Posted on 04/17/2012 4:27:49 AM PDT by scottfactor
Now that you have the obligatory insult laid at my feet....you may presume that I have some knowledge in the area of chemistry. But you may also assume I am ignorant in many areas...of that I plead guilty.
Let me go back to the post I was answering. You said, Please explain how a solute containing Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and hydrogen will spontaneously large quantities of organic molecules according to physical laws. That is not a question I would expect to see from someone who has a basic knowledge of chemistry. No one who has studied chemistry would ever question the fact that chemical reactions proceed spontaneously. And so, when I remarked that it would be easier to answer if you had some knowledge of chemistry, I meant exactly that, no insult intended. It can be incredibly difficult to explain highly technical matters to someone who doesn't have the background.
We will bypass the fundamentals on covalent bonds, ionic bonds, electrovalent bonding, and nucleosynthesis. Presume I have a working knowledge there.
Do you know that ionic bonding = electrovalent bonding? Chemists, at least in the U.S., use the term "ionic" bonding almost exclusively; I have never heard the term "electrovalent" used.
Then you hand off the ball to the physists as to the origin of Hydrogen, helium (not mentioned) and subatomic particles which must have existed very early on in that event which you referenced as the Big bang. The fundamental question which I originally asked was,....As we know, and you affirm an origin to the universe (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc), and given that science does not deny, yes, it affirms that the universe came to be from nothing, (the eternity of the universe has thoroughly been scientifically dismissed-(see Borde, Guth, Vilkin) please account for the Cause of the big bang. Everything which comes to be has a cause....the universe came to be....therefore the universe had a Cause.
Actually, whether the universe is eternal or it sprang into being from some means (the big bang?), is really irrelevant to the process of evolution. Chemistry acts according to physical law in either case, and chemical reactions form the basis of the evolutionary process as we scientists observe it within the course of our everyday work.
Therefore you say these early organisms were anaerobes. I will assume you will agree with this. Do anaerobes give off elemental O2 as a byproduct of their physiological process (For now I will not ask you where and how the enzyme process survived an atmosphere in which was highly reduced.) So how did they respire? BUT, before you answer that question how did this 'primitive life' come to be?
Of course the early organisms were anaerobes; that's what the fossil record indicates from billions of years ago. No, they did not produce free O2; O2 is not a product of respiration. Early organisms, like modern anaerobic organisms, used atoms/molecules other than O2 as the final electron acceptor in the respirative process. Instead of generating energy through the citric acid cycle, they used various fermentation pathways. Finally, the enzymes of anaerobes are adapted to the anaerobic environment, just as the enzymes of aerobes or facultative anaerobes are adapted to oxidizing environments. Since proteins can have many different chemical characteristics, organisms can adapt to an incredible variety of environments.
As for how primitive life came to be, I believe there are hypotheses about the form of that life, but no one has definitively answered that question yet. The answer to that question doesn't affect what we know about evolution in any case, because evolution concerns the mechanisms of how species change over time and doesn't really address how all life began.
You may not believe that the question of origin is relevant or not, but many believe it is the most important question. Einstein, Eddington, Hoyl, Hubble...all felt the question regarding a beginning was important. So when you say,"Whether the universe is eternal....", seems to indicate that you leave open that possibility. The Kaalam Cosmological argument posits that if the universe is eternal then an infinite number of past days (time) must have been....but, tomorrow another day will be added to the infinite number of days...BUT, nothing can be added to the infinite. So philosophically and logically it does not make sense that the universe is eternal.
As regarding the relevance of 'a beginning' or 'an eternal' universe, it seems to me there is great relevance. Many ethical questions flow from the view that the universe is created or eternal. Even Sagan, atheist, said we (humans) have a duty to our originator. He, of course, said the cosmos (which he spelled Cosomos) was our originator, and thus, we have inherent obligations to the cosmos. Another atheistic thinker, German Frederich Nietzsche said we have killed God, that God is dead,..how shall we then comfort ourselves? Must we now become gods ourselves. For when God died all absolutes died with Him...no moral lawgiver, no prescribed right or wrong. Or Fyodor Dostoevsky, who said, now that God is dead all things are permitted.
So, as I say, from origins flow ethical ideas which command the day. I will stop there. But if you are interested you might look at the Argument For God from the Argument from Consiousness, The Cosmological Argument, The Moral Argument, The Ontologcical Argument, The Metaphysical Argument, The Argument from Reason, and there are many others.
Regarding your comment that Chemistry acts according to physical laws and chemical reactions form the basis of evolution, I would like you to consider how dead, brute chemical gave rise to consciousness, thought, any mental event. Chemicals don't think, they react.
