Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?

AiG ^ | February 13, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?

....

Are mutations really the “key to our evolution”? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, “God made the beasts of the earth after their kind” (Genesis 1:25)...

[YHAOS]

”Maybe nailing jello to a wall can occur.”

I have no illusions. I’ll not be nailing any jello to anything. Maybe I’ll be making a few things a little more clear.

[metmom]

In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

And that's your statement?

Or are you plagiarizing it by deliberately not citing it?

[allmendream]

Only if scripture actually said. “And it is all only a few thousand years old.”

It never did.

It says a lot.

But it doesn't get bogged down in details of exact timelines.

That is all over-interpretation, just as Prov 104:5 doesn't actually mean the Earth doesn't move in relation to other celestial objects. That is another over-interpretation, we can read the passage in light of the truth that the earth does move, but the meaning of the passage is intact.

[js1138]

And that's your statement? Or are you plagiarizing it by deliberately not citing it?

It's an indented quote. I assumed that freepers would recognize Aquinas.

[DaGman]

"If you feel that Scripture needs to be adjusted to fit current scientific pronouncements, then you have demonstrated what it is that you put your faith in as being most correct."

Why adjust Scripture when the need is obviously to change the understanding of Scripture to conform with what we know to be scientific facts? Even the Catholic Church admitted as much upon the reexamination of the trial of Galileo.

[metmom]

Of course I realized that it was not yours. It wasn't your style.

But recognizing it or not, it still should be cited. I've seen more than enough creationists chastised for that very thing by evos often enough.

Scripture will always be subject to the ridicule of believers, whether it conforms to the current fashion in thinking or not. By demanding that it conform to men's whims instead of being the standard against which human thought should be measured, it's rendered impotent and useless.

The Cross of Christ is an offense to the world and adjusting Scripture to make it more palatable so that it doesn't offend anyone will make it ineffective in dealing with man's most basic need, that of forgiveness.

The only obstacle to men's believing is their will. They don't believe because they choose not to believe, not because they can't believe. The idea that men can't believe because of the actions of believers is merely an excuse to justify their rejection of the Bible.

Unacceptable behavior in any form on the part of the believer does not invalidate the message God presents in the Bible nor does it absolve the unbeliever from any responsibility in responding to it. The message stands independent of any individual. It's valid and true because God is faithful and true, not because men are faithful and true (which they often aren't)

1 Corinthians 1:21-23

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

The stumbling block is Christ crucified, not a believer's views on science.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

”In the beginning” is pretty dadgumed specific. But I guess you have to parse things to maintain your Boyarin reputation.

You're losing the thread. I didn't say the Bible implied something, I said calling yourself a believer in a Bible-based religion implied something. Not the same at all.

While I appreciate the opportunity to learn who Boyarin is, I have no idea how it applies to me.

I’ve responded with several sources that show a generic use

Really? I've gone back through your posts and can't find one. Could you post them again, or tell me which post they were in?

I was talking about the part that begins,...

So does that mean you acknowledge that you're using a definition other than the one usually used in popular writing in the U.S. today? That's fine. But I don't think it's worth criticizing someone for instead using the most common definition and expecting other people to understand it. I think if you're going to use the uncommon definition, it's up to you to qualify your usage.

[MrB]

TXinMA must not be very good at understanding, or instantly has his back up defensively on this issue.

Metmom “got it” -
Newton’s conclusion that the universe was orderly and could be studied in a systematic, orderly fashion, was because of the Scriptural teaching that God is a God of order, not of disorder. That enabled him to develop the scientific method.

Contrast this with the Muslim view of their god - an entity not to be “chained” to predictable, orderly behavior. And we see how far their _modern_ science advanced.

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Early-Modern-Science-Islam/dp/0521529948

[js1138]

But recognizing it or not, it still should be cited.

Point taken. I was in a hurry.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

so why don’t you tell us what Thomas Aquinas meant when he said...

Certainly a pro-contraception liberal like you would be a good judge of what Aquinas really means. We see that not only have you recruited the Popes as support for Deism or materialistic atheism or whatever it is you're selling, now even Aquinas is on your side. Ho boy! We should believe your commentaries on Aquinas (and on the Popes) and all your commentaries on things Catholic for that matter, because you are so very credible.

Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.

Other sciences are called the handmaidens of this one: "Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower"

Sacred doctrine derives its principles not from any human knowledge, but from the divine knowledge, through which, as through the highest wisdom, all our knowledge is set in order...

The principles of other sciences either are evident and cannot be proved, or are proved by natural reason through some other science. But the knowledge proper to this science comes through revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore it has no concern to prove the principles of other sciences, but only to judge of them. Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science must be condemned as false: "Destroying counsels and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).

-Aquinas, Summa Theologica, first part.

[allmendream]

I am not a liberal.

I am not an atheist.

I am not a Deist.

