Pre-RNA? Hybrids between proteins and nucleic acids may have helped genetic molecules evolve.
Credit: Science/AAAS
Posted on 06/13/2009 1:07:46 PM PDT by neverdem
Pre-RNA? Hybrids between proteins and nucleic acids may have helped genetic molecules evolve.
Credit: Science/AAAS
Researchers pondering the origin of life have long struggled to crack the ultimate chicken-and-egg paradox. How did nucleic acids like DNA and RNA--which encode proteins--first form, when proteins are needed for their synthesis? Now, scientists report that they've cooked up molecular hybrids of proteins and nucleic acids that skirt the dreaded paradox. Although it's unknown whether such molecules existed prior to the emergence of life, they offer insight into a chemical pathway that might have helped life arise.
DNA and RNA sport a backbone of sugar and phosphate groups linked to the nucleotide bases that spell out the genetic code. Certain proteins help copy nucleic acids by fashioning complementary strands that carry matching nucleotides. But how could nucleic acids originate without proteins, and vice versa? Proponents of the "RNA World" hypothesis argue that RNA itself was the key because of its dual abilities: It not only carries genetic information but also can catalyze chemical reactions. That view received a big boost earlier this year, when researchers at The Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, California, showed that small RNA fragments can catalyze their own reproduction. "The question remains, how those first RNA molecules appeared," says Luke Leman, a chemist at Scripps who was not part of the study. Other researchers have synthesized DNA and RNA analogs with simpler sugar backbones that may have done the job. Yet those are still complex, lessening the chance that they were the primordial replicating molecules, Leman says.
In hopes of finding something simpler, Leman and colleagues did away with the sugar-phosphate backbones altogether. Instead, they turned to amino acids, protein building blocks that have been shown to assemble under prebiotic conditions. The researchers report online today in Science Express that when they combined just two amino acids, a backbone readily assembled without the need for additional enzymes. They then found that DNA bases could bind to a sulfur group in one of the amino acids, cysteine, creating a protein-DNA hybrid strand. But because the nucleic acid bases attach weakly to the cysteines--think Velcro instead of glue--the bases can jump on and off in solution. As a result, when the researchers placed their hybrids in solution with single strands of DNA and RNA, the hybrids were able to rearrange their nucleic acid makeup to form complementary strands that would bind to the DNAs and RNAs. The researchers discovered that the hybrids could also form strands that would bind to other complementary hybrids, which shows that such molecules have the potential to copy themselves.
"This is very interesting and creative," says Eric Kool, a chemist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, who studies nucleic acid analogs. These particular hybrids change so rapidly in solution, it's unclear if they would remain stable long enough to propagate genetic information over several generations. However, Kool says, "It's an idea worth considering."
[[Do you truly believe this? I hesitate to point out to you as to why this would be, as I believe that any religious being must, to an overwhelming extent, come to their position by faith.]]
They accept Christ as Savior by faith- they put hteir faith in Christ at the moment of salvation, and find out hteir faith is rewarded by God’s immediate presence in their lives- This is NOT to say that people can’t and don’t get to that point of salvation through various means, even through science. Many scientists, who have looked into the issues and problems facing macroevolution, and looking into the need for an intelligent designer behind hte complexities of life, came to the point of actual stepping forth in faith at salvation, by examining the evidneces beforethem.
[[By insinuating themselves into the scientific process (sometimes quite incompetently), it denies the very faith that is a primary component of religious belief.]
This is absolutely untrue- as stated above. Many peopel have hte mistaken notion that salvation in Christ must be entirely based on blind faith and ignorance of anyhtign scientific.
[[It would seem that if ones faith is based on fundamentalist theology (and many are not), many scientific findings are at odds with that same faith ]
No sir- Many scinetific findings are not at odds with God and creatio nat all- The FAITH of macroevolution however, which is NOT science, is indeed at odds, but no sir, the scientific evidences themselves, the objective evidneces, are not at odds with God at all- infact, they support the NEED for an itnellgience behind the compelxities of life- the subjective interpretations of macroeovlution however go WAY beyond hte actual scientific evidences, and infasct violate scientific principles, and are based on nothign but pure faith in naturalism
[[If the basis of your religious belief is primarily faith based, how can you objectively analyze scientific theory?]]
