTH are judgments.

If bad things happening to innocent children is is evidence of an uncaring God, then what on earth are we to make of the holocaust or the adventures of Vlad the impaler.

More evidence of an uncaring God. Geez, how much evidence do you you need? Question: What on earth makes you think that such a being exists? Could anything count as evidence against this belief?

We might be talking past each other, a common difficulty in these discussions. You're beginning with the assumption that God already exists. I'm starting with no assumptions and wondering how far reason unaided by faith or revelation can get us.

Given the weaknesses of the arguments for God's existence and the problem of evil, reason doesn't get too far. Many Christians throughout history agreed (Luther, Kierkegaard, Pascal, Bayle). They maintained that far from being self-evident, belief in God was exceedingly difficult (hence the need for faith). If only the creationists/IDers shared their humility.

In your view WHY would an all powerful God (who could, presumably, fully right ALL wrongs) worry about this world killing an innocent child?

Because he's supposed to be loving and just. If I could prevent the suffering of children, I would. To refrain from doing so--if you have the power--isn't "mysterious," it's SADISTIC. The conclusion of non-theism is unavoidable.

[onja]

When the platypus was found it was thought to be a joke by Chinese taxonomists.

[onja]

Just curious. If transitional animals were extra vulnerable, wouldn't that be opposite of survival of the fittest.

[CarrotAndStick]

Yes, but the chances of survival of a species depends on how vulnerable it is at its reproductive phase, if it has managed to survive upto atleast this age, either by itself, or with external help from its parent/s or members of its group. For example, say a half-way creature between a fish and a land-animal. Perhaps during the breeding period of its life, it could avoid predators, by being strong enough to fight or flee. At this stage, the creature has most probably reproduced, and is mostly capable of hiding/defending its young. But the creature probably couldn't survive a weaker phase of its life without being hunted upon by other creatures, and hence not allowing the formation of its fossil.

Remember, the fossils we find are of one-in-a-million of those numerous millions of every one of the billions of species that lived upon this earth. And I am pretty hopeful one day someone will dig up a fossil of a trans-species, if not already. The process of fossilisation itself is of very low probability, I mean, if you were to spread a million carcasses all over a plot of land, after a couple of million years, it is of very low probability to find the fossilised remains of even one of those million carcasses. The carcasses usually will:

a. Be scavenged upon thoroughly by other creatures,
b. Get dispersed over a wide area,
c. Decay completely in a million years owing to microbial damage
d. Get destroyed due to geological activity.
e. Undergo something else, yet unstated.


And above all, my explanation is just a feeble opinion of mine, and could have serious flaws.

[Gumlegs]

Disinformation link bookmarked. Thanks for posting it.

[TalBlack]

"""""This works in BOTH directions: if I have no business criticising a designer due to the incomprehensibility of the design, you have no business praising him. BOTH are judgments.""""


My judgement, however, DOES NOT elevate me to a level of His understanding


""""More evidence of an uncaring God. Geez, how much evidence do you you need? Question: What on earth makes you think that such a being exists? Could anything count as evidence against this belief?"'"

God exists on the earth ONLY in the hearts of men. This planet and it's Evil are OUR problem, not God's.

"""We might be talking past each other, a common difficulty in these discussions. You're beginning with the assumption that God already exists. I'm starting with no assumptions and wondering how far reason unaided by faith or revelation can get us."""

I began thinking that God was created by men to hold their terrors at bay. I have come to the conclusion (after 46 yrs of life)that God is out there somewhere. If you want to know where man can end up "unaided by faith" I refer you again to The third reich and Vlad the Impaler et al.

""""Given the weaknesses of the arguments for God's existence and the problem of evil, reason doesn't get too far. Many Christians throughout history agreed (Luther, Kierkegaard, Pascal, Bayle). They maintained that far from being self-evident, belief in God was exceedingly difficult (hence the need for faith). If only the creationists/IDers shared their humility."""

I wouldn't call it humility. I would call it an unwillingness to understand that God promises NOTHING to those who live, beyond peace if they keep him in their hearts. The Justice ("Vengance is mine")and the Peace Everlasting come ONLY when we are dead. There is a reason that """....belief in God was exceedingly difficult."""


""""Because he's supposed to be loving and just. If I could prevent the suffering of children, I would. To refrain from doing so--if you have the power--isn't "mysterious," it's SADISTIC. The conclusion of non-theism is unavoidable.""" (And convienient)

God would expect you to ease the sufferings of childeren. It is OUR job NOT His.

How old are you? I said and believed a lot of what you wrote above many years ago. God didn't make any damn sense to me. He still doesn't. He's not supposed to.