Evidence for God from Science

Gman —

I think I know why we are at a deadlock. I had been operating under the assumption that you knew what science is, what theories are and the basic philosophy that governs how science is conducted. You appear not to understand any of this. So I will try to explain these things — not in any patronizing way — only because some of the misapprehensions under which you seem to labor are rooted in a failure (or at least partial failure) to understand these concepts.

Science is a process of gaining knowledge, and its main method of inquiry is the scientific method. The scientific method is a process of inquiry involving hypothesis testing, empirical data, direct observation, reasoning, and experimentation. More specifically, the scientific method relies on the generation of testable hypotheses to test, support or falsify explanations. For this reason, the historical sciences qualify as scientific — one can generate testable hypotheses, gather data, and even conduct experiments to test hypotheses about past events.

Now, there are some basic philosophies that govern the way that science is conducted — specifically, methodological naturalism. Quite simply, this philosophy states that natural phenomena have natural explanations, and that supernatural explanations cannot ever be used as part of an explanatory system in science. One cannot, for example, generate a hypothesis that states that invisible, undetectable gnomes are responsible for causing disease since the existence of these gnomes (a central part of the explanatory system) is, by default, insulated from scientific inquiry. Now — and this is really important, Gman — this does NOT, NOT, NOT mean that god does not exist, or that one must jettison one's religious beliefs once they become a scientist. All this means is that regardless of one's religious beliefs, one cannot use divine intervention as part of scientific inquiry and still call it science. Lots of religious people are scientists — but they can't use god in their explanatory systems and still call what they are doing, science since they have violated a central — and rather vital — philosophy that governs how science is conducted.

Now, a theory is a set of ideas in science that have broad explanatory basis, predictive power and have been subjected to (and passed) rigorous and repeated testing. Think of them as extremely powerful and well tested hypotheses. They are NOT facts — they are supported by facts. But they have been so well tested that they are considered — in the scientific community — to be scientifically true beyond all reasonable doubt. Scientists may refer to them as facts because they are so well supported — for example, scientists says that it is factual that matter is composed of atoms. This is a statement about the nature of matter that is considered so valid by scientists that they equate the fact that matter is composed of atoms with the theory that says this is so. So it is, in the scientific community, with evolution. You can reject the particulate nature of matter or the notion of decent with modification if you like — it's your prerogative. That doesn't change the fact that the scientific community holds both of these ideas in high regard because of their universal support. Similarly, you don't have to believe that Charles Manson masterminded the murder of Sharon Tate, but that does not change the fact that a jury of his peers found this to be the case…beyond all reasonable doubt.

Now that said, let's respond to some of your statements:

>> Um.. No…. The onus is you to prove ToE.. You stated ToE to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

Things are never “proven” in science — that's math.

>> Now you say you have a hypotheses that could have produced organic material capable of being acted on by natural selection.

That is correct. Abiogenesis is not part of the ToE, proper. Currently, many hypotheses that could account for the origins of life from non-life exist — and these hypotheses are testable, falsifiable and subject to revision like any scientific hypothesis.

>> A hypotheses that could have produced organic material?? This isn't science, this is your belief system…

No, it is not a belief system. This is part of your confusion. I have no more of a belief system in stating that science can produce testable hypotheses regarding the evolution of life from nonlife than I do when I say it can account for the origins and nature of disease.

>> So post it… What are you waiting for?

Um. It is a pdf document. Can I post these on a discussion board? I was going to send it to you if you wanted to read it. But I gather this means that you admit to not having read the article that you cited in defense of one of your claims…?

>> You are saying that you have uncovered the origin of eukaryotes… So prove it.. Where exactly are you getting this information to produce eukaryotes and where did that information come from? Explain it in detail…

I actually did support (not prove — again, terminology is important) it — several posts ago. You either ignored these evidences, or chose not to rebut them with anything more than a link to a paragraph that incorrectly summarized a purported rebuttal to endosymbiosis!

>> Funny… Again, you stated ToE to be true beyond reasonable doubt. You are making a FACTUAL statement. Lookup the definition of a fact… You are clearly saying that ToE is completely factual.

See paragraphs 2-4 of this post. I know what facts are. You seem to be the one confused here.

>> A hypothesis? Hardly factual… I thought you said ToE was true beyond reasonable doubt? How does this statement back up the truth?

See paragraphs 2-4 of this post. I hope this clears up your confusion.

>> One statement? Stabilize ribose? No… What is the chemical reaction that produces the sugar ribose?

I guess you didn't read the article. No problem. Here is an explanation of where ribose sugars could be formed: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 064945.htm and the article I cited explain how they could be stable long enough to form RNA.

>> Nice it says page not found… Could be present? Either it is or it isn't to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt..

Actually, I posted 2 links which, for some reason, melded into 1. See here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... 95/1306%20 and here: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3868.abstract

>> Your claim is evolution prescribes natural explanations only for natural phenomena. You say we can't involve god in any explanatory system for natural phenomena and still call the explanation science. Therefore YOUR science is ALL truth

No, G, it is not ALL truth. I have already stated, unambiguously, that science and the ToE have their limitations. There are questions they can't answer. But this much is absolutely true — you can't invoke the act(s) of god(s) in a scientific hypothesis and still have it be scientific. You can invoke the act(s) of god(s) — just not in science. And since science doesn't have all the answers, that's OK. This is why religion, metaphysics, and philosophy exist.

>> Whether its origins, the meaning of life, or god or no god, etc…

Science can offer an explanation for the origin of life. It says virtually nothing about the meaning of life, and it is mute on the existence of god(s) since this is, by definition, outside their explanatory system. How much clearer can this be?

>> Oh, so now it's philosophical… What happened to the science part?

**sigh** See paragraph 3.

>> Again.. What on earth does this have to do with our discussion?

Again, how can you not see the relevance? I have explained this over, and over and over again. Go back and read over my posts — the comparison is completely apt and relevant. You reject macroevolution, so it is completely logical that you reject the notion of Hawaii forming over millions of years from spreading plates in the mid-Atlantic. At least to accept one and reject the other would be logically inconsistent.

>> How does continental drift or incremental changes in the Earth's crust over millions of years impede the existence of God??

It doesn't. And neither does “macroevolution”.

>> What gives? What did I say before about this case? I clearly said “the plaintiffs” were arguing that intelligent design sprang up in the wake of the 1987 Supreme Court decision against creation science..

You clearly said NOTHING of the sort. I quoted you directly — you said “Again The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that any form of design is another form of creationism and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state funds to religion..” and “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that design is another form of creationism and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state funds to religion.” And “In the Dover trail they simply reiterated what happened in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard….” THREE TIMES you said the same thing, and three times it has been wrong. You said that the Supreme Court ruled that design is another form of creationism in the Edwards case. You are wrong. Design was never, ever mentioned in this case. Why is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong and move on?

>> So? Dawkins doesn't agree with you.. You are in your own exclusive club...

So what?

>> I have given you many examples.. [of DE]

I didn't ask you for examples. I asked for a working definition.

>> So maybe you could give me your explanation of what DE is?

I already said that this was not used in the academic community because it has no scientific relevance to the ToE. Since we don't use it, why should we define it? You use it — repeatedly. So I am guessing that you have a functional, scientific definition.

>> Whatever that means, whatever it does, whatever it creates via natural selection…

So this is your definition? Really?

>> No.. It IS your religion… And your religion answers ALL assumptions, ALL questions, and ALL doubts...

See paragraphs 2-4. It is not my religion. That is a hyperbolic statement.

>> Not according to what you have posted.. It IS your religion…

Please define religion. Please provide examples of rites, traditions, observances, rituals and practices common to all religions. Then explain how my simple statement that “the scientific community views theories as ideas that are true beyond reasonable doubt” qualifies as a religion. Until you can make such a case, please refrain from making wild assertions about my religious beliefs, and please offer a retraction for your original claims that the ToE has forced me to reject the Bible and God. This is an offensive statement to make considering you know nothing about my religious beliefs, and it is patently false as I have shown you repeatedly. To repeat this over and over again, and to remain unrepentant in the process is bearing false witness. That may be between you and your god, but it does not mean I will not defend myself against such outrageous accusations.

