Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
Author Message
jwn Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,160
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #41
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
(09-24-2013 08:43 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  I have another theory about the controversy. Perhaps denying the Christian creation story is perceived by creationists as a step on the slippery slope to denying the rest of Genesis. As I recall, the whole point of baptism (the first sacrament) is freeing the recipient from original sin. If you deny the creation story, perhaps you also deny original sin, you deny baptism, and you ultimately raise questions about the church's definitions of good and evil and even the reason for Jesus' crucifixion. I can see how a religious institution might want to avoid that.

Perhaps, but the Catholic Church, one of the primary proponents of both original sin and the salvific effect of baptism, stated over 60 years ago that with respect to evolution and the creation narrative, a Catholic was free to believe in a range of explanations for the creation of the world and physical body of humans so long as one maintains that "souls are immediately created by God." In effect, the Catholic Church takes a mostly agnostic stance on the issue.

Now, Pius XII, in the same document, also takes a firm stance against polygenism, the theory that humans descend from multiple "first parents," in order to preserve the doctrine of original sin from the "first Adam." That was popular back in the 1950s, but I think more recent research regarding mitochondrial DNA has shown that all humans descend from, very few mothers, and perhaps just one. I will admit to both not being well read on this topic and not having the article I'm thinking of at hand, so someone is free to prove me wrong on that.
09-24-2013 09:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #42
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
(09-24-2013 02:34 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(09-18-2013 04:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me, evolution is the surest proof possible that God exists. I really do not understand the controversy.

What I find a little curious is how you reconcile this with the libertarian notion that central authority does more harm than good.

Come on - this is a childish response. The source of peril in central human authority is not that it is central or auhoritative, but that it is human.

The response is also a bit disturbing. The fact that one would even rhetorically attempt to analogize government to deity - or distrust of government to disbelief in deity - is proof enough that the peril is real.
09-24-2013 09:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #43
When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
(09-24-2013 09:47 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(09-24-2013 02:34 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(09-18-2013 04:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me, evolution is the surest proof possible that God exists. I really do not understand the controversy.

What I find a little curious is how you reconcile this with the libertarian notion that central authority does more harm than good.

Come on - this is a childish response. The source of peril in central human authority is not that it is central or auhoritative, but that it is human.

The response is also a bit disturbing. The fact that one would even rhetorically attempt to analogize government to deity - or distrust of government to disbelief in deity - is proof enough that the peril is real.

The analogy is not about the central authority, it is about the dynamic nature of animal behavior and life itself. There is the notion of the hidden hand in economics as well, which, as I understand it, is nothing more than the appearance of an external authority in the absence of the reality of that authority.
09-25-2013 08:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jonathan Sadow Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,104
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Strigids
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #44
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
(09-24-2013 07:25 PM)JOwl Wrote:  I think the (very cool) link I put in post #15 on this thread helps illustrate the difficulties of observing g cross-superclass evolution like fish to amphibian. Fish were around for about 160million years before the appearance of the first species we'd call an amphibian. That's an _extremely_ long time, full of lots of little differences.

But there do exist species like the lungfish (some of which use both lungs and gills to breathe) that are suggestive of how amphibians may have developed lungs ( http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates...ipnoi.html )

A bit of introspection here leads us to the heart of the issue.

Darwin did believe in speciation, but his qualms came from the implications of his work as applied to the fossil record. Given the slow, steady transformation implied by his theory, he expected to see in the fossil record transitional forms between species indicating slow and steady changes. The fossil record of his time didn't record this. Darwin expected that, as time passed and more fossils were found, the transitional forms would be found. It didn't happen that way. More and more fossils species were found, but it only increased the number and variety of species known; transitional types were far and few between. This caused some consternation among biologists, and eventually in the latter part of the 20th century the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" was proposed. It stated that, rather than slow and steady gradual changes to organisms, evolution instead tended to happen very quickly and dramatically. If that's the case, one wouldn't expect to find transitional forms, because their lifespans over geologic time would be very brief, and thus the odds of their forms being preserved in the fossil record would be very low.

That's all well and good, and may even be correct. Strictly speaking, however, it isn't scientific. That's because for a theory to be scientifically valid, it has to be falsifiable. Punctuated equilibrium can't be falsified, because evidence that might disprove it may have simply never been preserved in the geological record. So you can believe in unguided evolution, and RiceDoc can believe in a deity specifically intervening to create species, and there's no scientific reason to deny either of your viewpoints. The problem comes in when people try to use science to invalidate either viewpoint. It's like using a hammer to pound a screw into place. There is a better tool available, but as the old saying goes, to someone who has a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, even if it's actually a screw.