I am not “selling” anything.

I am pointing out that while science cannot and will not ever contradict what Scripture actually says, it certainly can make mince meat out of the silly interpretations that creationist zealots make of it.

For example, Prov 104:5, obviously doesn’t mean that the Earth does not move in relation to other celestial bodies. I do not deny scripture by saying the Earth moves, I deny the interpretation that Prov 104:5 means more than what it actually says.

Prov 104:5 HE set the earth on its foundations,
so that it should never be moved.

[YHAOS]

”misquoting me saying ‘proof’ . . .”

The quote where I used ‘proof’:

You cite a single home page as ‘proof’ that Creationists “almost invariably” reject HIV as the cause of AIDS. Is that all there is?

Since you object to ‘proof,’ I will rephrase: You cite a single home page as a demonstration that Creationists “almost invariably” reject HIV as the cause of AIDS. Is that all there is?

Can you now bring yourself to answer, or must you find another objection?

”conflating creationists with Christians”

I’ve stated that, by definition, Christians are Creationists. Does your Boyarin superiority demand that you correct me on everything, or else you fail to maintain the pretense of your Alpha Male status? Earlier you seemed to agree with me. Now you find objection?

”so why don’t you tell us what Thomas Aquinas meant when he said... ”

So why don’t you take care of a number of items you’ve left unanswered:

You sent me a picture of Page 8 – Jesus and the Dinosaurs, from the Beginner’s Bible Coloring Book. So I can get a feel for what the book is like, do you have page 7 and page 9 you can send? (or a website where I can peruse the entire book)

Besides the above, do you have a source for the other fascinating pictures you sent to me (second request)?

And the item above where you gagged on the word ‘proof,’ although it’s a perfectly appropriate word in the context used.

I believe in ‘give & take.’ You seem to want to play ‘you demand - I comply.’ Like any other arrangement would demean your station.

On your Aquinas quote. Do you have a source you can cite, so I may go check context? Or did you just pick it off a ‘bag of quotes’ site where they don’t even give a source? The quote seems vaguely familiar, yet it doesn’t quite read like Aquinas. Maybe it’s the translation.

In any event, if you want a response, you have some catching up to do.

[allmendream]

Now you have me saying “almost invariably”. I never claimed “almost invariably”.

Other than putting words in peoples mouths and quibbling over the common definition of words it seems you are all out of arguments.

I stated my opinion that many Creationists are also believe a lot of other kooky things, and my evidence for this is the opinions by the Creationist posters on this forum, as well as all the other Creationists I have talked with or read about over my lifetime.

If you find their views embarrassing I suggest you take it up with them and perhaps tell them you think their off the wall views are a discredit to the Creationist movement.

[allmendream]

I did not say that Creationists almost invariably reject HIV as the cause of AIDS.

I said that creationists almost invariably have other kooky views not supported by evidence, and that AMONG those views was HIV-AIDS denial.

But again, if you are embarrassed by their views, I suggest you take it up with them.

[YHAOS]

”You're losing the thread.”

You’re playing games. You make a distinction with no difference. Anything to change the subject, and erect a sidetrack.

”While I appreciate the opportunity to learn who Boyarin is, I have no idea how it applies to me.”

ZOOM! Right over your head.”

”I've gone back through your posts and can't find one.”

Next step in the Artful Dodger’s grab bag of diversions. Send your correspondent galloping off on a fool’s errand.

”So does that mean you acknowledge that you're using a definition other than the one usually used in popular writing in the U.S. today?”

No. It means I was quoting one of the definitions you had cited.

I’ve asked if you are sincere in your indifference to the amount of public funds that are allocated to Science and Science Education, and to the policy turbulence that naturally accompanies public support. You must have overlooked that query. What’s the scoop?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I can't help but notice that you didn't actually address any points I made.

ZOOM! Right over your head.

You seem to think that pulling an obscure name out of left field has won you some kind of rhetorical point. I'm not impressed.

Send your correspondent galloping off on a fool’s errand.

So you admit that looking for a post where you offer an example of a generic use of "creationist" or "creationism" (as you claimed you did) would be a fool's errand. Thank you, I'm glad to learn that before I spend any more time on it.

It means I was quoting one of the definitions you had cited.

Right. Just not the one usually used when writing in America today. We are writing in America today, in case you hadn't noticed.

I’ve asked if you are sincere in your indifference to the amount of public funds that are allocated to Science and Science Education, and to the policy turbulence that naturally accompanies public support.

I started to answer than in a previous post, but decided to keep it short. When you talked about gaining political dominance, I thought you meant in this discussion. I see I misunderstood. No, I am not indifferent to the issues around science education.

[tpanther]

I am not a liberal.

I am not an atheist.

I am not a Deist.

I am not “selling” anything.

I am pointing out that while science cannot and will not ever contradict what Scripture actually says, it certainly can make mince meat out of the silly interpretations that creationist zealots make of it.