>> Oh, this is just pure madness… You neither said any of these things? Hey Wallace, are you reading what you are posting? Look what you have stated word for word..

I know what I have said, and I have been unwaveringly consistent in my position. And my position does not exclude or deny the existence of god IN ANY WAY. I have simply stated that the philosophy of science preclude the intervention of god(s) in the daily operation of the phenomena in our observable universe. Lots of people make all sorts of claims about what god does in their lives — but these claims are untestable by science. This does not mean god(s) do/es not exist!

>> Oh boy.. What a contradiction.. You say theory of evolution is true beyond all reasonable doubt but it also has its limitations and does not have all the answers? Well then it is NOT true beyond all reasonable doubt…. Period.

No. Not a contradiction and not a period. Maybe a semicolon. I have been clear about what answers science does and does not have. But that does not mean a theory is not true beyond reasonable doubt. Cell theory is true beyond all reasonable doubt. But it doesn't answer the question of what I am supposed to do with my life just because I am made of cells. It doesn't have all the answers — but it is true beyond all reasonable doubt. Do you not get this???

>> Science and the belief in God can go hand in hand.. Contrary to what you think…

That's not contrary to what I think. Lots of people who practice science do so to better understand their god's creation — a perfect and logical symmetry. But they do not introduce their god into their science and still call their explanations scientific. Period.

>> You have clearly proven to this panel that the theory of evolution is nothing more than an assumption as well, a belief system…

This is clearly not what I have shown. It seems to be the illogical leaps you are making — usually from conflating statements I have made. If this is how prove points, any disagreement with you is unwinnable. Sort of like being married.

>> There is no distinction.. For you the ToE is unquestionable empirical science..

So you don't understand the distinction. ** shrug **

>> It's called a pause…

You seem to have manypause.

Cheers
Al

I haven't been keeping up with all the posts, but I thought that the article below would be interesting for some to discuss. What do you think?

(PS: I tried to attach this, but I couldn't get it to work because all the extensions always had a "doc" in them - if someone knows how I can save the article and attach it without a "doc" in the file name, let me know.)


What Can Evolution Really Do? How Microbes Can Help Us with the Answer

Ralph Seelke, Department of Biology and Earth Science, UW-Superior
Outline of Euonia Presentation


I. Introduction: How historical and experimental sciences approach the study of evolution.

Hello- I'm Ralph Seelke, and I'm a microbiologist who's obsessed with answering one basic question: What can evolution really do??? By this I mean: What can we really SHOW it to be capable of doing? I want to cut through the theory and inference and speculation, and get down to what it has been shown capable of doing, and what it has been shown to be incapable of doing IN THE LABORATORY.

In this talk I want to introduce you to the notion of experimental science, as opposed to historical science, and then convince you that actual, real-time experiments can help us understand the capabilities and limitations of evolution. Then, we'll take a tour of some of the things researchers have discovered about evolution through experimentation.

A small warning, and a bottom line- do not expect to be overwhelmed by its capabilities.

A one number bottom line: TWO. This appears to be the number of things evolution cannot do, when both of the events are required for evolution to occur.

Let's start by covering some of the distinctions between historical science and experimental science

A. Historical Science:

When you think of the science behind evolution, you are normally thinking about historical science. If it is science that could be helped by having a time machine, then it's probably historical science. Evolution, geology, astronomy, all fall into this category. It is science that deals with an observation, and then uses facts, reason, and logic to deduce the story of what happened in the past. In fact, we use this type of science all the time. We see that the gas gauge on the car is on E, and had half a tank two days ago. Then we remember- our teenage daughter is home.

In Geology, we see layers in the sandstone rock formation, and explain it by saying that each layer represents a long period of time, when the sand was deposited and then turned to rock.

We see fossils in the rocks- more primitive ones lower down, more advanced ones higher up- and infer that the lower ones were the ancestors of the younger ones.

We may include other facts to help support our story: in the case of evolution, facts from genetics and from anatomy have been typically used to support the standard story of evolution. We may even do things that resemble experimental science to support our story, such as determine the DNA sequence of genes from two different organisms, or examine their anatomy to determine similarities or differences.

Yet, in all the work that we do, the one fact remains: we weren't there to observe what actually happened.

B. Experimental Science

In experimental science, on the other hand, you ARE there to observe what happened, because you're the one who made it happen! It's the sort of thing you often see on product advertisements- the BIG tomatoes produced when you use Miracle-Grotm , and the small ones when you don't. You are asking a specific question, preferably with a yes/no answer (Does Miracle-Gro produce bigger tomatoes?), and devise an experiment to answer the questions. In the case of Miracle-Gro, it's a fairly simple experiment: you grow plants under exactly the same conditions, except one set gets the M-G, the other doesn't. Then you wait for the results.

How might that work with evolution? Let's start with a ridiculous example, and then go to one that could really work:

Take a Population and give it an “evolutionary task”:
Have a shrew evolve into a bat
Bats appeared quite suddenly in the fossil record, about 50 million years ago; one of the suggested ancestors was the tree shrew.

Put the population in an environment where it can live, BUT that favors evolution:

Use tree-climbing shrews, with predators and flying insects! If it evolves into a BAT, it will avoid the predators and catch the flying insects BETTER

Wait for evolution to occur; look for bats in your tree shrew population.

II. Wait a minute- you can't do experiments on things that take millions of years! Well, yes you can

The example, of course, is ridiculous- you'd need too much time, and too many shrews, to do the experiment. (Also, the critic of your experiment would maintain that bats didn't really evolve from shrews, but from an ancestor common to both- shrews can't readily back down the evolutionary pathway). Anyway, the fact that you didn't evolve any bats wouldn't hurt the theory of evolution.

Even though this type of experiment wouldn't be possible, you can do similar experiments with microbes- in particular, bacteria.
A. Evolution isn't really about having enough time- it's about having a large enough population and enough generations.
So- what WOULD you need to make experimental evolution work?

Lots of organisms and Lots of generations.

Lots of organisms allows rare events to occur. Winning the PowerBall, for instance, is a rare event- but it does happen. Why? Because there are hundreds of millions of tickets sold. If a mutation that is favorable only occurs in one out of every 10 billion organisms (which would be rare), then it will occur in a population of 100 billion.

Lots of generations allows cumulative advantageous mutations to occur. If evolution is gradual, then the population will collect multiple advantageous mutations.

So, if we have billions and billions of organisms, and thousands and thousands of generations, then we can begin to ask what evolution can really do. With what kind of organism can you have billions of individuals, evolving for thousands of generations?

!!!MICROBES!!!
B. Microbes excel on both counts

1. They reproduce rapidly to produce immense numbers of generations and individuals.
You can produce immense numbers of microbes: In a quart container, you can grow, overnight, from one bacterium, a trillion bacteria. When you compare that to human populations, this is many times more than the number of people who have ever lived on earth in all of time!

You can also produce many generations of bacteria as well- A very common way to produce multiple generations is to do serial transfer- you grow up your microbe in an environment that lets you find out if evolution has occurred. This can be as little as a teaspoon or tablespoon of growth medium. When the microbe has grown for the day, and reached its maximum number of organisms, you than transfer 1% of the culture to a new tube. This part that you transferred then grows and increases 100-fold from the number that you put in, until it reaches saturation- the maximum number that it can grow. As it does this, it produces over six generations of growth. With bacteria, each time the population doubles is considered a single generation- so one becomes two becomes four—8—16—32—64—when they've all doubled over six times the culture has increased 100-fold, and you've made the microbes reach their maximum number.

The number of generations that you produce in this way is 6.64- if you consider a human generation to be 25 years, this is the equivalent of 166 years for a human population!

What this means is that it is possible to get THOUSANDS of generations in real time:

46 generations per week
Almost 400 per month
Over 2400 in a year
24,000 in ten years!

Richard Lenski has been doing this sort of experiment with 12 separate cultures of the laboratory bacterium Escherichia coli. At this point, these 12 cultures have evolved for approximately 40,000 generations in a broth that has extremely low levels of nutrients available. This is equivalent to a million years of evolution in human terms. We'll talk about what Lenski found in a little bit.