As to the lack of connectivity of how life came to be, being apart from life evolving, it seems that is the first and most pivotal step in evolution. To dismiss it seems convenient and self-serving to the atheist. To foister it off on a nebular 'hypothesis' is to say I will have faith in one of those hypothesis,...but faith is the order of that statement. Then to appleal to that last word of that sentence, 'yet' puts the final stamp of approval of faith in the scientific magestestrate. We have no idea of lifes' ontology or epistemology, but science will bring us through.
I suppose we could speak to Krebs cycly, the cytochrome P-450 systems, but we need to regress to a point prior to those systems 'evolving'. Where and how did the enzymes (very large, specific, complex molecules with specific spatial configurations) come to be? That is more interesting than reading Leninger or Whites Biochemistry books. Where and how did the first substrates arise to be acted upon by those enzymes? And how could the estimated 350 (minimum) enzyme systems needed for the most primitive cell arise denovo and concurrently to allow for protein construction, energy production, energy consumption, etc. We cannot even produce proof of that first system. Yes, we observe it now. We measure its effects now....but ontologically and epistemically how did those systems arise?
So the supreme question remains, how did first life arise? I think it is extremely relevant to today.
Your words:
“Where does morality come from? I have not studied the question” (#668, Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert).
In response to my observation that “You seemed unsure for what Aristotle is remembered but you were suspicious that is was for ‘philosophical nonsense,” you replied, “Yes, thought meandering. Philosophical thought is only loosely related to logic” (#668, Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert).
“I believe that philosophy was, in fact, an attempt at understanding the physical world--but it wasn't up to the task, and left people unsatisfied” (#668, Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert).
“While philosophy was not a subject we studied in the graduate biochemistry program, I am not unaware of it.” (#668, Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert).
“If you spend your whole life gathering information, and you fill up a warehouse of terabyte size disks with the information you gathered, you are still not engaging in science, because that information by itself is meaningless” (#668, Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert).
“we don't delve into the existentialist nonsense that is typical of the subject philosophy” (#506, Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert)
“Philosophy (the discipline) is almost the antithesis of what science is all about: a very lot of thought exercises, which have no evidentiary basis whatsoever. I have no use for it.”(#668, Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert).
#149 – “The creation story is absolutely useless as a scientific methodology. It is also useless for cooking, architecture, civil engineering, musical composition and performance, etc.”
“In other words, you did not read allmendream's post in its entirety, and you are committing the same dishonest tactic that we can see used among the charlatans selling young earth creationism: using quotes out of context to try to "prove" scientists mean something different than what they actually said.”
Prove it. Provide the “context.” Quote amd’s own words. Cite the post #. Explain the relevance of your examples. I’ve been reading amd’s posts for five years. I could engage amd in virtually daily debates over these issues should I chose to waste my time on such an enterprise.
When you were reminded that you were quick to report that the Tuskegee Experiment had been terminated and that steps had been taken to assure that a repetition would not be allowed, you responded, “Need I point out the history of Bad Things perpetrated by religious people?” (#658,Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert) As though you regard Science as being superior and in opposition to Judeo-Christianity (existential nonsense). That true?
Some of your smoke screens:
#149 - "being a Christian is not contingent upon believing that every word in Genesis is literal."
I’ve not said they are (#155, my words - The some sixty-six odd books of the KJV translation all existed before anyone ever heard of a science textbook. As did the original transcripts from which the KJV was drawn, as well as the apocrypha, which was the task of one whole “company” of KJV translators, as well as the additional books of the RC bible. All are meant to convey the meaning of God’s Word and are to be interpreted literally, metaphorically, allegorically, historically, doctrinally and literarily. How are we to receive “Thou shalt not steal” if not literally?)
Try again.
#198 – “The question of how to conduct research ethically and humanely is still a huge topic of discussion. . . ”
Those outside the Science Community seemed to experience no difficulty with respect to the ethics and the humane conduct of the Tuskegee Experiment. Within the Science Community, public reaction came as a surprise? Or, as a scorned and detested reaction from a public of inferior quality best kept in the dark?
“--in PubMed, there are about 160,000 articles on “ethics” alone. The fact that we're still trying to come up with answers doesn't invalidate the effort.”
Who says it does? I thought “the subject never came up.”
#198 – “I have, very clearly and on several occasions, stated that the practitioner of science brings their values to the profession”
But none of these “values” were thought meandering? Existentialist nonsense? Whence come these values? Don’t try evasion; try citing a few examples.
Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert, #553 – “Their [Niels Bohr, Nicolaus Copernicus, René Descartes, Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei Sir Isaac Newton, Max Planck, Aristotle] inclusion in an encyclopedia of philosophy does not make them philosophers. Most of the names on that list were scientists who used the scientific method--observation, logical deduction, formulation of testable hypotheses, experimentation, etc. Perhaps some of them engaged in philosophical thought meandering as a hobby, I don't know.”
You don’t know? You profess sufficient knowledge to declare them scientists, but suddenly it’s a new day and everything has gone blank. Close your eyes and open them anew. Maybe something else will come to you. Or, is your internet still buggy?
Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert, #549 – “The scientific method was not developed by philosophers, but by scientists.”
Ibn al-Haytham, said by many to be the “inventor” of Science, came before the terms “Science” or “Scientist” even existed. Likewise Galileo Galilei, who practiced what was know as “Natural Philosophy” among other things. The first comprehensive documents categorizing and subdividing knowledge into different areas were done even earlier by Aristotle (physics, poetry, zoology, logic, rhetoric, politics, and biology), with whom you claim to be scarcely acquainted, little interested, and very dubious. So far as I know, Euclid (geometry) was, at most, a mathematician (or whatever they were called in his day). Roger Bacon, an English monk, described what came to be known as the Scientific Method, and René Descartes, for whom you express such disdain, first developed the Scientific Method. Sometime later the publishing of scholarly journals (1665) and “Peer review” (1675) was established, although King James commanded scholars to conduct what amounted to a book-by-book peer review of his Holy Bible KJV translation sometime earlier (in 1611). Even a Science Dummy like me knows that much.
You follow up by declaring “Throughout undergraduate and graduate school, the subject of philosophy never came up.”
So you admit ignorance about the roots and origins of the discipline you so revere? Yet you declare the Scientific Method was developed by Scientists (before the term or the practice was even invented and gained currency)?
I have other issues:
You stated: in Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert, #668 – “Philosophical thought is only loosely related to logic.”
I asked, How would you know? The subject never came up.
Crickets.
“Just because it [Creationism] is useless for any number of human activities doesn't mean it is useless for its apparent intended purpose, which is to give us insight about our standing with God.”
Such as?
In Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert, #668 – “Where does morality come from? I have not studied the question.”
You profess to be a Christian, but have no clue where morality comes from?
You stated: #156 - “So what if a main motivation for doing research is for the sake of feeding one's curiosity?”
I asked, “Which obviates . . . what?”
Crickets.
For clarity I’ll add which proves what?
You stated: #149 - “I do not appreciate the fact that scientists are routinely called liars, accused of fabricating data, accused of following some oddball “Darwinism” religion . . . ”
I asked, When have I done those things?
Crickets.
#137 “As a scientific methodology, creationism *is* useless.”
Meaning what? That anything not associated with science is useless?
Crickets.
from: Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert, #553, “Cogito ergo sum doesn't even come close to being a scientific concept.”
Meaning what? That anything not associated with science is useless?
Crickets.
“Cogito ergo sum answers one of the most disingenuous examples of the “thought meandering” for which you express so much scorn.
“Most of the names on that list were scientists who used the scientific method--observation, logical deduction, formulation of testable hypotheses, experimentation, etc. Perhaps some of them engaged in philosophical thought meandering as a hobby, I don't know.”
Meaning what? That anything not associated with science is useless?
Crickets.
“Science simply cannot function as an ideological support tool.”
Depends on the ideology.
“I have to repeat it, since you apparently did not (and still don't) understand the context.”
An assertion does not prove the fact. Repeating the assertion does not add to its credibility. Repeating the naked assertion a second time is a confession of intellectual poverty.
“No, that's not philosophy [referring to the old saw, “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference”], and neither is the statement “Guns don't kill people, people kill people.” Those are sayings--short statements illustrating pieces of wisdom, formulated from people's empirical observations of human behavior.
“State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules. In this branch, therefore, read good books, because they will encourage, as well as direct your feelings.”
. . . . . Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ME, Vol 5, pg 257)
Be they “sayings” (such as all men are created equal), or statements of longer duration, it's clear the intent of the quotes I’ve been throwing out is that they were meant to direct our affections and inform our values (something this writer humbly proposes to be the task of philosophy).
Definitions and “sayings” are supposed to facilitate communication, by contributing to the clarification or perfection of one’s understanding of things and ideas (philosophy). Instead they are too often used to denigrate; the intent not being clarification, but ambiguity. We see this in attempts to tie the failed social, economic and governmental theories of Marxism to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Those who “see” the connection have the burden of establishing the connection. The record would seem to indicate that Darwin neither intended nor saw any such connection, but that Marx & Engels did (as did many of their acolytes, even to this present day). Likewise, we see attempts to denigrate Christianity by describing any of its characteristics deemed objectionable as “Creationism,” and by attempting to shrink the concept down to “the Creation Story” (a technique otherwise known as Reductionist Deconstruction). The motive in neither of these two cases would hardly appear to be clarification, and the first casualty is usually communication in a blatant defiance of all the norms and conventions of meaning and human association. For example, when a call for surrender is made more palatable by renaming surrender a “compromise.”
The prostitution of meaning and human communication. In this forum an early manifestation of troll droppings.