Lol- By ‘objectively annylize’ you of course mean ‘Subjectively agree with macroevolutionist’s assumptions’ about evolution.
[[Does one simply pick and choose based on whether it matches what a fundamentalist’s interpretation tells you?]
Nope- We look at hte actual evidence, and conclude that hte OBJECTIVE evidnece shows nature is incapable of the miraculous creation of life, and that an intelligence is needed for hte comkplexities behind life.
[[How is that an objective analysis of scientific theory?]]
Let me ask you htis- how is it objective to look at hte actual discontinuities seen in the fossil record, and to ignore those, and possit that creatures are commonly descended when htere is absolutely no evidence supporting that? How is it objective to keep insisting, despite the strong biological evidences against macroevolution, that species descended one from another? You are confusing faith in /Macroevolution with objective annalysis.
[[I’m just wondering how one can attempt to live in both “worlds”, and rationalize both at the same time.]]
You seem ot be doing just that just fine- not sure how you can do so and still think you’re being objective, but whatever- Just don’t sit there and expect we’re goign to ignore your faith and pretend you’re being objective- because you’re not- Yet you seem content insulting hte intelligence of Creationists by insinuating w’ere the ones indulging in faith- when hte plain objective fact is that we look at hte objective evidneces, and don’t go beyond the evidences with wild scenarios that involve nature violating it’s own scientific principles.
[[If you are truly of faith, why would the scientific process be of such interest to you?]]
Well golly homer- perhaps it’s because we’re not ignorant little apes who are infected by a ‘religious virus’ that blinds us to anything outside of religion. Perhaps it’s because contrary to your insulting insinuations, we’re more than capable of looking at hte actual evidences and seeign htrough the bull presented by macroevolutionsits, and concluding that macroeovlution has absolutely ZERO( scientific support and is nothign but a religious agenda based on faulty assumptions and fantasy scenarios that again, severely violate scientific principles- Perhaps it’s because we don’t just swallow all the BS pr4setned and actually quesiton the religion of Darwin.... gasp!
[[Just tryin’ to see how you do it.]]
No sir- you’re just weighing in with petty little insults which you evidently need to keep indulging in to justify your faith in Darwin
If you have never seen a rock in your life, if you, for hte sake of argument, could not even visualize a solid object made up of minerals, and I tell you that rocks exist, and that at hte very moment you take hte leap of faith and beleive a rock can indeed exist, that you will get to see a rock, you can take it on faith, and you’d be rewarded by seeign that rock the very second you beleive. However, I can ALSO tell you rocks exist, show you the raw minerals that make up rocks, show you piles of sand, show you molten lava, show you molten minerals, break down the chemicals making up minerals, present htem to you, and explain to you that all these seperate minerals can indeeed form solid objects called rocks, and you would STILL be ‘required’ to ‘have faith’ that rocks do indeed exist, and hte moment you beleive, I would reward you by showign you the actual rock.
Has EITHER case of faith been diminished one iota by the evidences? IF you had never seen a rock in your life, and couldn’t visualize such an item, but were told that IF you took that final leap of faith to BELIEVE that rocks exist BEFORE actually experiencing a rock, that you would indeed experience a rock, woudl either case above be diminished faith wise one iota? Of course not! You would STILL NEED faith to beleive that all those seperate minerals could solidify and create a rock. Infact, in the second case, you would actually be more inclined to take that finale leap of faith- but oyu woudl STILL NEED to put your faith my statement that rocks can indeed exist, because you had never in your life seen one, and couldn’t visualize or comprehend one existing.
Again- it’s a silly accusation to state that faith must exclude scientific inquirey, and to state that a person could not have faith if they quesitoned anything scientifically. Again, many scientists have found more motivation to take the final leap of faith by the very science they study and examine- but htey STILL NEED faith for that final leap of salvation.