One caveat that must be mentioned regarding speciation is that in recent years the whole concept of "species" is coming under scrutiny; the previous posts about Darwin illustrate this. Originally defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding with each other and producing fertile offspring, such a definition doesn't suffice for all known types of organisms and can intergrade with hybridization, but that's another subject....

[Incidentally, your example of the lungfish is not very helpful to your argument. It's presently believed that the Dipnoi are only distantly related to modern amphibians. Stegocephalians (the clade containing tetrapods, of which modern amphibians are part) have significant differences in their skull structures from dipnoids. Furthermore, lungfish have internal gills like fish, while modern amphibians in their aquatic phases have external gills, and the lungfish maintains its dual respiratory abilities throughout its life as opposed to amphibians, who undergo metamorphosis from gills to lungs for respiration. The evolutionary pathways for the Dipnoi and Amphibia to acquire dual respiratory abilities were likely quite different from each other.]

(09-24-2013 09:24 PM)jwn Wrote:  
(09-24-2013 08:43 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  I have another theory about the controversy. Perhaps denying the Christian creation story is perceived by creationists as a step on the slippery slope to denying the rest of Genesis. As I recall, the whole point of baptism (the first sacrament) is freeing the recipient from original sin. If you deny the creation story, perhaps you also deny original sin, you deny baptism, and you ultimately raise questions about the church's definitions of good and evil and even the reason for Jesus' crucifixion. I can see how a religious institution might want to avoid that.

Perhaps, but the Catholic Church, one of the primary proponents of both original sin and the salvific effect of baptism, stated over 60 years ago that with respect to evolution and the creation narrative, a Catholic was free to believe in a range of explanations for the creation of the world and physical body of humans so long as one maintains that "souls are immediately created by God." In effect, the Catholic Church takes a mostly agnostic stance on the issue.

Now, Pius XII, in the same document, also takes a firm stance against polygenism, the theory that humans descend from multiple "first parents," in order to preserve the doctrine of original sin from the "first Adam." That was popular back in the 1950s, but I think more recent research regarding mitochondrial DNA has shown that all humans descend from, very few mothers, and perhaps just one. I will admit to both not being well read on this topic and not having the article I'm thinking of at hand, so someone is free to prove me wrong on that.

You are correct in regards to the "evolutionary bottleneck". From studies of mutations in mitochondrial DNA, the rate of which is well-known, and the relatively low genetic variability in modern humans as compared to other species, it can be shown that all humans on Earth presently are descended from a very small number of humans that lived in Africa aproximately 70,000 years ago. Being that a number of fossils of Homo sapiens have been found that are considerably older than that, it would seem that something happened that extinguished most human lineages no later than 70,000 years ago. It should be noted that the timing of this bottleneck depends on what part of the genome one studies for variability, but the existence of the bottleneck seems to be proven.

Your remarks concerning the Catholic Church, I think, highlights one of the issues about this debate. Without getting into too much detail, the Catholic understanding of Scripture embodies four distinct senses: the literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical (leading to a destination) senses. Proper exegesis of Scripture must take into account each of these four senses. It seems to me that the people trying to get evolution out of textbooks and/or get creationism in them (who are typically Protestant) tend not to use all of these senses in their exegesis (quite often using only the literal sense). I suspect this is an artifact of the Protestant understanding of Scripture (and I can think of other issues in which certain Protestant communities take certain stances apparently using only the moral and/or allegorical senses of Scripture).
09-26-2013 02:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jwn Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,160
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #45
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
(09-26-2013 02:38 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Your remarks concerning the Catholic Church, I think, highlights one of the issues about this debate. Without getting into too much detail, the Catholic understanding of Scripture embodies four distinct senses: the literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical (leading to a destination) senses. Proper exegesis of Scripture must take into account each of these four senses. It seems to me that the people trying to get evolution out of textbooks and/or get creationism in them (who are typically Protestant) tend not to use all of these senses in their exegesis (quite often using only the literal sense). I suspect this is an artifact of the Protestant understanding of Scripture (and I can think of other issues in which certain Protestant communities take certain stances apparently using only the moral and/or allegorical senses of Scripture).

Agreed, and I have suspected the same. I just didn't want to be the one to throw out the word "anagogical," even if it is the Rice message board. :-)
09-26-2013 06:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #46
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
(09-25-2013 08:26 AM)I45owl Wrote:  
(09-24-2013 09:47 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(09-24-2013 02:34 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(09-18-2013 04:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me, evolution is the surest proof possible that God exists. I really do not understand the controversy.