Granted we are not bacteria- for one thing, bacteria are asexual, and so the contributions of sex to evolution are eliminated. Still, it means that we can get answers to what happens when organisms evolve for thousands of generations.


2. They have lots of complex structures and activities that are well-studied

Bacteria are amazingly complicated. They can make a new copy of themselves in as little as 20 minutes. They can search for food in their environment. Most can make all 20 amino acids, the building blocks of the thousands of proteins that a cell contains- we would starve if we weren't supplied with 8 of these in our diet.

Many of these activities would be considered irreducibly complex. Most of you are familiar with this term, with the bacterial flagella being the poster child for an irreducibly complex structure. But let me give you a few that might be a harder to visualize, but are more useful for studying evolution.

Here's one example of an irreducibly complex system. This one allows bacteria to use milk sugar- lactose- as a source of food. It turns out that for lactose to be used for food, bacteria have to do two things- they have to bring it into the cell, and they have to break it apart. They have two genes that code for two proteins that do these functions. One codes for a permease that allows the lactose to enter the cell. The other is an enzyme that breaks the lactose into two smaller sugars, glucose and galactose. The common name for this enzyme is lactase- you can buy it in a grocery store, since it helps people who are lactose intolerant.

What this means is that for the bacteria to grow using lactose, it must have both functions. If it is able to break lactose down, but can't bring it into the cell, it will starve while surrounded by lactose. If it can bring it into the cell, but can't break it down, it will still starve.

I could list literally dozens of examples of bacterial processes that take multiple steps, and if any one of those steps is disabled, the whole process ceases to work.

Of course, the problem with either producing an irreducibly complex function to begin with, or restoring one that has been disables by mutation, boils down to probabilities-

When you require two events to take place, and both are required before anything happens- what statisticians call independent events- your probabilities become much worse. If you need two events, and both are one in 10 million occurrences, then you're probability of both happening become one in 10 million times 10 million, or one in 100 trillion. And as Michael Behe has pointed out, the simplest cell is loaded with irreducibly complex structures, and most require MANY more than two independent events to produce a new function.


3. We can find mutants — the result of evolution- easily by selection

The WONDERFUL thing about bacteria is that I can find evolution simply by LOOKING FOR GROWTH.

Let's say I want to find out if a microbe that is unable to use lactose for food, can evolve the ability to do this.

I can look for evolution simply by putting a billion or 10 billion, or 100 billion… bacteria on an agar plate or plates. The only food source (technically, source of carbon and energy) in the plate is lactose. If only one of them evolves to be able to grow on lactose, then it will form a colony on that plate. (put in picture)

Or let's say that you think I'm not being fair- it may take several steps to make the microbe able to grow using lactose- I might have to accumulate small mutations to be able to do this.

Then I can grow the bacteria in liquid culture. I'll give them a little glucose, so they'll be able to grow, but I'll also give them a LOT of lactose as well. If the bacteria evolve to be able to use the lactose, then I'll again find them. Being able to use the lactose will produce a large advantage- the bacteria that evolve will continue to grow and multiply, while the others won't. I can transfer my culture every day- and produce hundreds or thousands of generations. And if evolution occurs, I will know- the culture that evolves will be much more turbid that the one that doesn't.

(Picture)

What I want to do now is go back to our question- what can evolution really do? To do that, we will look at a case where evolution has resulted in a microbe gaining a function, and what happens when microbes are allowed to evolve for a long period of time under selective conditions. We will also look at similar examples, where evolution fails, and try to draw some conclusions about what evolution can really do.

Please note that I'm sticking to laboratory examples of evolution in microbes- there are certainly other examples, primarily antibiotic resistance that could also be covered under this topic. Those, however, aren't the sort of controlled experiment that we are describing here.

III. Case Studies: Examples of evolution from the world of microbes.

A. Gaining the ability to utilize a new source of food

Let's start with an example of evolution that is occasionally discussed in ID circles. This is work that Dr. Barry Hall, now retired, but formerly at the University of Rochester, did.

As we've said, bacteria can utilize a number of different compounds for food. One of the things E. coli can “eat” is lactose- milk sugar. In order to do this, it has to make two proteins, and so it has the genes that code for these two proteins. One is a permease, that brings the lactose in; the other is the lactase itself. Now the microbe is quite sophisticated in how it controls production of these two proteins. Under normal conditions, it only makes them in quantity when lactose is present. If the cell is growing without lactose, you would find very little lactase or permease around. But if you then add lactose, the little bit of permease and lactase that is there acts to stimulate the production of MORE lactase and permease, allowing the cell to make these proteins only when they are needed.

Hall took a strain of E. coli that had was missing the lactase gene- it was GONE! He then showed that E. coli had in it a spare gene that could, through evolution, serve as a lactase gene. His evolved bacteria looked like this- small colonies on top of a larger colony that was unable to use lactose. This gene (called the ebg gene, for evolved β-galactosidase gene; βgal is a more technical name for a lactase) was stimulated by the presence of lactose (i.e., more of the ebg gene product was made). However, the ebg enzyme was TERRIBLE at splitting lactose. Even when the enzyme was around, it split lactose so poorly that the cell could not grow on lactose as a food source. However, under the right circumstances E. coli could, through evolution, turn the ebg gene into a useful lactase gene. The right conditions involved, growing cells in the presence of lactose where lactose could get into the cell, and finding mutants that had evolved the ability to use lactose and were thus more fit than the other E. coli in the population. In Hall's experiments, the evolved bacteria showed up as mini-colonies, growing on lactose from a large colony that had grown on other food, but could not grow on the added lactose.

Once this gene was activated enough to allow E. coli to grow on lactose, then further evolution could take place, and the microbe evolved to become better at growing on lactose.

I'm going to come back to this example later, but this shows what evolution can do.

• A hidden gene for breaking down lactose was present in E. coli. It was activated by the presence of lactose
• When the gene was activated , the product that it made worked so poorly that the cell still couldn't grow on lactose
• All it took was one mutation to make it able to break down lactose and slowly grow on it
• After that first mutation, other mutations made the cell able to grow even better on lactose.



Gaining the Ability to use a new source of food
Over 10 cases of bacteria evolving the ability to use a new food source have been observed-
What are the common themes?

• A gene is present in the microbe, but is either silent (not expressed) or expressed but producing an inactive product.
• A single mutation may activate the gene (no longer silent) or result in an active product.
• Further mutations can then make the microbe better at using this new food source.
• Not exactly earth shaking



B. LONG term evolution: Richard Lenski's 35,000+ generation evolution experiment.

Richard Lenski, Michigan State U., has been evolving E. coli for over 16 years, obtaining the 6.64 generations per day that we discussed earlier. He and his assistants have followed the evolution of 12 cultures of E. coli for about 40,000 generations. Again, this is a relatively simple experiment.

You grow start 12 flasks of bacteria, growing in a medium that has very little glucose in it. The bacteria multiply for the first 6 hours or so, and then are in a state of starvation for the next 18. You then transfer 0.1 ml of the culture to a fresh supply of this medium- about 2 teaspoonfuls, and let them grow up again. You do this every day for the REST OF YOUR LIFE.

How do you measure evolution? By measuring fitness- you essentially run bacteria races-

Comparing the culture that has evolved with its ancestor. The neat thing about bacteria is that you can COMPARE A MICROBE WITH ITS ANCESTOR FROM 30,000 GENERATIONS AGO!!!

You mix equal amounts of the ancestor with the microbe that has evolved

You let them grow together.
You then determine the number of bacteria of each type, by diluting and plating. The evolved culture and its ancestor have a “marker” that doesn't affect evolution, but allows you to tell them apart- one is red on a plate, and the other is white.

What have we learned from this type of experiment?

1. Bacteria become more fit.
2. They become bigger
3. Most of the gain is in the first 2000 generations
4. Most of the gain comes from five different genes that have mutated.
5. After 20,000 generations, his group sequenced 918,700 bases from 50 isolates- they found 10 changes, all in ones with a “mutator” phenotype.
6. These bacteria are still very much E. coli.