For clarification, from #155, my words:
“When Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights (the most famous words since the words of Christ), he was not speaking only his thoughts, but the thoughts of a whole people. God, the creator of Natural Law; God the giver of law to Man; the equality of all Men the gift of The Creator; unalienable rights the gift of The Creator. The Founding Fathers make it undeniably clear that the Creationist philosophy of Judeo-Christianity is central to their public and private perspectives regarding liberty. Look up the etymology of the word “Creator” (with a capital “C”), and its development following the printing of the KJV of the Holy Bible. It is said that that the KJV changed a nation, a language, and a culture.
“To rip out Creationism from Judeo-Christianity is to rip out the heart of the religion and leave only a husk. If God is not the creator of Mankind and of the Universe, then why is He worshiped by over two billion followers? And, why do one and a half billion more people try to piggyback their faith on the early events precipitated by the Judeo-Christian Creator?
“Creationism is not a religion . . . in the context we are discussing here, it is the most fundamental tenet of the Judeo-Christian religion – that the Judeo-Christian God is the creator of Mankind and the Universe. Creationism does not inform the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is the Judeo-Christian religion that informs Creationism.”
Earlier I referenced your observation that “philosophy was, in fact, an attempt at understanding the physical world--but it wasn't up to the task, and left people unsatisfied.” Philosophy is about a whole lot more than “an attempt at understanding the physical world” but here’s the sticker: a totally naturalistic explanation cannot be proposed without “killing” God. Either Mankind and the Universe “like Topsy just growed” or it is a product of a Creation and a Creator. To propose Creation to somehow be antipathetic to Science is to propose a falsity.
All of these issues involve opinion and are a matter of value judgment. In the process, they render an obscenity the idea of a moral neutrality based on scientific ‘objectivity’ pretending that they can be discussed in a values vacuum.
Our friend boop put it in perspective some time ago, when she wrote that, “just because science cannot engage such problems [problems of ethics and morality] given its methodology (which is perfectly well-suited to the investigation of the phenomena of the natural world), does not mean that such human problems go away.”
Some time ago I described to you a group of scientists, and a group who represented themselves as spokesmen for scientists, who cited Science, specifically evolution, as being sufficient cause to deny the existence of God. You denied any knowledge of such a group, repudiated any connection with them, and rejected any responsibility for their behavior. As well you should, if that being your opinion of their worth.
I’ve also raised the issue of another group, imminent scientists and philosophers (Niels Bohr, Nicolaus Copernicus, René Descartes, Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei Sir Isaac Newton, Max Planck, Aristotle, and the redoubtable Karl Popper), about whom you expressed vagueness and skepticism, in some cases questioning their scientific qualities, and in all cases denying any knowledge of other than their scientific accomplishments. Subsequent (and prior) remarks of yours cast doubt on your representations about the above mentioned groups. You somehow possess just enough info to respond to the issues you wish, and beyond that you then become Sergeant Schultz, knowing nothing. Not credible.
Give it up dear Lady. You’re busted. Your arguments are vapid and evasive. Everyone can see through your circumventions. You think to avoid taking responsibility for your advocacy by declaring disengagement from “philosophy” will permit you to stand off at a distance and snipe. Take responsibility for your advocacy.
http://junkscience.com/2012/06/13/north-carolina-medical-board-asked-to-investigate-epa-physicians-for-illegal-human-experiments/
Note particularly the Click for the letter from JunkScience.com. It encapsulates the heart of the matter. And it indicates that very little of substance has transpired since the time of the Tuskegee Experiments insofar as government involvement in Science is concerned.
http://junkscience.com/2012/06/13/north-carolina-medical-board-asked-to-investigate-epa-physicians-for-illegal-human-experiments/
Note particularly the Click for the letter from JunkScience.com. It encapsulates the heart of the matter. And it indicates that very little of substance has transpired since the time of the Tuskegee Experiments insofar as government involvement in Science is concerned.
If you read all of the documentation, including the original research report that was published in Env. Health Persp., you will see that the research in question was conducted on a number of volunteers according to a protocol approved by the University of South Carolina independent review board. The woman who had the adverse reaction (from which she had recovered completely 2 hours later) was consented prior to the research--that is, the benefits and risks of the research were explained to her, and she freely decided to participate. (Note: all study participants have, by law, the right to discontinue participation in a study at any time.) She had, furthermore, already participated in a similar study with no adverse effect.
There is always risk involved in any kind of medical study. Adverse events--including death--do happen in studies, despite all the precautions. We can't eliminate risk, but we can make sure the patients in the study are properly informed. Study proposals are also not approved by the boards unless the value of the knowledge that stands to be gained outweighs the risk of the study.
This isn't a repeat of Tuskegee; it's not even remotely similar. I suspect the action being taken against the EPA is more politically motivated than anything else, and has more to do with the EPA's policy regarding particulate matter. While I haven't read the protocol and consent forms (and I have little desire to request those documents), I still have to say that the study doesn't appear to violate the laws/standards/regulations on medical ethics.