Here is the testimony of the scientist/geneticist who found God by crackign hte genetic code: http://journeyfortruth.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/how-a-human-genome-scientist-found-god/
for a better analogy- let’s say I told you I had a brother- and that my brother woudl personally give you a million dollars IF you put your faith in the fact that he idneed does exist, but I told you that the only people, who had ever met with him (But met him as he was behind soemthing where you couldn’t see him personally) were those who put hteir faith in his existence. Suppose I told you that htose hwo put hteir faith in his existence woudl be adopted and taken care of by Him for hte rest of hteir lives and beyond? Suppose I told you noone could actually see him, but could experience his existence personally by meetign with him while he was concealed, this would certainly be a case where you would need compelte faith- so let’s flesh this out some and see that scientific investigations in no way rule out the actual last step of necessary faith.
You could take it on faith without looking into the situaiton, or you coudl investigate, and find evidence of his existence, but in the end you would still need faith to beleive he is alive and well, and that he woudl reward you IF you put oyur faith in his existence without ever having personally seen him yourself before.
Your NEED for that final act of faith is NOT diminished one iota by ivnestigation- you still have not personally met my brother, never seen him personally with oyur own eyes, and can not know he is actually alive and well, and hte only way to find out is to trust me, and put your faith in his existence- your faith is the requirement for an actual face to face meeting, and oyu are stil lrequired to leave all doubt behind, and take that leap of faith of beleif i nthe end- if you can not do so, if you just can’t leave behind that nagging bit of doubt, then you can not meet him as per the requirement.
no matter what path you take to your finale destination of faith, you STILL NEED complete surrender of doubt- complete faith, in order to meet my brother and receive a million dollars. Along hte way- soem will try to convionce you my brother doesn’t actually exist, and that all those people who did put hteir faith in his existence, didn’t actually get their million dollars from him, but isntead got hteirm oney from other sources (despite hte fact that those makign that claim have absolutely no evidence showing htose people got hteir money from other sources), and you’ll be told time and time again that it’s just plain silly beleiving in my brother’s existence- You’ll have some peopel even hostile toward you IF you leave the ‘norm’ of scientists who don’t beleive in my brother’s existence, and you’ll be ridiculed, and ostracised, and told you’re being ‘unscientific’ by putting your faith in my brother’s existence- you’ll be accused of ‘psuedoscience’, of being a ‘creatard’, and of being ignorant IF you take that final leap of faith, and put your faith in his existence.
Do you beleive he exists? Since you or noone else had ever seen him, do you STILL NEED faith in order to beleive he exists and to receive your million dollars? Would it just strengethen your searching for Him for you to investigate and discover all his evidences he left behind? Woudl it strengthen your resolve to take that final step to discover that he indeed did leave many important clues to his existence behind? Would you STILL NEED actual faith in order to meet with him in the end? Of course you would- after all, anythign could have happened to him at any point, and he may not ifnact exist at all, but then again, He just might, but hte only way oyu’re goign to find out is to put oyur FAITH in him in the end, and he is the ONLY one that is going to give you that million dollars with the one simple requirement of compelte faith in Him.
(Now, of course I could be fooling everyone, and it might not be my brother at all, but just a freind, but suppose for the sake of argument, that htere were a way he could prove his relationship to me and His existence, but ONLY if you put your faith in Him- again, you are still going ot need to abandon doubt, and put compeltefaith in Him in the end in order to receive the million dollars, and to be an adoptee of His
your requirement for faith in His existence is NOT diminished one iota by any ivnestigation, and infact He certainly welcomes everyone to investigate to the best of hteir ability because He ifnact wants people’s final leap of faith to be strengethened- He wants them to be more sure of His existence before their final leap of faith, and He purposely left clues in ord4r that people could, if htey desired, find that htere are many valid, scientific reasons to take that final leap- You are STILL goign ot need complete faith to bleeive in him, becauese you can not now see Him personally, but you can meet with him, and MUST take it on faith that He is actually the one who supplied you with hte million dollars. IF you can NOT put complete faith in his actual exestence, and in the fact that he is my brother, you will forfeit the million dollars and not be adopted and taken care of- you MUST set aside al ldoubt, and put compelte faith that it is actually he behind hte curtain (one you can’t see him htrough) when you meet with Him.