IV. Case Studies: When evolution fails- confirmation of the problem of irreducible complexity

Let's return to the case of “evolution in action” that was observed by Barry Hall. He observed the evolution of the “evolved β-galactosidase” gene in E. coli, allowing bacteria missing the normal lactase gene to grow using lactose as a food source.

Now, if you or I tried to get this E. coli strain to evolve- it wouldn't work. Even if we used selection to allow trillions of cells to evolve, you would not be able to observe evolution.

So how come Barry Hall got them to evolve? The answer tells us about both the capabilities and limitations of evolution.

It turns out that when you delete the lactase gene, you produce not one, but two problems for the cell to overcome. Remember that it is the permease that brings the lactose into the cell. Well, it turns out that that in order to get the permease to be made (the one that brings in lactose), you need the original lactase gene to be active. It turns out that the lactase, in addition to breaking down lactose, is part of a feedback control loop- the fact that it is working tells the cell that there's lactose around, and that in turn stimulates the cell to produce the permease, bringing in MORE lactose. So, E. coli that's missing its lactase gene has TWO problems- it can't break down lactose, and it can't bring it in.

Sound familiar? The cell faced a problem of restoring an irreducibly complex system.

Now, in order to observe this evolution, he had to trick the microbe. It turns out that you can artificially stimulate the permease gene, causing it to become active. When you do this, you're problem goes from evolving two functions to evolving one function.

What happens if you take a bacteria with a missing lactase gene, and an ebg gene, and grow it in the presence of lactose?

NOTHING

Because:

Lactose can't get in
No lactose inside= no ebg gene stimulated
No ebg gene stimulated = can't find mutant ebg genes that break down lactose!!!

THE REQUIREMENT FOR TWO STEPS STOPS EVOLUTION


What did Hall do? He “tricked” the microbe- gave it a compound called IPTG that tricked it into making the permease. Now lactose was in the cell, and the ebg gene could evolve to produce the “evolved β-galactosidase” to break down the lactose.

Now- what happens if you try to evolve E. coli, without “cheating”- requiring E. coli to both bring in the lactose and make the new β-galactosidase?

NOTHING HAPPENS- you don't get any evolution- the requirement for two steps- both of which are needed- stops evolution.

There are at least three other examples of this same principle- the requirement for two steps seems to stop evolution.

This should not be so surprising. Mutations are rare events- often only occurring once in 10- 100 million cells. If you need two events to occur- the probability that BOTH will occur becomes one in 10 million X 1 in 10 million, or one in a hundred trillion. Most studies simply haven't looked that hard for evolution, and so haven't found it.

Now, here's where things get a bit tricky. You MIGHT find evolution in bacteria taking two events- that's because there are SO many of them out there- I have heard one estimate of the total number of bacteria on the earth to be around 1027 .

But lets go back to our shrew trying to evolve into a bat. How many shrews are there? Certainly not a hundred trillion. How many events need to occur, to turn a shrew into a bat? Certainly more than two, and most need to occur at the same time.

Long fingers
Webbed skin
Changes in muscles
Light bones.

NOW the requirement for multiple events to all occur becomes a hurdle


My work on trpA.

Now, this sort of study, where researchers fail to find evolution, are not easy to track down. People don't trumpet their failures. They were side-results from other studies. As I looked in the literature, I could find no indication that anyone had deliberately tried to find what the limits of evolution were. So, I decided to do it myself.

My approach was to take a well-studied gene- the α subunit of tryptophan synthase. This is the gene that performs one of five steps needed in making the amino acid tryptophan. This is a well-studied gene, and there were a number of point mutations that were known to inactivate the gene- single changes in the DNA sequence that resulted in single amino acid changes in the protein, resulting in an inactive tryptophan synthase. Now if a microbe does not have a working version of this gene, then it won't grow unless you provide it with tryptophan. But what happens if it evolves- regains a functional trpA gene? Then it will have an ENORMOUS advantage- it will keep growing, even after the medium has been depleted of tryptophan. Pretty soon, it will completely dominate the culture in which it is growing.

I then proceeded to introduce a series of changes- mutations- into the trpA gene. If multiple steps are the problem that other experimental evolutionists have shown it to be, then my mutant trpA genes with only one mutation should evolve just fine. However, those with TWO, THREE, or FOUR mutations should have trouble evolving- a lot of trouble evolving.

Let's say my bacteria has only one mutation in its trpA gene. Now, if I have 10 million cells- this amount would fit into a drop of water easily- I will have one evolved bacteria, able to make its own tryptophan.

Now let's say that my bacteria has TWO mutations in its trpA gene. Now my problem has grown immensely. BOTH changes have to be restored by random processes. In order to have, on average one evolved bacteria, now I'll need 100 trillion bacteria- to grow this many bacteria, I'd need about 100 liters of medium- a fair amount, but I should be able to find it.

However, what about three mutations? I would need a billion trillion bacteria. Now, I'm into some large numbers. I would need a container that held a billion liters- a cube 100 meters on each side- BIG.

What about four mutations? Now I'd need a 10,000 trillion trillion bacteria- and a container that held ten thousand trillion liters. Actually, there's one that just about that size- Lake Superior, the largest freshwater lake in the world, which holds 12 thousand one hundred trillion liters.

The only ones that we have tested so far are the mutants with 1,2, and three mutations. As expected, our mutant with 1 mutation evolves readily. We've checked about a 100 billion cells, and at this point have yet to see our gene with 2 mutations evolve.

CONCLUSION: When evolution requires two steps, and nothing happens unless both take place…nothing happens.

V. Why isn't this approach used more often?

I think it is because, being convinced of the truth of evolution, the scientific community does not want to be bothered by the details, and would prefer to let the subject of how complex structures were produced by random processes rest with the past, or be answered by untestable theories.

A few years ago, I submitted a grant proposal to NSF; one of the experiments that I wanted to try was the evolution of a “difficult” trait- specifically the evolution of lactose utilization without benefit of the tricks that Barry Hall used. I was not funded, of course. But the response of some of the reviewers was informative.

1. Can long-term evolution demonstrate the evolution of “difficult” traits?

On [this] question (evolution of “difficult” traits), we certainly know that long-term evolution (really long-term) has created "difficult" (complex) traits such as photosynthesis, DNA replication, protein synthesis, cell division, nitrogen fixation, transformation, toxins and many more.

Another reviewer:
What can be said if the answer is no?

VI. Conclusion: What can evolution really do? Not much when you ask it to do two things in order to succeed. And this, I am convinced, severely limits what it can do in nature.

Hey CSLewis -

>>What do you think?

It depends. Do you have a specific point you're making, or a specific aspect of this post you find provocative? Or are you just asking for opinions in general?

Cheers
Al

ARWallace wrote:I think I know why we are at a deadlock. I had been operating under the assumption that you knew what science is, what theories are and the basic philosophy that governs how science is conducted. You appear not to understand any of this. So I will try to explain these things — not in any patronizing way — only because some of the misapprehensions under which you seem to labor are rooted in a failure (or at least partial failure) to understand these concepts.

Science is a process of gaining knowledge, and its main method of inquiry is the scientific method. The scientific method is a process of inquiry involving hypothesis testing, empirical data, direct observation, reasoning, and experimentation. More specifically, the scientific method relies on the generation of testable hypotheses to test, support or falsify explanations. For this reason, the historical sciences qualify as scientific — one can generate testable hypotheses, gather data, and even conduct experiments to test hypotheses about past events.

Brilliant speech.. But no.. This is not a debate about science itself. This debate is about how you are taking science and bending it to your belief system….That is Darwinian evolution (DE).. Stop denying it.. We are at deadlock because your claim is one must exclude supernatural explanations as part of your explanatory system and that you can't involve god in any explanatory system for natural phenomena and still call your explanation science. You have turned this debate into a theological argument..

I'll repeat... DE is a different kind of science, it's a historical science that claims what happened in the past, it's not like gravity at all… You simply cannot take DE and make an equation out of it like the rest of the sciences...