I believe I've pointed out before that medical ethics is a subject of great debate, and there is a considerable body of scientific literature addressing it. I've sat on enough medical review boards to know that board members take these issues quite seriously. And they take them seriously precisely because they want to avoid incidents like Tuskegee and others that were not publicized, but were just as egregious.
I see that a couple of people had directed posts to me prior to this one, which I never saw--I will have to answer them later.
Thanks for the ping!
“Not just atheist and humanists accept the theory of evolution; we have, for example, Pope Benedict XVI.”
Spirited: Evolution is an ancient pagan anti-creation mythos which speaks not of creation but of forced and/or mechanical emergences out of the One Substance (i.e., watery abyss, void, primordial matter, prakriti matter) revered by all nature religionists.
The first mention of evolution is found in the very ancient Babylonian evolutionary cosmogony, Enuma Elish.
With the Egyptians’ self-evolved Sun-God Ra, the divine abyss or One Substance out of which he evolved is Nu — primordial matter:
“I came into being from primordial matter...I made all the forms under which I appeared by means of (or out of) the god-soul which I raised up out of Nu (i.e., the primeval abyss of water.) (The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, p. 243)
This is naturalism, or materialism, which is the belief that there is neither living God nor heavenly realm. There is only the natural dimension (one substance), thus evolutionary materialist Dr. Scott Todd wrote in the science journal ‘Nature:’
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” (Naturalism in the Light of Reality, Robert Gurney, creation.com, June 14, 2012)
Materialism is of the worldview of monism which is held in common by pantheism and spiritualism and dates back to pagan antiquity and was or is taught by all non-biblical thought systems....including yours, amd.
Greek Stoics and Epicureans, for example, were materialistic monists and these two schools of natural science and evolution held the ancient world of thought in allegiance well into the Roman Empire.
Epicureanism reigns supreme in our own age through modern evolutionary materialism, which is merely revamped and revised Epicureanism. On the other hand, the spiritualized science of quantum physics, spiritual Transhumanism and New Age in general combines the monism of the Greek Stoics with that of Eastern mysticism (i.e., Vedanta Hinduism).
The pagan philosopher Epicurus (342-270 B.C.) believed in an infinite number of worlds, or parallel universes in the words of contemporary ‘new’ pagan materialists. Like his modern counterparts, Epicurus taught that there was no god or gods, first principles, moral law, souls and afterlife as all things on earth had evolved from the earth material.
Epicurus preferred lower things to higher things, as do his contemporary followers, thus he taught that “all that exists” is an eternally existing void and animated matter. This made human beings, their intelligence and volition, an evolved accident of chance. Reason is left, but reason is active only because sensations (i.e., firing of neurons, chemical interactions) stimulate it.
In modern “scientific” terms, the idea that brute matter spontaneously generated itself from nothing (void) in much the same way as Ra spontaneously generated himself from Nu is called abiogenesis. On the basis of this ancient mythological superstition, new-pagan evolutionary materialists assert that the living supernatural God, souls, spirits, angels, demons, heaven, hell and metaphysics do not exist.
As for ‘modern’ evolutionary theory, anthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, longtime director of the American Museum of Natural History reveals that Darwin is not its’ originator but rather ancient pagans are. In the introduction to his history of evolutionism Osborn wrote:
“When I began the search for anticipations of the evolutionary theory....I was led back to the Greek natural philosophers and I was astonished to find how many of the pronounced and basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated even as far back as the seventh century B.C.” (Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin, p. xi)
Of course the Greeks received their evolutionary cosmogonies from the Egyptians and Babylonians.
Modern evolutionists do not occupy the high ground as they erroneously believe. No, that honor belongs to metmom, YHAOS, mitch, Alamo-Girl, daniel1212, MrB and all whose faith is in the living, supernatural Creator and His Revelation, in this instance the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo.
Having fallen into paganism revised and made palatable for modern tastes, contemporary evolutionists are down below, standing knee-deep in the stinking mire.
Evolution has been observed by many people over many thousands of years - but they didn't have a scientific theory to describe it.
Any pagan theological musings about change in living systems no more supplants Darwin as the originator of the scientific theory that explains the phenomena than the Mayans tracking of astronomical objects supplants Newton as the originator of the scientific theory that explains it.
As is typical you cannot make an argument against a scientific theory without arguing against atheism - materialism - paganism - anything BUT science.
Acceptance of evolution doesn't imply or necessitate atheism, materialism or paganism.
Methodological naturalism is the basis of science - not philosophical naturalism. Such MUST be at the heart of science because only then is science of any actual USE.
If one uses supernatural causation to explain physical phenomena it is of absolutely no use - because such an action is not measurable, replicable, understandable or predictable.
Using natural causation to explain physical phenomena is the most productive method for gaining reliable and useful information about the physical world.