What I find a little curious is how you reconcile this with the libertarian notion that central authority does more harm than good.

Come on - this is a childish response. The source of peril in central human authority is not that it is central or auhoritative, but that it is human.

The response is also a bit disturbing. The fact that one would even rhetorically attempt to analogize government to deity - or distrust of government to disbelief in deity - is proof enough that the peril is real.

The analogy is not about the central authority, it is about the dynamic nature of animal behavior and life itself. There is the notion of the hidden hand in economics as well, which, as I understand it, is nothing more than the appearance of an external authority in the absence of the reality of that authority.

It turns out this particular discussion is nothing if not timely.

Yesterday, it turns out that Reason Magazine, one of the biggest Libertarian proponents out there, advocates for South Park, whose new episode last night featured Butters praying to the government and evangelizing to get people to accept government into their lives. I'll say again, that's not the analogy I was trying to make, but I did think the timing was funny.

3 Reasons All Kids Should be FORCED to Watch South Park! - Reason.com

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/09/25/3-...orced-to-w Wrote:Now, almost 20 years later, Parker and Stone have created one of the greatest TV shows of all time, along with unforgettable movies such as the all-puppet action thriller Team America and the Broadway smash The Book of Mormon.
09-26-2013 10:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,656
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #47
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
(09-24-2013 02:34 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(09-18-2013 04:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me, evolution is the surest proof possible that God exists. I really do not understand the controversy.
What I find a little curious is how you reconcile this with the libertarian notion that central authority does more harm than good.

What I find a little curious is that your understanding of libertarianism is so superficial that you could see this as an issue.

It's HUMAN central authority that libertarianism distrusts.
And libertarians have no problem seeing a parallel between Adam Smith's invisible hand in economics and the concept that an invisible hand might be guiding the evolutionary process.
09-26-2013 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
S.A. Owl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,036
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: San Antonio
Post: #48
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
(09-26-2013 02:38 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Darwin did believe in speciation, but his qualms came from the implications of his work as applied to the fossil record. Given the slow, steady transformation implied by his theory, he expected to see in the fossil record transitional forms between species indicating slow and steady changes. The fossil record of his time didn't record this. Darwin expected that, as time passed and more fossils were found, the transitional forms would be found. It didn't happen that way. More and more fossils species were found, but it only increased the number and variety of species known; transitional types were far and few between. This caused some consternation among biologists, and eventually in the latter part of the 20th century the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" was proposed. It stated that, rather than slow and steady gradual changes to organisms, evolution instead tended to happen very quickly and dramatically. If that's the case, one wouldn't expect to find transitional forms, because their lifespans over geologic time would be very brief, and thus the odds of their forms being preserved in the fossil record would be very low.

Perhaps you didn't intend it, but your wording implies that punctuated equilibrium (PE) was developed in order to "explain away" the supposed lack of transitional forms. That's not really true. It grew out of observations. I also think you are overstating the lack of transitional forms.

(09-26-2013 02:38 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  That's all well and good, and may even be correct. Strictly speaking, however, it isn't scientific. That's because for a theory to be scientifically valid, it has to be falsifiable. Punctuated equilibrium can't be falsified, because evidence that might disprove it may have simply never been preserved in the geological record. So you can believe in unguided evolution, and RiceDoc can believe in a deity specifically intervening to create species, and there's no scientific reason to deny either of your viewpoints. The problem comes in when people try to use science to invalidate either viewpoint. It's like using a hammer to pound a screw into place. There is a better tool available, but as the old saying goes, to someone who has a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, even if it's actually a screw.

I don't see the equivalence here. I don't keep up with the literature (this isn't my field), and don't know how accepted or rejected PE is these days. But because something is difficult to falsify doesn't mean it is not falsifiable. I can conceive of ways one could look at fossil occurrences and forms and their host strata to test whether PE is consistent with the observations. Science can be applied to PE in a way that it cannot be applied to the model of a guiding supernatural force.

I do tend to agree that the question of guided or unguided is beyond the realm of science.

Here's a really good discussion of PE that touches on much of what I've seen in this thread.

http://theobald.brandeis.edu/pe.html
09-26-2013 03:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #49
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
(09-26-2013 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-24-2013 02:34 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(09-18-2013 04:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me, evolution is the surest proof possible that God exists. I really do not understand the controversy.
What I find a little curious is how you reconcile this with the libertarian notion that central authority does more harm than good.