So you say true scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. But let's turn that around, how do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the cell or the eye? Can DE be falsifiable also? Again, if a scientist performed that same test using gradual evolutionary standards perhaps it would be even harder to falsify since natural selection requires a much longer time or a greater population base of parts to produce a cell, etc.,. Perhaps it never could, scientists don't really know…

I have already given you some testable approaches for testing ID structures...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... esign.html

ARWallace wrote:Now, there are some basic philosophies that govern the way that science is conducted — specifically, methodological naturalism. Quite simply, this philosophy states that natural phenomena have natural explanations, and that supernatural explanations cannot ever be used as part of an explanatory system in science. One cannot, for example, generate a hypothesis that states that invisible, undetectable gnomes are responsible for causing disease since the existence of these gnomes (a central part of the explanatory system) is, by default, insulated from scientific inquiry. Now — and this is really important, Gman — this does NOT, NOT, NOT mean that god does not exist, or that one must jettison one's religious beliefs once they become a scientist. All this means is that regardless of one's religious beliefs, one cannot use divine intervention as part of scientific inquiry and still call it science. Lots of religious people are scientists — but they can't use god in their explanatory systems and still call what they are doing, science since they have violated a central — and rather vital — philosophy that governs how science is conducted.

Baloney with a capitol “B”…. You have clearly nixed God from the equation.. Your claim is that that you can't involve god in any explanatory system for natural phenomena and still call your explanation science… This is about DE, not science..

Also answer my questions… How can a hypotheses produce organic material?? This isn't science, this is your belief system… And you haven't answered my question about natural selection. Where did it come from? What is it going to select to get the ball in motion? Itself?

ARWallace wrote:Now, a theory is a set of ideas in science that have broad explanatory basis, predictive power and have been subjected to (and passed) rigorous and repeated testing. Think of them as extremely powerful and well tested hypotheses. They are NOT facts — they are supported by facts. But they have been so well tested that they are considered — in the scientific community — to be scientifically true beyond all reasonable doubt. Scientists may refer to them as facts because they are so well supported — for example, scientists says that it is factual that matter is composed of atoms. This is a statement about the nature of matter that is considered so valid by scientists that they equate the fact that matter is composed of atoms with the theory that says this is so. So it is, in the scientific community, with evolution. You can reject the particulate nature of matter or the notion of decent with modification if you like — it's your prerogative. That doesn't change the fact that the scientific community holds both of these ideas in high regard because of their universal support. Similarly, you don't have to believe that Charles Manson masterminded the murder of Sharon Tate, but that does not change the fact that a jury of his peers found this to be the case…beyond all reasonable doubt.

Bull… So where is your evidence for this outrageous claim? Supported by facts? What facts? You haven't even produced any support for anything let alone facts.. This entire rant of yours is an assumption.. A possibility… Your opinion..

The point of all this is that Darwinism isn't empirical science. It is rationalism with a capital "R". Darwinism is a historical science that is by its nature non observable and untestable.. You are simply trying to thwart your opinion that Darwinism is science… That Darwinian evolution and science are NOT the same.. Darwinism is philosophy, science is science… Period.

ARWallace wrote:Things are never “proven” in science — that's math.

Not according to what you said.. You stated ToE to be TRUE beyond reasonable doubt… Your math and your science..

ARWallace wrote:That is correct. Abiogenesis is not part of the ToE, proper. Currently, many hypotheses that could account for the origins of life from non-life exist — and these hypotheses are testable, falsifiable and subject to revision like any scientific hypothesis.

ToE proper? Cool.. You haven't shown anything.. Possibilities? “Could” account for the origins of life from non-life exist? You can't test this… Also you haven't answered my questions about abiogenesis not to mention that you are trying to explain how life could arise from non-life via naturalistic means without the supernatural…

ARWallace wrote:No, it is not a belief system. This is part of your confusion. I have no more of a belief system in stating that science can produce testable hypotheses regarding the evolution of life from nonlife than I do when I say it can account for the origins and nature of disease.

Darwinian evolution isn't a belief system? The way you have described it is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.. The explanation of everything. Your true science..

ARWallace wrote:Um. It is a pdf document. Can I post these on a discussion board? I was going to send it to you if you wanted to read it. But I gather this means that you admit to not having read the article that you cited in defense of one of your claims…?

Link it or pm it to me then.. I'll tell you what I find.. Of course they will say one thing about science and how something doesn't fit, but then say that it doesn't contradict the ToE. They would be crazy not to…

ARWallace wrote:I actually did support (not prove — again, terminology is important) it — several posts ago. You either ignored these evidences, or chose not to rebut them with anything more than a link to a paragraph that incorrectly summarized a purported rebuttal to endosymbiosis!

Right you didn't prove anything… There was no evidence, just assumptions.. I'll agree with that.

ARWallace wrote:See paragraphs 2-4 of this post. I know what facts are. You seem to be the one confused here.

Right… And what you have presented here in no way proves that DE is factual.

ARWallace wrote:See paragraphs 2-4 of this post. I hope this clears up your confusion.

Not my confusion. Your trying to fuse DE into empirical science..

ARWallace wrote:I guess you didn't read the article. No problem. Here is an explanation of where ribose sugars could be formed: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 064945.htm and the article I cited explain how they could be stable long enough to form RNA.

Wallace, are you truly reading these articles??

Title: Study SUGGESTS Life On Earth Sprang From Borax Minerals?? Wow.. Well let me make a suggestion, maybe it didn't happen that way… They say, “We are not claiming that this is how life started," Benner stressed.” Sounds like beyond all reasonable doubt to me… Sorry not factual.

ARWallace wrote:Actually, I posted 2 links which, for some reason, melded into 1. See here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... 95/1306%20

This article states, Orgel explains in his Perspective?? Well I disagree with his perspective… How's that? This is not science here, this is a perspective.. Next.

ARWallace wrote:and here: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3868.abstract

This article states, Preliminary experiments SUGGEST that AEG may polymerize rapidly at 100°C to give the polypeptide backbone of PNA.? And then the kicker, The ease of synthesis of the components of PNA and POSSIBILITY of polymerization of AEG reinforce the POSSIBILITY that PNA may have been the first genetic material. Well sure, anything could be possible in the world of DE.. Can I make a suggestion? Possibly it is wrong too… These aren't facts, this isn't science..

ARWallace wrote:No, G, it is not ALL truth. I have already stated, unambiguously, that science and the ToE have their limitations. There are questions they can't answer. But this much is absolutely true — you can't invoke the act(s) of god(s) in a scientific hypothesis and still have it be scientific. You can invoke the act(s) of god(s) — just not in science. And since science doesn't have all the answers, that's OK. This is why religion, metaphysics, and philosophy exist.

Wallace, I'm simply going by what you are telling me… What we are talking about here is Darwinian evolution. I'll have to state it again, whenever you take science and question the meaning or origin of life like Darwin did in his book “Origin of Species” and others, then you are making a belief system out of science (abiogenesis), the answer for everything, your concerns, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. You are making a religion.. A religious philosophy..

ARWallace wrote:Science can offer an explanation for the origin of life. It says virtually nothing about the meaning of life, and it is mute on the existence of god(s) since this is, by definition, outside their explanatory system. How much clearer can this be?

If it can offer an explanation beyond reasonable doubt for the origin of life, then it isn't science anymore.. It is trying to explain everything. You are simply elevating science over everything we can observe here..

ARWallace wrote:**sigh** See paragraph 3.

**sigh** See my paragraph 1.

ARWallace wrote:Again, how can you not see the relevance? I have explained this over, and over and over again. Go back and read over my posts — the comparison is completely apt and relevant. You reject macroevolution, so it is completely logical that you reject the notion of Hawaii forming over millions of years from spreading plates in the mid-Atlantic. At least to accept one and reject the other would be logically inconsistent.
It doesn't. And neither does “macroevolution”.

Answer my question… How does continental drift or incremental changes in the Earth's crust over millions of years impede the existence of God?? Explain it…

ARWallace wrote:You clearly said NOTHING of the sort. I quoted you directly — you said “Again The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that any form of design is another form of creationism and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state funds to religion..” and “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that design is another form of creationism and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state funds to religion.” And “In the Dover trail they simply reiterated what happened in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard….” THREE TIMES you said the same thing, and three times it has been wrong. You said that the Supreme Court ruled that design is another form of creationism in the Edwards case. You are wrong. Design was never, ever mentioned in this case. Why is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong and move on?