That is why science is of use, while creationism is useless.
So while you may suppose that you occupy the “high ground” -nothing of use is done up there - meanwhile down in the trenches in the muck and the “mire” of actual intellectual inquiry we seem to be eating your lunch, drinking your milkshake, and doing a lot of productive work.
“Evolution has been observed by many people over many thousands of years...”
At least you admit that evolution is in fact ancient, meaning pagan. But to say that people have observed it in action is utterly absurd since it has always been a spiritual concept, not a physical one.
Evolution refers to the movement of soul, divine spark, life, or consciousness over vast periods of time as it incarnates within many hundreds of different bodies. This concept is known today as macroevolution.
At the deepest level of all, evolutionary thinking operates as a religion that purportedly answers the Ultimate Questions. Thus it is understandable that you zealously protect and defend your nature religion, for such it is.
For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being clearly understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look a a. mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Well, scientists have it all wrong when they say you can't make any determination about God from science and observing creation.
You have choice - either believe what God says in Scripture about the matter, or call Him a liar and believe man over Him.
And I certainly think God is better qualified to make statements about such matters over any God denying atheist.
I’ve seen the response already, as whenever you present scripture that refutes the humanist worldview that “Christians” hold -
“Oh, I’m a Christian, but the bible’s wrong.”
Basically, I believe “in” Christ, but I don’t believe Christ.
Fire insurance.
New traits sometimes arise in a population - and if they are favorable traits - they are subject to selection by the farmer.
This is the principle behind Darwin's scientific theory.
A scientific explanation is what Darwin is famous for - not the observation that new traits arise in a population and are favored by circumstance.
Just as Newton is not famous for observing that the planets move and that gravity operates - but for having a scientific theory that describes it.
Evolution is defined as and observed as a physical concept. There is nothing spiritual about it, nor can spirit be observed or defined by science.
Evolution as a scientific theory has everything to do with DNA and selection and nothing to do with the soul, divine spark, or consciousness.
How pitiful you are in your zealotry that the best you can come up with is to say that anybody who accepts evolution (like the Pope, for example) is a nature worshiper.
Like a blind man that can only describe things through his limited senses - you can apparently only describe or (mis)understand a scientific theory in terms of your useless theology of special creationism.
How sad for you. How useless.
I don’t think such a belief system would get anything but a “depart from Me” when you went to collect on your “fire insurance”.
amd: Read Darwin and you can see that he didn’t get his ideas de novo - but from those with intimate contact with nature.
Spirited: As you have admitted that the concept of evolution is thousands of years old-—making it of pagan origin-—it should come as no surprise to you to learn that Darwin received the concept of evolution from his contemporary pagan grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin.
Erasmus Darwin was a neo-pagan monist known to attend séances. As master of the famous Masonic Canongate lodge in Edinburgh he had close ties with both the Jacobin Masons, the organizers of the bloody revolution in France, and with the infamous Luciferian Illuminati, whose diabolical cause was overthrow of the Church and destruction of Christendom.
Thus Erasmus Darwin was an important name in European Masonic anti-God and religious organizations engaged in revolutionary activism. Erasmus Darwin mentored his grandson Charles:
“Dr. Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) was the first man in England to suggest those ideas which were later to be embodied in the Darwinian theory by his grandson, Charles Darwin (1809-1882) who wrote in 1859 Origin of Species.” (Scarlet and the Beast, Vol. II, John Daniel, p. 34)
amd: Evolution is defined as and observed as a physical concept. There is nothing spiritual about it, nor can spirit be observed or defined by science
Spirited: You have it exactly backward, as was explained to you in my previous post. From the first, with Enuma Elish, evolution has been a spiritual concept closely connected to primitive concepts of reincarnation and the Ancient Mysteries. W.L. Wilmhurst explains:
“...the evolution of man into superman — was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries, and the real purpose of modern Masonry is not the social and charitable purposes to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect their own nature and transform it into a more god-like quality. And this is a definite science, a royal art, which it is possible for each of us to put into practice...” (The Meaning of Masonry, W.L. Wilmhurst, p. 47)
In general, new-pagan evolutionary naturalism, is neither particularly scientific nor futuristic. It is rather a regression to the mystical pagan origins of modern science that reappeared in the heart of Christendom during the Renaissance.
In “The Abolition of Man” (1974) C.S. Lewis points out that the Renaissance reawakened a magical view of the world closely connected with pagan Gnostic sectarianism, Hermetic magic, astrology, Eastern pantheism and alchemical scientism. Accompanying all of this was evolution, occultism, Epicureanism, reincarnation and karma.
Evolution is both the antithesis of creation ex nihilo and the primary doctrine of both Eastern pantheism and Western scientific materialism, and so early on Lewis understood that both movements were merely two sides of the same pagan revival. Thus he argued that pantheism and materialism are not enemies in principle but rather cooperating philosophies united against the supernatural Creator, His Revelation, creation ex nihilo, all higher things, the linear view of history and Christian-based civilization.
