Posted on 06/02/2003 1:46:54 PM PDT by Heartlander
Personally, I find that attempt at being clever rather humorous. But, sadly, many people trust scientists absolutely, pretty much the same way they trust medical doctors. But there are dangerous doctors just like there are scientists with ill motive.
A-G, you've hit my double concern right on the head here: the cultural effects of scientistic popularization of a bastardized evolutionary theory, and damage done to the integrity of science itself in the process.
Yet somehow, arguments based on such concerns get translated into "proof" that I am engaging in the defense of creationist doctrine. To me, that looks like a gross (and possibly willful) misdirection. I wonder why it seems to happen so often.
Thanks so much for your post, A-G! Hope you're enjoying your company this weekend! Hugs!!!
Don't hold your breath, Phaedrus. They'd have to dump quasi-religious social indoctrination and get back to doing science. Some of them don't even seem capable, let alone willing, of making such a transition.
I'm in such a cheerful mood today! Thank you for your brilliant post.
You are making the usual false evolutionist claim that because science knows something, it supports evolution. This is not the case here. Genetics has in fact taught us that it is very hard for a new mutation to spread throughout a species. In fact, unless it has a very high selective advantage it will never do that. The problem that DNA has created for evolution is that because a mutation affecting only one bit pair of DNA would necessarily not achieve much, it would provide only a very small selective advantage and instead of spreading throughout the species to provide a likelihood of further gradual mutations accomplishing a large change, it would most likely dissappear from the individuals that had it and thus provide no basis for further gradual change.
"Well, isn't that special."
Thanks for the interesting information, gore3000.
I have, Brother Arlen: The doctrine of survival of the fittest has had enormous cultural consequences. It has fed every species of racism and eugenics; and, making struggle and conflict the basic norms of human life, justifies force and brutality.
I don't think it's inaccurate to regard a "process" as merely a sequence of causally-connected events, though. That notion covers the sorts of things that biological organisms do, to be sure, but it also opens up the field to a whole host of things that have nothing to do with biology - I think it's entirely accurate and fair to describe a volcanic eruption as a "process", so what we're going to end up doing is discussing where life begins and ends, probably.
I'd say fire is too simple to be considered alive. Similarly prions and an automobile assembly line.
Based on what? Complexity? The number of discrete processes that happen to occur comtemporaneously? My CPU has more transistors than IBM has employees - is it alive, based solely on its complexity?
Of course. It's useful for answering questions about why things are the way they are. What could be more useful than beating back the borders of ignorance?
Yes, exactly, this is the rub. And this doctrine would be only barely tolerable even if it was science.
Something makes me doubt that Darwin Fish is an evolutionist, although he does mock what he considers to be false doctrines quite a bit. Personally, I think he's a crackpot, but then again, he's not an evolutionist, so that's someone else's mess to clean up...
Well, since utility is a matter for objectivity, can you relate instances?
(Keep in mind, that I'm not talking about open minded research of life sciences and origins, within the eschatological boundaries of theoretics, 'forensics,' and the modicum of actual science involved. I'm talking about Darwinism the ideology masquerading as science, not intellectually honest engagement to actually ascertain what we can make of the various elements of evolution and creation theories.)
Is knowing why mitochondria have their own DNA better than remaining ignorant about the matter?
I'm talking about Darwinism the ideology masquerading as science, not intellectually honest engagement to actually ascertain what we can make of the various elements of evolution and creation theories.)
Your turn - got any specific instances of what you wish to dispute here?
And this is something we wouldn't have learned from an honest investigation of life sciences? How does the attempt to obviate God by overextending what we may imagine and/or research of evolution provide unique impetus for the research you cite?
I'm talking about Darwinism the ideology masquerading as science, not intellectually honest engagement to actually ascertain what we can make of the various elements of evolution and creation theories.
Pinging a few others, due to my limits of knowledge of cellular biology.
It's something that was learned from an honest investigation of life sciences.
How does the attempt to obviate God by overextending what we may imagine and/or research of evolution provide unique impetus for the research you cite?
If an exploration of the development of life obviates God, then I submit that this is because our understanding of God is limited and imperfect. We will simply have to rethink the nature of God, given that our current understanding is inherently flawed. Needless to say, this is our fault, not God's.
Beating back one's own borders of ignorance first?
You asked a rhetorical question, and I answered it rhetorically. So no offense intended.
What a beautifully stinging statement!
Sounds like general_re found religion. Welcome home, brother. : )
And this is something we wouldn't have learned from an honest investigation of life sciences?
Indeed the investigation of life proceeds in spite of evolution. Scientists did not ask themselves before discovering DNA if it was in accordance with evolutionary theory or not, they went to try to find out what made humans tick regardless of what any theory might say and regardless of what the new discovery might disclose.
As to mtDNA, the evolutionists use it to prove evolution, but only when it fits the theory. A quite interesting example of evolution "science" can be found at Mammalian Genome. First evolutionists tried to use mitochondrial DNA to show the relationships between the monotremes (platypus), the eutherians (kangaroos) and the placentals (all other mammals). The mtDNA did not give them the desired results "The value and accuracy of decades of morphological study have been discounted recently by mytochondrial DNA evidence". So of course the evos could not let that happen, so they had to try again. They then tried DNA hybridization. However, under this method also Darwinian theory was refuted "It is significant that apomorphies of the theran ancestors, such as the braincase, cranial nerve architecture, and reproductive physiology" had to be reclassified as convergences under these two tests. So of course they had to pick another test to get the results they wished - a totally new one called MP6/IG2FR!
When evolutionists claim that DNA of any kind supports their theory it is because they have been very selective in their choices.
Well good. Then it didn't need Darwinism afterall now did it? Just an intellectually honest investigation within the proper eschatological boundaries of such systmatic methods as science and such theories as those of evolution.
If an exploration of the development of life obviates God, then I submit that this is because our understanding of God is limited and imperfect. We will simply have to rethink the nature of God, given that our current understanding is inherently flawed. Needless to say, this is our fault, not God's.
No, that is of course, not what I referred to when I asked "How does the attempt to obviate God by overextending what we may imagine and/or research of evolution provide unique impetus for the research you cite?" This is what I said:
(Keep in mind, that I'm not talking about open minded research of life sciences and origins, within the eschatological boundaries of theoretics, 'forensics,' and the modicum of actual science involved. I'm talking about Darwinism the ideology masquerading as science, not intellectually honest engagement to actually ascertain what we can make of the various elements of evolution and creation theories.)
None of this requires anyone who believes about God only what is revealed in the Bible and by the Holy Spirit, for example to rethink the nature of God the Creator. Did someone tell you it would? Darwinists?
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.