No… Now you are just trying to argue. I said the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard was on creationism.. OPPONENTS to the ID movement were stating that it was another form of DESIGN or ID. The plaintiffs were arguing this trying to make their appeal to court. This is YOUR misunderstanding! You are just trying to misconstrue the meaning..

Did you really read my first post on this? I stated ID has been labeled as another form of creationism, a breech between Church and State, a religious wedge. Therefore it will probably never be taught nor considered in the public sector...

ARWallace wrote:So what?

So your club is very small.. It's tiny.

ARWallace wrote:I already said that this was not used in the academic community because it has no scientific relevance to the ToE. Since we don't use it, why should we define it? You use it — repeatedly. So I am guessing that you have a functional, scientific definition.

You are right… You are not separating Darwinian evolution from science. You are simply mixing the two together.. Again DE is not science.. And the many articles you have posted here confirm that.

ARWallace wrote:So this is your definition? Really?

That is your philosophical definition..

ARWallace wrote:See paragraphs 2-4. It is not my religion. That is a hyperbolic statement.

See my paragraphs above that explain it..

ARWallace wrote:Please define religion. Please provide examples of rites, traditions, observances, rituals and practices common to all religions. Then explain how my simple statement that “the scientific community views theories as ideas that are true beyond reasonable doubt” qualifies as a religion. Until you can make such a case, please refrain from making wild assertions about my religious beliefs, and please offer a retraction for your original claims that the ToE has forced me to reject the Bible and God. This is an offensive statement to make considering you know nothing about my religious beliefs, and it is patently false as I have shown you repeatedly. To repeat this over and over again, and to remain unrepentant in the process is bearing false witness. That may be between you and your god, but it does not mean I will not defend myself against such outrageous accusations.

My God? What about your god? Athough your religion doesn't point to the supernatural, it is religious nonetheless.. Let's look at Paul Tillich meaning first… “Religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary and which itself contains the answer to the question of a meaning of our life.”

Or if you prefer Dr. Michael Ruse, perhaps the most eloquent spokesman for evolution today, has admitted the following:

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

'… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

Webster's Dictionary defines religion as follows: “Cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”

Again, if you say that science can only be explained in the natural world only such as abiogenesis, then you are giving authority science only to the natural world. Everything funnels from this... These are your concerns.. Plain and simple..

ARWallace wrote:I know what I have said, and I have been unwaveringly consistent in my position. And my position does not exclude or deny the existence of god IN ANY WAY. I have simply stated that the philosophy of science preclude the intervention of god(s) in the daily operation of the phenomena in our observable universe. Lots of people make all sorts of claims about what god does in their lives — but these claims are untestable by science. This does not mean god(s) do/es not exist!

Baloney… You are trying to answer the ultimate questions of life.. With DE you are trying to explain how we got here. How we came from nothing, and how we will go back to nothing.. Nothingness..

ARWallace wrote:No. Not a contradiction and not a period. Maybe a semicolon. I have been clear about what answers science does and does not have. But that does not mean a theory is not true beyond reasonable doubt. Cell theory is true beyond all reasonable doubt. But it doesn't answer the question of what I am supposed to do with my life just because I am made of cells. It doesn't have all the answers — but it is true beyond all reasonable doubt. Do you not get this???

Not when you try mixing your philosophy with science… NO..

ARWallace wrote:This is clearly not what I have shown. It seems to be the illogical leaps you are making — usually from conflating statements I have made. If this is how prove points, any disagreement with you is unwinnable. Sort of like being married.

Don't look at me.. These are your statements not mine. Sorry.

ARWallace wrote:So you don't understand the distinction. ** shrug **

Shrug back.. Apparently you have no distinctions between philosophy and science..

ARWallace wrote:You seem to have manypause.

Because I try to pause and think..

Wallace, I'm not arguing with you that DE is a possibility.. But if you say that DE is true beyond all reasonable doubt and that science excludes God then we are going to have a problem. Get it?

>>Brilliant speech..

Thank you.

>>This is not a debate about science itself. This debate is about how you are taking science and bending it to your belief system….

No, this IS a debate about the nature of science. You have made numerous statement about the nature of science, and I have tried to help you understand this with a quick primer. Moreover, you don't know what my belief system(s) is/are. You are unfairly equating my acceptance of the ToE as a valid scientific theory with your belief that - in so doing - I am rejecting religion. This is just wrong on many levels — and if true, would mean that every single scientist on the planet that accepts the central theories in their disciplines are atheists.

>>That is Darwinian evolution (DE)..

What is DE, again? Oh, that's right. You haven't defined this thing which I am supposed to represent.

>>We are at deadlock because your claim is one must exclude supernatural explanations as part of your explanatory system and that you can't involve god in any explanatory system for natural phenomena and still call your explanation science.

No, you still don't understand. Take your first statement “one must exclude supernatural explanations as part of your explanatory system”. I didn't say that. I said you can't include supernatural explanations as part of your explanatory system and still call your explanatory system scientific. There's a world of difference. You can believe in the literal 6 day genesis to account for the origins of life, the universe, and everything. I'm OK with that — that's an explanatory system that includes the supernatural. But it is NOT a scientific explanation. What's more, it's not like I am making up the rules of science — methodological naturalism is literally lecture 1, day 1 of the Philosophy of Science 101.

>> You have turned this debate into a theological argument..

No, YOU have turned this into a theological debate.

>> I'll repeat... DE is a different kind of science, it's a historical science that claims what happened in the past, it's not like gravity at all… You simply cannot take DE and make an equation out of it like the rest of the sciences...

First of all, you still have not defined DE. So it is pointless to discuss a term that you use and pretend that exists and is commonly used in the scientific community. Second, I have explained to you how the historical sciences work, and rather than discuss the methods and process of science, you choose to wave your thumb and state the contrary. So be it. There's nothing more that can be accomplished here. Finally, you do not “make equations” with other sciences. I assume you did not intend to write this, or did so in haste. But if you did mean it, please explain the equations that govern cell theory.

>> So you say true scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. But let's turn that around, how do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the cell or the eye?

Well, I provided a lengthy list of evidences that support serial endosymbiosis. None of these would or should exist if prokaryotes did not give rise to eikaryotes. Without these evidences, all you have is a fanciful just-so story for so-so reasons. The hypothesis has no support. Similarly, with no intermediates or transitionals for the eye, or no genetic, molecular or physiological bases that exist to explain how the eye could have evolved, the hypothesis has no support. It's remarkably simple, actually.

>> Can DE be falsifiable also?

I dunno. What's DE?

>> I have already given you some testable approaches for testing ID structures...

So?

>> You have clearly nixed God from the equation.. Your claim is that that you can't involve god in any explanatory system for natural phenomena and still call your explanation science…

Yep. I did. It's called science. Every scientist on the planet does this when conducting scientific research. If they didn't, science would become a pointless endeavor. Imagine how convenient yet fruitless it would be to point to everything you didn't understand and say “I dunno how this came to be, so goddunnit”. Now — and this is an extremely important caveat — this does not exclude the existence of god(s) in any way shape or form. I cannot be clearer about this. You can believe that god(s) intervened and snapped a flagellum into existence. I'm OK with that. Really. But you can't slap a “science” label on it and pass it off as a scientific explanation. Period.

>> Also answer my questions… How can a hypotheses produce organic material??

Um. It can't. A hypothesis is an inanimate object. An idea. It can't produce organic material any more than it could produce a bowel movement.

>> And you haven't answered my question about natural selection. Where did it come from? What is it going to select to get the ball in motion? Itself?

How is this remotely relevant to the validity of the idea?

>> Bull… So where is your evidence for this outrageous claim? Supported by facts? What facts?

Do you really want a laundry list of facts, observations and evidences that support the ToE? Really? I'm sure there are countless places on the internet you could go to find these, and I'll happily dredge them up if you really think this will enhance your understand of what a theory is.

>> You haven't even produced any support for anything let alone facts.. This entire rant of yours is an assumption.. A possibility… Your opinion..