What this means is that naturalism, abiogenesis, chance, natural selection, multiple universe and panspermia theories are but six contemporary adaptations of ancient pagan “idolatry, magic, occult mysticism and mythology.” These six are of a whole host of fallacies derived from modern evolutionary thinking that have permeated the post-Christian West and American society giving birth to a “new” pagan religion of evolutionary science.
And so Jonathan Tennenbaum, writing in “Towards ‘A New Science of Life” said Darwinism is nothing but a kind of cult,
“.... a cult religion....It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin’s so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons.” (Jonathan Tennenbaum, “Towards ‘A New Science of Life,’ Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 28, No. 34, Sept. 7, 2001)
Molecular inheritance is subject to molecular change and these variations are subject to selection. This is entirely physical, there is nothing “spiritual” about it.
But obviously a loony religious zealot cannot see anything but in terms of his loony religious zealotry.
You think paganism predates belief in God? So that therefore any belief that is thousands of years old is necessarily pagan? You think no Jewish farmer ever notices what the English (and Christian) farmers Darwin spoke to noticed? That new variations arise in populations and can be selected for or against?
Nothing in the scientific theory of evolution will make man into a “super-man”. But to one with a childish and ignorant misunderstanding of science - such delusions are commonplace.
Of course. But . . . you know . . . eggs – omelette.
“We can't eliminate risk, but we can make sure the patients in the study are properly informed.”
That seems to be the issue at dispute.
"Study proposals are also not approved by the boards unless the value of the knowledge that stands to be gained outweighs the risk of the study.
How would you know that is the case here? You haven't read the protocol and consent forms (and have little desire to). Also keep in mind that medical ethics is “a subject of great debate.”
“I suspect the action being taken against the EPA is more politically motivated than anything else, and has more to do with the EPA's policy regarding particulate matter.”
Wherever there is government money to be spent, there will be politics. To bemoan that dynamic is to betray either an ignorance of how government works, or to betray an annoyance that the resources of others can’t be spent without their oopposition.
I know that's the case here because, although I haven't read that specific protocol and consent form, I have read many other protocols and consent forms, and have taken the training to sit on an Independent Review Board. Plus, I have sat in on quite a number of IRB meetings. The laws regarding medical research ethics are quite clear.
No researcher is allowed to sit in on a board regarding his/her own research project, or a project in which he/she has some professional interest (for instance, a physician trying to recruit subjects for a study, but who isn't doing the study himself would not be allowed to sit on the board).
Here is a link to the website of a company that does IRB reviews. It does a pretty good job of explaining what the IRB process is all about.
And I said that there is still quite a bit of debate over medical research ethics because it is possible to recognize that there are many areas where there is not broad agreement on what, exactly, is ethical while still agreeing that it is necessary to be as ethical as possible in conducting research.
It is generally agreed that patients considering whether to participate in a study should be given full disclosure. However, in some studies (especially psychological studies), giving full disclosure to the patient would skew the results of the study. So the study author wants to deceive the patients about the purpose of the study--for instance, they might be told that the study is about how package design affects their decision to purchase a product, but in reality, the researcher is testing the type of person they are most likely to buy from (someone who looks and talks a lot like them, someone who is drastically different, someone they see as a peer, or someone they see as an authority, for example). If the researcher tells them the real point of the study, they will try to guess the researcher's expectations, and act accordingly. But if they think they are just judging the package, the researcher can gather unbiased data. They are only told after the conclusion of the study what the real purpose was. The ethical discussion is on whether it is okay to lie about the purpose of the study, when telling the truth would change the results.
Other ethical discussions involve whether it is acceptable to exclude pregnant women from studies, or to require that women use some form of contraceptive during the study (since the researcher doesn't want to be responsible for harming a fetus)--do such requirements restrict a woman's autonomy? I could go on; the point I was trying to make is that another Tuskegee isn't going to happen, but there are still many grey areas.
Wherever there is government money to be spent, there will be politics. To bemoan that dynamic is to betray either an ignorance of how government works, or to betray an annoyance that the resources of others can’t be spent without their oopposition.
Given that I've been associated with the military during my whole adult life, I think I have a fairly good idea of how the government and politics work. Besides that, my PhD--like that of most people in my field--was mostly paid for by the government (state and federal). In my assessment of this particular case, I assigned the political motives to Steve Milloy--along with the physician who wrote that letter--because I believe they are trying to point out a perceived inconsistency in EPA policy.
The reality is that, at the upper levels, the EPA operates politically--political appointees with little to no scientific background run it according to the politicians' whims. And, clearly, the politicians do try to accrue political power by using the EPA. But the scientists at the EPA are not politicians; they are trying to do the research that they believe has value (because of questions raised about particulate pollution, it *is* important to determine what, if any, effect that has on human health). They will conduct the research according to their understanding of the risks, not according to the EPA's politically motivated policies. And that is what Steve Milloy is using to make some political points. Don't get me wrong--I respect Steve Milloy, and I find his Junk Science website very interesting, even if I disagree with him on this point.