For example, Prov 104:5, obviously doesn’t mean that the Earth does not move in relation to other celestial bodies. I do not deny scripture by saying the Earth moves, I deny the interpretation that Prov 104:5 means more than what it actually says.

Prov 104:5 HE set the earth on its foundations,
so that it should never be moved.

---

I think you’d be better served by interpreting what scripture means for yourself, and not worry so much about what other people are doing.

First of all, I think you’re talking about Psalms here, and not Proverbs. And there’s a huge difference.

Psalms are best understood if read as if poetry, not etched in stone fact.

Have you ever read the entire Psalm (104)?

In the 2nd verse it describes how God is wrapped in light as if clothing. Somehow I can’t imagine any “creation zealot” thinking of light as clothing.

I don’t know of any “creation zealot” that looks at the 10th verse as meaning the earth is fixed, particularly if they understand it’s indeed a psalm and not a proverb. If they do, you might recommend they try a Student Bible, as it helps explain in modern language what each book of the Bible is.

For instance, “foundations” could mean different things to different people for one thing...to say a young man has good foundations could mean anything from he’s got good up-bringing to big feet, depending on who’s interpreting “foundations”, his grandmother or his basketball coach.

In this case, I interpret the earth has been set the way it has, by God and can not be altered.

A foundation need not necessarily be stationery either.

[allmendream]

Yes, Psalms. Thanks for the correction.

So you are obviously willing to consider that the language of the Bible is poetic in places where a clear literal meaning would be false; as in the case of the Earth not moving.

How hard is it to move on to other scriptural interpretations that have you trying to figure out how many dinosaurs could fit on the Arc, denying the speed of light, radio-isotopic decay, the fossil record, and the genetic evidence of common descent?

[allmendream]

Psalm 104
O LORD My God, You Are Very Great
1( Bless the LORD, O my soul!
O LORD my God, you are very great!
You are clothed with splendor and majesty,
covering yourself with light as with a garment,
stretching out the heavens like a tent.
3He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters;he makes the clouds his chariot;
he rides on the wings of the wind;
4he makes his messengers winds,
his ministers a flaming fire.
5He(M) set the earth on its foundations,
so that it should never be moved.
6You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
7At your rebuke they fled;
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.
8The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them.
9You set a boundary that they may not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.

10You make springs gush forth in the valleys;
they flow between the hills;
11they give drink to every beast of the field;
the wild donkeys quench their thirst.
12Beside them the birds of the heavens dwell;
they sing among the branches.
13 From your lofty abode you water the mountains;
the earth is satisfied with the fruit of your work.

14You cause the grass to grow for the livestock
and plants for man to cultivate,
that he may bring forth food from the earth
15and wine to gladden the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine
and bread to strengthen man’s heart.

16The trees of the LORD are watered abundantly,
the cedars of Lebanon that he planted.
17In them the birds build their nests;
the stork has her home in the fir trees.
18The high mountains are for the wild goats;
the rocks are a refuge for the rock badgers.

19He made the moon to mark the seasons
the sun knows its time for setting.
20 You make darkness, and it is night,
when all the beasts of the forest creep about.
21 The young lions roar for their prey,
seeking their food from God.
22When the sun rises, they steal away
and lie down in their dens.
23 Man goes out to his work
and to his labor until the evening.

24O LORD, how manifold are your works!
In wisdom have you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
25Here is the sea, great and wide,
which teems with creatures innumerable,
living things both small and great.
26There go the ships,
and Leviathan, which you formed to play in it.

27These all look to you,
to give them their food in due season.
28When you give it to them, they gather it up;
when you open your hand, they are filled with good things.
29When you hide your face, they are dismayed;
when you take away their breath, they die
and return to their dust.
30When you send forth your Spirit, they are created,
and you renew the face of the ground.

31May the glory of the LORD endure forever;
may the LORD rejoice in his works,
32who looks on the earth and it trembles,
who touches the mountains and they smoke!
33I will sing to the LORD as long as I live;
I will sing praise to my God while I have being.
34May my meditation be pleasing to him,
for I rejoice in the LORD.
35Let sinners be consumed from the earth,
and let the wicked be no more!
Bless the LORD, O my soul! Praise the LORD!

[tpanther]

If you find their views embarrassing I suggest you take it up with them and perhaps tell them you think their off the wall views are a discredit to the Creationist movement.

---

Apparently this does not apply to you, with all the kooky ideas godless liberal secular humanists come up with.

In fact, if people like you would spend 1/100th the amount of time you spend squealing about this subject on man made global warming instead, perhaps algoreacle would shut up and stop harming science.

I’m trying to come up with all the Christians that I know who deny His creation, demand children be told that “God doesn’t belong in science class”, and won’t admit evolution IS His intelligent design...speaking of “embarassing”.