What I find a little curious is that your understanding of libertarianism is so superficial that you could see this as an issue.

It's HUMAN central authority that libertarianism distrusts.
And libertarians have no problem seeing a parallel between Adam Smith's invisible hand in economics and the concept that an invisible hand might be guiding the evolutionary process.

Talking about trusting central authority is not really what I intended, either. There's obviously no conflict between any specific religion and libertarianism.

What I really intended is to make an analogy about:
  • the perception about economics on the one hand - where you can see the free market leading to economic prosperity and really maximizing liberty - unguided by any central authority
  • the perception of evolution on the other - where you can see life emerge and change into more advanced and less advanced forms through time - yet see this as evidence that there must be a central authority

I hope that at least communicates what I was thinking when I posted.

I'll grant this is a weak analogy. It's similar to ones made about social darwinism, but it's really informed by your statement that you perceive evolution to be proof of a higher power. I don't intend this analogy to dissuade you of this perception, but I was just commenting on what seems to me to be a discongruity, even though I can accept that you can reasonably hold both positions.

I feel like both your and George's responses are a bit off the mark, but that's certainly mostly because I did a piss-poor job of expressing it to begin with, notwithstanding the fact that we obviously don't agree in terms of viewpoint.

As for my understanding, where I may lack something is in Smith's hidden hand, but my understanding is that is the appearance of a hidden hand without there existing anything there to begin with.

All of that said, I don't think there's a lot to argue with ... I just hoped it might provoke some productive discussion, which it clearly hasn't to date...
09-26-2013 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,656
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #50
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
JOwl, what I am about to say could be taken as rude, and I don't mean it that way, so please take instead it in the spirit intended. What I think you are doing a piss-poor job is not expressing your position but understanding ours. The longer this goes, the further you seem to be getting from comprehending my positions.

This discussion kind of reminds me of the "Somalia is a libertarian paradise" sound byte that I get some times. No, a libertarian paradise is what Milton Friedman describes in CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM at around pages 38-40 (page numbers may vary in some editions). That is about as far from Somalia as it is possible to be. One might even go so far as to say that the libertarian perspective is that the legitimate purpose of government is to do everything possible to prevent Somalia, and very little else.

Unfortunately neither Friedman nor anyone similarly eloquent has to my knowledge addressed the issues that you appear to be raising, and I'm obviously having difficulty communicating adequately with you regarding them. I think you are trying to express both libertarianism and Christianity in terms of your own world view, which would appear to be a world view that is incompatible with both. I don't know how to help you with that. The words don't mean the same thing to you as they do to me, and I think also RiceDoc.
(This post was last modified: 09-26-2013 08:24 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
09-26-2013 08:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #51
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
(09-26-2013 08:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  JOwl, what I am about to say could be taken as rude, and I don't mean it that way, so please take instead it in the spirit intended. What I think you are doing a piss-poor job is not expressing your position but understanding ours. The longer this goes, the further you seem to be getting from comprehending my positions.

This discussion kind of reminds me of the "Somalia is a libertarian paradise" sound byte that I get some times. No, a libertarian paradise is what Milton Friedman describes in CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM at around pages 38-40 (page numbers may vary in some editions). That is about as far from Somalia as it is possible to be. One might even go so far as to say that the libertarian perspective is that the legitimate purpose of government is to do everything possible to prevent Somalia, and very little else.

Unfortunately neither Friedman nor anyone similarly eloquent has to my knowledge addressed the issues that you appear to be raising, and I'm obviously having difficulty communicating adequately with you regarding them. I think you are trying to express both libertarianism and Christianity in terms of your own world view, which would appear to be a world view that is incompatible with both. I don't know how to help you with that. The words don't mean the same thing to you as they do to me, and I think also RiceDoc.

I assume you mean me, not JOwl. There are completely independent discussions going on here. This one is not fruitful.

I have not disputed your responses to assertions that I never intended to make, including the Somalia is a libertarian paradise (which is actually a position espoused by Reason.com: 1, 2, at least partly in response to the disingenuous arguments of liberals). That you implicitly disregard the fact that did not make those arguments is not exactly helping.