Sure. That list of evidences supporting serial endosymbiosis — that was just my opinion.

>> Darwinism is a historical science that is by its nature non observable and untestable..

You may want to go back and read that article I linked on the historical sciences. Or not. Either way, this redundancy is boring me.

>> You are simply trying to thwart your opinion that Darwinism is science…

Why would I want to thwart that? That seems to be what you are trying to do.

>> Not according to what you said.. You stated ToE to be TRUE beyond reasonable doubt… Your math and your science..

It is true beyond reasonable doubt. But it is not proven. Nothing in science is proven. Proofs are for mathematics. Really, Gman, I respectfully submit that our discussion would be more fruitful if you would read some philosophy of science. I really mean this in a sincere and non-condescending way: knowing that scientific ideas are not proven in science is really a basic, fundamental idea. Maybe start with some Karl Popper and work forward.

>> “Could” account for the origins of life from non-life exist? You can't test this…

Once again, there are hypotheses that exist that can account for the origins of organic molecules capable of being acted on by natural selection. These hypotheses are based on testable assumptions (e.g. of the nature of the atmosphere when life arose) as well as experiments that either produce, or don't produce viable results. We're going in circles here.

>> Also you haven't answered my questions about abiogenesis

Which ones?

>> not to mention that you are trying to explain how life could arise from non-life via naturalistic means without the supernatural…

Yes. As I have said over and over again — this is what science is. And if life arose through the acts of the divine, then science cannot and will not offer an explanation.

>> Darwinian evolution isn't a belief system? The way you have described it is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe..

HOLY COW!!! Where did I say that?????? I have stated clearly and unambiguously that theories do not offer explanations for things like the purpose of the universe! Why are you misrepresenting me, Gman?

>> Link it or pm it to me then..

I can't link it. It is a pdf file I downloaded from the journal. And I may be computer illiterate, but I don't know what pm-ing it is. But you at least seem to be admitting that you did not read an article that you linked in rebuttal to my evidences for serial endosymbiosis. It's a baby step forward.

>> Right you didn't prove anything… There was no evidence, just assumptions.. I'll agree with that.

Right. I didn't prove anything. That's not what we do in science. I did provide evidences that you more or less ignored and now simply refer to as “assumptions”. ** shrugs again **

>> Right… And what you have presented here in no way proves that DE is factual.

So you didn't read paragraphs 2-4. You still don't understand what facts and theories are. There's nothing else I can do.

>> Title: Study SUGGESTS Life On Earth Sprang From Borax Minerals?? Wow.. Well let me make a suggestion, maybe it didn't happen that way…

Fair enough. Maybe it didn't. That's what a hypothesis is — a provisional statement. But that doesn't change the fact that it offers an explanation for the problem you claims exists. So do the other 3 or 4 articles I linked. Maybe they were not THE explanation for how ribose sugars developed on Earth. The point is, they offer a possible solution to said problem. So you can reject them if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that naturalistic explanations exist for the first 3 problems stated on the page you linked. What more do you want?

>> What we are talking about here is Darwinian evolution. I'll have to state it again, whenever you take science and question the meaning or origin of life like Darwin did in his book “Origin of Species” and others, then you are making a belief system out of science (abiogenesis)

Darwin did not question the meaning of life in the Origin of Species. And I certainly have not. Where are you getting this from? What's more, I am not making a theological statement in saying that science can offer naturalistic explanations for the origin of life. At worst, I have stated that science has an explanation for a phenomenon that contradicts a singular view of the origins of life described in some religious texts when read literally. Is that the problem you have? That this statement contradicts some peoples' religious views? That doesn't make the statement religious — nor the ToE. It just raises the hackles of folks who hold particular religious beliefs, and for that, I apologize. But it certainly doesn't make the ToE a religious belief.

>> Answer my question… How does continental drift or incremental changes in the Earth's crust over millions of years impede the existence of God?? Explain it…

I did answer your question: it doesn't. And neither does “macroevolution”. Now answer my question — do you not see the logical inconsistency in believing plate tectonics as an explanation for the Earth's geological features yet disbelieving the ToE as an explanation for its biodiversity? You seem to be avoiding the central thesis here.

>> This is YOUR misunderstanding! You are just trying to misconstrue the meaning..

Respectfully, I am not trying to misconstrue the meaning. These are your words — literally — “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that design is another form of creationism and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state funds to religion.” Now, either you meant to say something else in which case you misspoke (3 times) — which is fine since we all do this. Or you said something that was factually inaccurate and are trying to save face by implying that I am misunderstanding you. It's a trivial matter, really. But it takes a big person to eat crow and admit they are wrong.

>> So your club is very small.. It's tiny.

Because I may or may not disagree with something that one other person may or may not have said? Curious.

>> You are right… You are not separating Darwinian evolution from science. You are simply mixing the two together.. Again DE is not science.. And the many articles you have posted here confirm that.

I'm sorry. What is DE again?

>> "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

Now, G. Did you read this article either? I doubt it. Because I did. Ruse is making the claim that some ardent supporters (starting with Huxley and continuing on to Gould and Wilson) of the ToE have used it to advance social agendas, and in so doing have rendered a secular belief system. And I tend to agree. But that's the fault of those ardent supporters. Ruse goes on to add “Today, professional evolution thrives. But the old religion survives and thrives right alongside it.” And “There is no need to make a religion of evolution. On its own merits, evolution as science is just that -- good, tough, forward-looking science, which should be taught as a matter of course to all children, regardless of creed.” Do you similarly agree with Ruse on this?

So, as I have been consistent in this from the get go — that the ToE is simply a valid, scientific theory that, like all theories, has its limitations (Ruse's professional evolution) — and since you know nothing of my personal, religious and spiritual journey or beliefs — and since I am not using the theory to advance any social agenda — and since you have yet to demonstrate that it is religious ideology — are you now willing to retract your statements about my beliefs and offer an apology? While you're at it, you could apologize for your statements about my lacking critical thought and viewing the world through a single lens. Or you can continue to break the 9th commandment. That's your prerogative.

>> Webster's Dictionary defines religion as follows: “Cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”

So by that definition, all scientists who hold their theories true with faith are practicing religion. Holy cow — someone call the NSF and retract finding for all of science! No, that is an inadequate definition you cherry picked. Read M-W's first definition: “the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance” where religious is defined as “relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity”. Moreover, you avoided this “provide examples of rites, traditions, observances, rituals and practices common to all religions. Then explain how my simple statement that “the scientific community views theories as ideas that are true beyond reasonable doubt” qualifies as a religion.” Weak, Gman. Weak.

>> Shrug back.. Apparently you have no distinctions between philosophy and science..

Shrug, shrug back. Apparently you don't understand the philosophy of science. Oh well.

>> Because I try to pause and think..

Actually, it was a stab at a pun — menopause…manypause. Forget it.

>> But if you say that DE is true beyond all reasonable doubt and that science excludes God then we are going to have a problem. Get it?

I understand what you're getting at, and I have tried to be clear about this. Science simply excludes supernatural acts because it has to — otherwise it can't logically or empirically or objectively answer the questions it seeks to answer. But science doesn't deny the existence of god(s) — it is totally mute on the subject. And it is limited in the kinds of questions it can ask and answer. So that is why religion and philosophy exist. I hope you can wrap your mind around that and see that I — that science — are not anti-religion.

Cheers
Al

Things are never “proven” in science

I love that. Science hypothesizes that water will freeze at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. It just never thinks to stick some water in the freezer with a thermometer and prove it. If you do stick the water in the freezer and prove it, you just did math. Brilliant.

I quit reading right there.

You can produce immense numbers of microbes: In a quart container, you can grow, overnight, from one bacterium, a trillion bacteria. When you compare that to human populations, this is many times more than the number of people who have ever lived on earth in all of time!

"When you compare" being the operative statement. "Why would you compare" would be a better question. This is throwing out a figure that sounds impressive but is rooted in wrong thinking.