However, in reality, IRB and IACUC committees staffed by institution employees (and in particular tenured professors) have failed when a voting member is a dear friend to a PI found on the wrong side of an inspection.
When that happens as a regular pattern of behavior then the remaining hope is that a brave insider will report the matter under the protection of a Whistleblower Statute.
Heck of a note...
You may not believe that the question of origin is relevant or not, but many believe it is the most important question. Einstein, Eddington, Hoyl, Hubble...all felt the question regarding a beginning was important. So when you say,"Whether the universe is eternal....", seems to indicate that you leave open that possibility. The Kaalam Cosmological argument posits that if the universe is eternal then an infinite number of past days (time) must have been....but, tomorrow another day will be added to the infinite number of days...BUT, nothing can be added to the infinite. So philosophically and logically it does not make sense that the universe is eternal.
As a professional scientist, the question of origin is indeed irrelevant to my work. I care about evolutionary relationships between modern living organisms. I care about the evolution of microorganisms into forms that allow them to attack and sometimes kill humans. Does the origin of the universe really have any impact on those questions? None that I can see. If some of those physicists thought the origin of the universe is important--well, scientists of other disciplines have their priorities, which are not necessarily my priorities.
If I am to ponder whether the universe is eternal or not, it is not as a scientist that I ponder such a thing. That kind of question is in the realm of things that I cannot answer through experiment or observation. I really dislike those kinds of questions--one can go crazy trying to reason one's way to an answer, and the answer, being derived through thought and not observation, is always uncertain and subject to change. So, in the interest of maintaining sanity, I stick to the concrete and answerable.
As regarding the relevance of 'a beginning' or 'an eternal' universe, it seems to me there is great relevance. Many ethical questions flow from the view that the universe is created or eternal.
I can only say that I disagree strongly with that statement, as well as the rest of that paragraph. By that, you seem to be implying that--for example--someone who sees the universe as eternal could be horrified by the practice of killing the unborn as a method of birth control, but if they were to decide that the universe has a finite beginning and ending, they would then change their mind and accept the practice without reservation. Or vice-versa. I see absolutely no correlation between someone's ethical views and their view on whether the universe is eternal.
Regarding your comment that Chemistry acts according to physical laws and chemical reactions form the basis of evolution, I would like you to consider how dead, brute chemical gave rise to consciousness, thought, any mental event. Chemicals don't think, they react.
Indeed. Every single process going on in every single living organism is a blind chemical process proceeding according to immutable physical law. Each one of those processes can be replicated in vitro, that is, outside of a living organism. I've carried out hundreds, maybe thousands, of experiments replicating processes that occur in living organisms. Yet, when all of those processes are combined and operating, there is a living organism. And if I do something to make those organisms non-living, there is nothing I can do to restore them to a living condition. Amazing, isn't it?
As to the lack of connectivity of how life came to be, being apart from life evolving, it seems that is the first and most pivotal step in evolution.
Actually... I don't need to know how the first life came to be, or what form it took. Having that knowledge will not affect phylogenetic tree construction or any other methodology I use to examine evolutionary relationships. For my work, I need to understand the mechanistic drivers of evolution, and I do know that.
I suppose we could speak to Krebs cycly, the cytochrome P-450 systems, but we need to regress to a point prior to those systems 'evolving'. Where and how did the enzymes (very large, specific, complex molecules with specific spatial configurations) come to be? That is more interesting than reading Leninger or Whites Biochemistry books. Where and how did the first substrates arise to be acted upon by those enzymes? And how could the estimated 350 (minimum) enzyme systems needed for the most primitive cell arise denovo and concurrently to allow for protein construction, energy production, energy consumption, etc. We cannot even produce proof of that first system.
Enzymes are proteins. Proteins fold all by themselves into the proper forms. That is a consequence of their chemical nature; they need no direction or guidance, they just fold. Enzymes need only two functions: a substrate binding site, and an active site. Those also are consequences of them being chemicals. An enzyme substrate is, likewise, a chemical. In the presence of energy, chemicals react with each other because that is their nature--it's no big deal. As for the estimate of there needing to be at least 350 enzyme systems for a simple cell (where did that estimate come from, anyway)--the smallest virus known has three genes, one structural and two enzymes. Since the only essential function of a living organism is the replication of the genetic material--I'd say that the first living things wouldn't have needed to be very complicated at all.
So the supreme question remains, how did first life arise? I think it is extremely relevant to today.
Relevant, for what purpose? Maybe for your theology, but not for science. Medical research will continue whether or not we ever find a scientific answer to that question.
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.