Let me just state, I comprehend and accept your positions. But they have very little to do with what I ever intended to say.
09-26-2013 09:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,656
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #52
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
(09-26-2013 09:08 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I assume you mean me, not JOwl. There are completely independent discussions going on here. This one is not fruitful.
I have not disputed your responses to assertions that I never intended to make, including the Somalia is a libertarian paradise (which is actually a position espoused by Reason.com: 1, 2, at least partly in response to the disingenuous arguments of liberals). That you implicitly disregard the fact that did not make those arguments is not exactly helping.
Let me just state, I comprehend and accept your positions. But they have very little to do with what I ever intended to say.

I did mean you and not JOwl, sorry about that.

And nowhere do I suggest that you intended to make the statement that Somalia is a libertarian paradise. I was using an analogy, not explicitly or implicitly disregarding anything. And I certainly would not describe either of your cited articles as expressing that Somalia is any kind of libertarian paradise. Better than getting poked in the eye with a burning stick, for sure, and better than the worst that could be expected, maybe even better in some respects that other places in Africa, but those don't make a paradise.

I think your last comment is telling. My worldview appears to be so different from yours that I don't think ideas translate from one to the other. That being the case, I see no way to have a productive conversation.
(This post was last modified: 09-26-2013 09:20 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
09-26-2013 09:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #53
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
(09-26-2013 09:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And nowhere do I suggest that you intended to make the statement that Somalia is a libertarian paradise. I was using an analogy, not explicitly or implicitly disregarding anything. And I certainly would not describe either of your cited articles as expressing that Somalia is any kind of libertarian paradise.

I understand. I just tend to think that it's somewhat ironic that with all of the disingenuous arguments out there, it is possible to see some aspects of Somalia where they are less screwed up than nations that do have what might be regarded as good governance.

(09-26-2013 09:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think your last comment is telling. My worldview appears to be so different from yours that I don't think ideas translate from one to the other. That being the case, I see no way to have a productive conversation.

I won't necessarily agree that the ideas can't translate, but they certainly don't seem to be.

I will say that you've made the argument before that your belief stems from what you know about science writ large, and you've made the argument with respect to both evolution and causation. I have more sympathy with you in your argument about evolution, even though I don't agree with it. However, the causation issue is where I don't your argument being nearly as persuasive... we discussed that in a thread a few weeks ago, but I was unable to find it.
09-26-2013 10:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,656
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #54
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
(09-26-2013 10:55 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(09-26-2013 09:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And nowhere do I suggest that you intended to make the statement that Somalia is a libertarian paradise. I was using an analogy, not explicitly or implicitly disregarding anything. And I certainly would not describe either of your cited articles as expressing that Somalia is any kind of libertarian paradise.
I understand. I just tend to think that it's somewhat ironic that with all of the disingenuous arguments out there, it is possible to see some aspects of Somalia where they are less screwed up than nations that do have what might be regarded as good governance.
(09-26-2013 09:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think your last comment is telling. My worldview appears to be so different from yours that I don't think ideas translate from one to the other. That being the case, I see no way to have a productive conversation.
I won't necessarily agree that the ideas can't translate, but they certainly don't seem to be.
I will say that you've made the argument before that your belief stems from what you know about science writ large, and you've made the argument with respect to both evolution and causation. I have more sympathy with you in your argument about evolution, even though I don't agree with it. However, the causation issue is where I don't your argument being nearly as persuasive... we discussed that in a thread a few weeks ago, but I was unable to find it.

I really don't understand WTF you are trying to say. I don't know how to respond, because I find your comments incomprehensible. I don't think you are stupid, and I know I'm not, so I'll just chalk it up to inability to communicate across different world view frames of reference.

Causation? What are you talking about there?
(This post was last modified: 09-26-2013 11:19 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
09-26-2013 11:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #55
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
(09-26-2013 11:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-26-2013 10:55 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(09-26-2013 09:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And nowhere do I suggest that you intended to make the statement that Somalia is a libertarian paradise. I was using an analogy, not explicitly or implicitly disregarding anything. And I certainly would not describe either of your cited articles as expressing that Somalia is any kind of libertarian paradise.
I understand. I just tend to think that it's somewhat ironic that with all of the disingenuous arguments out there, it is possible to see some aspects of Somalia where they are less screwed up than nations that do have what might be regarded as good governance.
(09-26-2013 09:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think your last comment is telling. My worldview appears to be so different from yours that I don't think ideas translate from one to the other. That being the case, I see no way to have a productive conversation.
I won't necessarily agree that the ideas can't translate, but they certainly don't seem to be.
I will say that you've made the argument before that your belief stems from what you know about science writ large, and you've made the argument with respect to both evolution and causation. I have more sympathy with you in your argument about evolution, even though I don't agree with it. However, the causation issue is where I don't your argument being nearly as persuasive... we discussed that in a thread a few weeks ago, but I was unable to find it.