Think about it- it’s STILL goign to take you much faith in order to actually beleive He is my brother and that He is actually alive and well- I’m not talking about half-hearted faith just to receive a million dollars- I’m talking about compelte faith that He IS who he says He IS, and that He WILL know if you have not put complete faith in Him (suppose my brother, for hte sake of argument, somehow could KNOW your mind and heart, and could determine if you REALLY have faith in Him, or just want hte million dollars, but don’t compeltely put compelte faith in Him)
many folks insinuate that being a Christian means adopting hte three monkeys ‘see no evil, hear no evil’ speak no evil’ attitude- they think we automatically become deaf dumb and blind and insinuate that ‘faith requires this dumbing down of intelligence’? I think not!
Sounds like a sci-fi movie (the blob?)where alien life replicates itself and can’t be stopped.
Can these professors be stopped now. Sounds like the best answer to home-grown blob invasions.
“[[Does one simply pick and choose based on whether it matches what a fundamentalist’s interpretation tells you?]
Nope- We look at hte actual evidence, and conclude that hte OBJECTIVE evidnece shows nature is incapable of the miraculous creation of life, and that an intelligence is needed for hte comkplexities behind life.”
But if you are truly objective, do you set aside your faith based premises when you analyze scientific research results? It would seem that objectivism, and religious faith are commonly at odds. How do you claim objectivism and faith based religious doctrine simultaneously? There is a conflict between the two. The Creationist’s position REQUIRES a premise that inevitably drives you to a specific conclusion. It is not objective by any means.
So you have no difficulty with a “loosened” explanation of Creation, as long as it is still initiated by God? Or do you defend a literal six day time frame for Creation? There are basic conflicts between the fossil record and a fundamentalist approach to scientific criticism. It should be stipulated that there are many different interpretations of Genesis and to blithely skip over the seeming conflict (which I noticed you avoided), rather begs the question again.
“Yet you seem content insulting hte intelligence of Creationists by insinuating w’ere the ones indulging in faith”
Perplexing. The question was not offered to insult you, though you may take it as such if you wish. I’m just asking the question. I can’t control whether you choose to misinterpret the motive.
You seem to be offended that I’m asking you to rationalize faith and objective reality. Why would you take issue with someone “insinuating” that you’re “indulging in faith”. Are you denying the influence of faith in Creationist beliefs?
Is it possible, or do you know, of any Creationists that are agnostics? Surely I’m missing something here, since I would think that religious faith is embraced by the Creationist movement. How can you publicly deny faith, and hold religious beliefs simultaneously? My religious faith is quite a comfort to me. Why wouldn’t it be the same for you?
I personally have no problem with religious faith, but your statement seems to hint that you might. Odd.
I’m willing to accept that you might have stated that differently. :-)
“No sir- you’re just weighing in with petty little insults which you evidently need to keep indulging in to justify your faith in Darwin”
Your mistaken impressions may be leading you astray on this one. You did fairly well early on, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my posting. Being easily insulted, simply by having some obvious questions asked, is the realm of the common culture leftist. Your last comment seems to have taken a “swerve” towards the paranoid, with characterizations that you have no basis in making.
Helpful hint: Being unable to discuss reasonable questions, without resorting to the mantle of a victim, does not win friends in a public forum. It may be your normal view of reality, but there are those that can discuss issues without flying off the handle and mischaracterizing the questioner. Just something to think about the next time you hold forth in public.
Searching, searching, searching for a way to make the impossible possible. Why?
And stretch the truth way passed its breaking point by calling a molecule “DNA-like” when the difference in structure and complexity are at least 50 orders of magnitude apart.
I guess reality is hard for some to accept.
If they really have that potential, why did they not then copy themselves?
Can it be that this alleged "potential" exists solely in the minds of the fiddlers?
Considerable!
This is "the ends justify the means" kind of thinking. Illogic is okey when it helps your agenda. The Soviets figured this out 100 years ago.
Only in the minds of the thrashers.
The "fossil record" fits the Genesis judgement perfectly; and fits nothing else at all. Only massive catastrophy is capable of destroying all the life existing in a location at once, and this is exactly what the "fossil record" shows in every instance.