I really don't understand WTF you are trying to say. I don't know how to respond, because I find your comments incomprehensible. I don't think you are stupid, and I know I'm not, so I'll just chalk it up to inability to communicate across different world view frames of reference.

Causation? What are you talking about there?

Causation as in Cosmology... what caused the universe to exist.
This is the thread I was referring to ...

Passage by unkown author

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=646604 Wrote:The universe exists. Something set it into motion. Res ipsa loquitur. Was it a creator, or was it simply an infinite number of random events? Is there some other option?

There may be no evidence to support the existence of a creator, but there is no evidence to support the random explanation either. And the random explanation violates the known laws of how the universe operates. But we teach the random explanation in science class. Even though there is no evidence to support it, and considerable logic against it. So what's being taught now does not meet the standard you have set.

Given that the universe exists, and that there are pretty much only two alternatives to explain that existence, neither with support sufficient to satisfy your standard, and that one of the two alternatives pretty much requires suspension of the rules that science tells us govern everything that occurs in that universe, what is the stronger case? So what should we teach?

It requires far more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian.
09-27-2013 12:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,656
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #56
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
OK, gotcha on the causation piece.

I find the causation argument far more persuasive than the evolution one.

I really just think our worldviews are too far apart for meaningful discussion to be possible.
09-27-2013 12:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
75src Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,591
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #57
RE: When did being a Christian and believing in science become mutually exclusive?
I saw a pro wrestler called the Missing Link in the Sam Houston Coliseum years ago.

I remember a classmate of mine, Greg Benesh, telling me what he heard at the Homecoming prayer breakfast about Richard Smalley's faith. A former grad assistant of Smalley spoke about what Smalley's faith meant to Smalley as he was dying of cancer. The Nobel Laureate must have been able to reconcile faith and science. Greg Benesh teaches physics at Baylor University and he wrote an article for the Chronicle (during the BCM merger proposal) stating that Baylor U did not constrain his teaching of science.

Personally, I think the Bible was not intended to be a science book so I am not stuck with a literal view of the book of Genesis. Like one cardinal said when the Roman Catholic church was confronting Galileo "The Bible is meant to tell how to get to Heaven and not about how the heavens move". It should be noted that the Roman Catholic church is not now opposing science. They adopted evolution way back in 1950. I am an elder in the Presbyterian Church USA and I do not have a problem with science.




(09-20-2013 06:44 AM)JOwl Wrote:  Yeah, I have no biology background either, so I'm sure someone else on this board could contribute a lot more than I can (but that won't stop me from throwing some ideas around 03-wink).

Looking at a compilation of paleontological finds ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hum...on_fossils ) the general pattern seems indicative of species changing over time into other species.

For me, any gaps are most easily attributed to the dearth of fossil evidence overall. The likelihood of a knowledgeable human stumbling upon preserved remains from millions years ago seems on par with that of a miracle.

Actually, I think the missing link skepticism could be turned around. That is, it seems for non-evolutionists who believe that species are static that there is a "missing human" problem even greater than the "missing link" problem for evolutionists. We have a smattering of extremely old fossils that appear to be from our non-human ancestors (or closely related species), but then where are the extremely old fossils of current-form humans? To my knowledge, there are none.


Also, I believe there's one conceptual point you have wrong in the rendiering that "The fossil records go A-->B-->C--> (nothing here but hypothesized possible yet completely missing fossilized forms) -->D-->E-->F where A, B and C are apes or ape like and D,E and F are homo sapiens or very close relatives."
I think you're identifying C as where ape evolution split from human evolution, meaning A, B, and C are common ancestors of both modern apes and modern humans and everything after C is an ancestor of modern humans only.

If I have that right, then the clarification I'd like to make is that A, B, and C are not "apes" as you said, just a common ancestor of both apes and humans. They are no more (modern) apes than they are (modern) humans.

Also, there's a minor language thing here, completely irrelevant to the discussion but it could cause confusion. It's my understanding that "ape" is currently a common term for the family Hominidae. Hominidae includes the genuses Pongo (orangutans), Gorilla (gorillas), Pan (chimps and bonobos), and Homo (humans). Everywhere above I've treated apes as something distinct from humans, but that's not correct as humans are apes-- one species of ape. It would be more correct, but much harder to write, if everywhere above I had replaced "ape" with "separately, orangutans, gorillas, and chimps/bonobos".
09-27-2013 04:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.