Yes, as far as faith is concerned. There is nothing in this research that is at odds with Scripture. It does nothing as far as *disproving* God or demonstrating that He is not needed. They are not showing that those reactions can occur without God's intervention. On the contrary, all they've done is set up an experiment that we are expected to believe was the result of intelligence and planning (design if you will.)
I hesitate to point out to you as to why this would be, as I believe that any religious being must, to an overwhelming extent, come to their position by faith.
Likewise, any non-religious person comes to their decision based on faith. Since no one knows everything, certain things must be presumed without solid physical evidence. Coming to the conclusion and something doesn't exist because there's no evidence for it, is not necessarily the *logical* conclusion. The only conclusion that can be honestly states is that one does not know.
By insinuating themselves into the scientific process (sometimes quite incompetently), it denies the very faith that is a primary component of religious belief.
No, it doesn't. The scientific method is a effective methodology for examining the physical world around us and learning more about it. It's a very useful tool that has resulted in the betterment of mankind through technology, but that does not make it inherently at odds with one's trust in God.
It would seem that if ones faith is based on fundamentalist theology (and many are not), many scientific findings are at odds with that same faith (age of the earth, greater than six “days” for creation, and yes...evolution).
If that were the basis for one's faith, that could be the case. But faith in *fundamentalist theology* (getting all your doctrine correct, I guess is what you mean) is not what it takes get one right with God. Everyone has faith of some kind and exercises that faith. But it's the object of that faith that determines whether that faith is effective.
If the basis of your religious belief is primarily faith based, how can you objectively analyze scientific theory? Does one simply pick and choose based on whether it matches what a fundamentalist’s interpretation tells you? How is that an objective analysis of scientific theory? The creationist’s premise is, by definition, preordained (if you will).
I'm not sure what you're asking in the first part of the question or how it relates to the second part. One's philosophical outlook does influence one's interpretation of scientific evidence, but having faith in God does not by default render someone incapable of being objective. Likewise, not having faith in God is a philosophical viewpoint that influences one's interpretation of the data.
The no-God outlook is not inherently objective while the belief in God outlook is inherently subjective. It's actually a lack of objectivity on the part of the non-believing scientist to think that they can actually be objective. Nobody can be truly objective. Everyone analyzes the data based on the philosophical presuppositions that they have.
There must be an intellectual conflict between these two views of reality (as the basis for each is completely different).
Only if you try to approach the spiritual reality from an intellectual point of view. It's not that the spiritual is anti-intellectual as much as the intellect is not the right tool for discerning spiritual truths.
From a non-believers perspective, it is not quite rational to deny what it appears that *nature* is telling you. From a believers perspective, it is not quite rational to deny what God is telling you.
So when the conflict occurs, as in the crevo debates, and the evos say that the evidence indicates common descent and God says that He created man and animals as a separate act of creation, believers choose to believe God, knowing that there is a good reason for the apparent conflict and believing that someday it will be resolved because God can be trusted.
I would think that rationalizing the two “realities” would be impossible, but obviously there are many that try.
If you were trying to rationalize the spiritual, you would have problems. You cannot intellectually access the spiritual world, the spiritual world is inaccessible to one who has not been born spiritually. Paul addresses that almost 2,000 years ago when he says,....I Cor 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Yes, you can intellectually come to the conclusion that God and the spiritual are real, they exist, and God can be trusted, but the final step is a spiritual one. That's where the faith comes in. That's what makes the connection and makes you alive to the spiritual to perceive it and understand spiritual truths.
If you are truly of faith, why would the scientific process be of such interest to you?
Science is fun, and fascinating. It's neat how it all works together. It's orderly and predictable. Probably a lot of the same reasons non-believers like science. Not all of them do, some are writers, some are artists, etc. Just out of curiosity, why is the scientific process of interest to YOU?
But the scientific process is not the end all and be all of all man's existence. It is woefully inadequate to meet man's deepest needs. Man needs more than material, physical comfort to be happy and at peace. Science is good for providing the means to live comfortable lives, but can do nothing for the soul. We see it as a means to an end but not the end itself.
The major conflict is not between faith and the scientific method, but between faith in God and faith in science. It's an ideological conflict between belief systems. That's why when scientists come along and state that everything happened all by itself, without God, and this is how we know they way it happened, others take exception to that.
These scientists who performed this experiment simply demonstrated that under certain conditions, certain reactions occurred, this time. It does not support what they think may have happened at some unspecified time in the past, because there is no way for them to actually know what the conditions were to begin with, as no one was there recording it.
So that leaves them making a lot of presumptions that should not be treated as fact, and scientists should not take such great offense that not everyone accepts their latest pronouncements as written in stone.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
Correct. Science is, if not Godless, at least agnostic. Proving the existence, or nonexistence of God is not even on the “radar screen”. Science doesn't care one way or the other. It may come up with results that can be at odds with a literal interpretation of Genesis (six days creation), but it would be just as “happy” to confirm that Genesis is true in the literal interpretation if such evidence was available.
This contrasts with Creationism, whose overriding premise is that nothing in science may conflict with their interpretation of the Bible, and their own religious self-perception. As I stated previously, I doubt that there are many agnostics in the Creationist movement, and I've never seen one of their publications that supports a creative process that extends beyond six days. I am obviously not an expert on their philosophies, but it seems that their “findings” are always predictable and preordained (there, I said it again).
I am unaware of any of the many Creationist tracts that don't support an initial presumption (indeed, requirement) that a literal interpretation of the bible must override scientific findings. Therein is the problem. On one hand, the Creationists seek desperately to compete intellectually in the scientific establishment, but on the other they do not feel bound to maintaining an objective position in their analysis. They are an advocacy group, not a scientific group.
I'm sure there are groups within the scientific community that are no better (global warming advocacy being the best example), but all the research I ever did never had the goal of coming up with specific results that favored a particular agenda. Personally, I was just as happy to prove something didn't work as I was to prove that it did. The goal was always to figure out how stuff worked. Whether it proved or disproved a particular agenda didn't matter (at least to me).
The Creationist can't make that statement (well, I guess they could and do), but they're not in the research business. What's in question lately, is whether they can do a credible peer review on research that is being done. It's tough to do when everyone knows what they're going to espouse, before they even set pen to paper (nonobjective).
“It's a very useful tool (scientific methodology) that has resulted in the betterment of mankind through technology, but that does not make it inherently at odds with one's trust in God.
Agreed. Science is a religious agnostic (repeating myself).
“Nobody can be truly objective. Everyone analyzes the data based on the philosophical presuppositions that they have.”
Agreed, but that does not mean that the scientific method is biased. The method, and process, pushes to avoid observational bias and one hears of scientists being continuously called to task by their peers for faulty/biased interpretation of observed results. The scientist may be biased towards a specific result, but the process itself is not. This stands in stark contrast to Creationist “science”. For Creationists, the fix is already in.
“It's actually a lack of objectivity on the part of the non-believing scientist to think that they can actually be objective. Nobody can be truly objective.”
Agreed, but if I may paraphrase, “All men lack complete objectivity, but some men are more objective than others”. And there's where the distinction occurs. The scientific method, as poorly as it is occasionally implemented, drives the researcher towards conducting themselves in an objective fashion. As you said, a faith based belief system drives towards subjectivity. I would place Creationism in that category, which places it at odds with scientific method. The two are not the same, yet one attempts to represent itself as the other. Trouble for sure.
“It's not that the spiritual is anti-intellectual as much as the intellect is not the right tool for discerning spiritual truths.”
Bingo! You've answered my question in a burst of elegance. Faith requires no scientific proof. Just as Science is an agnostic, so is faith unconcerned by the scientific method to support it. Neither denies the other. They effectively exist in separate dimensions where common rules do not apply. My point is that a Creationist is a stranger in a strange land when it comes to mainstreaming themselves into the scientific community. With a philosophy based on subjectivity, they lack objective credibility (thank you for that).
Very nice of you to type at me. I enjoyed the civil discourse. It is nice to discuss such an issue without trying to talk over each other. This is an example of how useful, and pleasant, a civil discourse can be.
Thanks once again for your time today. I enjoyed it.
How utterly untrue! This is to assert that only people of faith are somehow incapable of being objective, or that people without faith are the ones only capable of objectivity.. The truth is people that reject God do so on faith also. My experience is just the opposite is true, those going out of their way to disprove God, scientifically or otherwise, are never objective.
“..... those going out of their way to disprove God, scientifically or otherwise, are never objective. “
But by the same token, are those that go out of their way to prove God (Creationists as an example) always objective by doing so? As another astute poster on this thread pointed out, they are subjective by definition. It would seem that they try to claim the high ground of objectivity, when they are just the opposite (subjectively driven). Of course, they can try to do such a thing (and do), but their basic premise is fairly transparent since they take up a predictable advocacy position.
They may be trying to make the proper point (from their religious perspective), but they are choosing the wrong forum to try to accomplish it within. There are obviously those that make this point more eloquently than I, but I hope you at least catch the gist of what I’m saying.
No, no one is more objective than another, but you were asserting one group was.
Either by design or by omission, and from where I’m sitting the real issue is how many are suing others to be silent.
In that regard there’s simply no contest.
And metmom already ALSO pointed out creationists weren’t out to prove God exists for the most part, as you just asserted; rather were out to offer that there’s no scientific objectivity in science by those “proving” He doesn’t.
Essentially, it wasn’t the creationists choosing the “wrong forum” but rather the people out there with multiple God-hang-ups that HIJACKED a particular forum to begin with.
“...metmom already ALSO pointed out creationists weren’t out to prove God exists for the most part,...”
No, but I will say that. Can you tell me how I’m in error by doing so?
Your turn.
Question: Is Habibi speaking of the quality of "objectivity" or of the doctrine of "objectivism?" Perhaps a little terminological clarification is in order here. Otherwise, I'm not sure whether I'm following this exchange correctly.
If, however, Habibi is specifically referring to objectivism — though it's not entirely clear to me whether he/she is — then I'd have to agree with his/her statement that "It would seem that objectivism, and religious faith are commonly at odds.... there is a conflict" between them. In my view, there is; and it is a very serious one. JMHO, FWIW.
Thanks so much for the ping, tpanther!
“....from where I’m sitting the real issue is how many are suing others to be silent.”
Suing other?! That’s interesting. Enlighten me (not disputing what you’re saying, since I hadn’t heard of this). Sounds kinda’ antisocial to sue someone over the expression of their ideas (first amendment and all that). Were they at work?
Beautifully and truly said, metmom!
Thank you so very much for this excellent essay/post!
I don't have a problem with people believing that science is agnostic. It's the scientists, the likes of Dawkins and his ilk, who hijack science in their efforts to use it as a weapon with which to bludgeon believers.
The scientific method is neutral in regards to philosophy. It's a methodology for collecting data and I don't think that there's a creationist around that has a problem with the scientific method in and of itself.
It's the interpretation of the data and the use of science in an attempt to destroy people's beliefs that creationists object to. It makes perfect sense, in that case, that creationists would counter what are considered the accepted findings of the atheistic scientific community.
Christians and creationists are not going to allow Dawkins et al, to continue their attack without countering it. Now, evos may disagree with the interpretation of the creationists findings, just as creationists disagree with the non-believers findings.
Interpretations of data are of necessity colored by one's belief system. It happens in both cases. The idea that one is more objective than the other is just a preference and of course anyone is going to think that their own worldview is the more objective.
One bone of contention in the evo debate is the age of the earth, and that actually seems to be the biggest issue. I understand how science dates things and the reasoning behind the methods used. What happens in this debate is that creationists offer explanations of why they think that the methods used are not valid, or accurate, and they are immediately set upon, often with a lot of derision and ridicule for their reasons. Yes, they use Scripture to explain their reasons and I'd like to think that if an evo every gave it a fair hearing and thought it through, they could see the rationale, even if they chose not to believe it themselves- which is their prerogative, of course.
There is a lot of not listening and baseless accusations that go on on both sides. It would be refreshing to hear an evo consider the arguments a creationist provides to support their conclusions without pejoratives of *creatard* and *IDiot*.
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.