The day was about 4 hours then rather than the 24 hours we have tody. The atmosphere was filled with all kinds of toxins and the oceans were not very salty. Our atmosphere also was high in hydrogen which, because it is so light, it gradually steamed off into space. The climate would also be very hot because the molten core was much closer to the surface then. There was little oxygen so the life at that time could not rely upon photosynthesis to provide energy but the organisms lived off the minerals and each other. There was no ozone layer so life wouldn't survive on land because of the high degree of UV radiation burning.

Wow! Did you take pictures. Sounds like you were there to witness it first hand.

Hi Jlay -

Not to butt in here, but whomever you quoted here was correct ("things are never proven in science"). Your response: "I love that. Science hypothesizes that water will freeze at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. It just never thinks to stick some water in the freezer with a thermometer and prove it. If you do stick the water in the freezer and prove it, you just did math. Brilliant."

First, a general statement/explanation: ideas are, indeed, never proven in science. They may be tested, confirmed repeatedly, and true beyond reasonable doubt, but they aren't proven. This implies that the idea is absolutely true, and no test could ever disprove it. Moreover, it is impossible to confirm your theory under every conceivable set of conditions. Because water freezes in your freezer at 32 degrees F does not mean it will in my freezer, or in some other freezer in some other corner of the universe. So because it is impossible to test an idea in science under every concieveable set of conditions, we can't elevate an idea to the staus of proven.

The problem sort of lies in the fact that "prove" has connotations in the common vernacular, and it doesn't apply to science. For example, you wouldn't hesitate to say "I have proven my point", but you will never hear a scientist utter "I have proven my theory". Now, proofs are used in mathematics - and that's a different kettle of fish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

So, in the experiment you just described, you haven't proven that water freezes at 32 degrees F; you have just confirmed a hypothesis of how water should behave based on atomic theory and quantum mechanics - both theories that have not been proven.

Make sense?

Cheers!
Al

Make sense?

yes and no. I am aware of everything you stated. I just always find it comical. When confronted with "you can't prove evolution," the repsonse is "you can't prove anything." Well yes you can. It just seems some in science want to use semantics that are convenient.

The earth being old is a fact to most of science, but science can never prove it. Evolution for many scientists is a fact, but they can never prove it. If you don't see the humor, sorry.

Kind of like saying that even though we have billions of case studies that confirm that if a human male and female procreate they will create another human. But science says, we can't prove this.

Well I'm off to stick my head in the oven and hypothesis I'm a TV dinner.

ARWallace wrote:No, this IS a debate about the nature of science. You have made numerous statement about the nature of science, and I have tried to help you understand this with a quick primer. Moreover, you don't know what my belief system(s) is/are. You are unfairly equating my acceptance of the ToE as a valid scientific theory with your belief that - in so doing - I am rejecting religion. This is just wrong on many levels — and if true, would mean that every single scientist on the planet that accepts the central theories in their disciplines are atheists.

No.. This is not a debate about science. This is a debate about Darwinian evolution (DE) and how you have turned this into a religious philosophy.. You are simply trying to equate DE to ultimate empirical science. DE is not science at all… DE is simply a belief, a philosophy, it is not equal to science... However, you are ELEVATING DE to ultimate truth. Scientist can accept DE as a possibility as I do, however, when you start saying say that DE is true beyond all reasonable doubt and that science excludes God, then we are going to have a problem. When you do this, you are turning this into a theological philosophical debate.. Period.

ARWallace wrote:What is DE, again? Oh, that's right. You haven't defined this thing which I am supposed to represent.

I have given you many quotes about it… DE describes what may have occurred over longer periods of time. It has never been witnessed. Again, this is primarily done through what is called “Natural Selection.” Then there is “Common Descent” the notion that we evolved from a common ancestor, etc… What, is there some magical definition to describe it? You seem to think that DE and science is the same… I disagree.. There is no God here.. All of it is based on natural processes eliminating the need for God as you have clearly revealed..

ARWallace wrote:No, you still don't understand. Take your first statement “one must exclude supernatural explanations as part of your explanatory system”. I didn't say that. I said you can't include supernatural explanations as part of your explanatory system and still call your explanatory system scientific. There's a world of difference.

No, you don't understand… There is not a world of difference.. You can slice and dice this anyway you want, but you are still saying the exact same thing… Your reasoning is simply that you can't include supernatural explanations as part of your explanatory system and still call your explanatory system scientific. Now you are separating supernatural explanations from science. Pure and simple... And what are you filling in the gap with? Natural explanations only. And those natural explanations exclude a supernatural God… Which is why we disagree..

ARWallace wrote:You can believe in the literal 6 day genesis to account for the origins of life, the universe, and everything. I'm OK with that — that's an explanatory system that includes the supernatural. But it is NOT a scientific explanation. What's more, it's not like I am making up the rules of science — methodological naturalism is literally lecture 1, day 1 of the Philosophy of Science 101.

Nice… But this is an Old Earth Creationists website (OEC). If you believe that the Bible states a literal 6 day creation account then you are wrong. More of this is expressed here..

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... fense.html

ARWallace wrote:No, YOU have turned this into a theological debate.

No… When you start saying what God can or cannot do, then YOU are making this a theological debate…

ARWallace wrote:First of all, you still have not defined DE. So it is pointless to discuss a term that you use and pretend that exists and is commonly used in the scientific community. Second, I have explained to you how the historical sciences work, and rather than discuss the methods and process of science, you choose to wave your thumb and state the contrary. So be it. There's nothing more that can be accomplished here. Finally, you do not “make equations” with other sciences. I assume you did not intend to write this, or did so in haste. But if you did, please explain the equations that govern cell theory.

I have defined DE… Again the problem here is that you are fusing DE with science and calling it the same thing. Again, you can't take Darwinism and formulate it to an equation like F=MA the force of gravity. Dawinism is NOT a law, you can't measure it..

ARWallace wrote:Well, I provided a lengthy list of evidences that support serial endosymbiosis. None of these would or should exist if prokaryotes did not give rise to eikaryotes. Without these evidences, all you have is a fanciful just-so story for so-so reasons. The hypothesis has no support. Similarly, with no intermediates or transitionals for the eye, or no genetic, molecular or physiological bases that exist to explain how the eye could have evolved, the hypothesis has no support. It's remarkably simple, actually.

No… You have provided NO evidence Wallace. Nothing. All you can give are assumptions or explanations… Nothing you showed here is factual at all. I'm sorry…

ARWallace wrote:I dunno. What's DE?

I'm having a bigger problem with what you think DE is… It is not science.

ARWallace wrote:So?

So? It can be testable…

ARWallace wrote:Yep. I did. It's called science. Every scientist on the planet does this when conducting scientific research. If they didn't, science would become a pointless endeavor. Imagine how convenient yet fruitless it would be to point to everything you didn't understand and say “I dunno how this came to be, so goddunnit”. Now — and this is an extremely important caveat — this does not exclude the existence of god(s) in any way shape or form. I cannot be clearer about this. You can believe that god(s) intervened and snapped a flagellum into existence. I'm OK with that. Really. But you can't slap a “science” label on it and pass it off as a scientific explanation. Period.

No.. That isn't the point. Why not let the two views breath together? Inferring but not dictating ID would not stop science from achieving its goal to understand our natural world. What's better? Nothing created nothing? Sounds like atheism to me..

ARWallace wrote:Um. It can't. A hypothesis is an inanimate object. An idea. It can't produce organic material any more than it could produce a bowel movement.

Agreed. Cells are not religious texts or objects either… If you want to say that DE is an idea, then I'm fine with that.. I'll even say the same about ID..

ARWallace wrote:How is this remotely relevant to the validity of the idea?

Yes an idea.. But everything has it's starting point…

ARWallace wrote:Do you really want a laundry list of facts, observations and evidences that support the ToE? Really? I'm sure there are countless places on the internet you could go to find these, and I'll happily dredge them up if you really think this will enhance your understand of what a theory is.

Not on the macro evolutionary scale.. You simply can't.

ARWallace wrote:Sure. That list of evidences supporting serial endosymbiosis — that was just my opinion.

Ok.. Opinions are fine...

ARWallace wrote:You may want to go back and read that article I linked on the historical sciences. Or not. Either way, this redundancy is boring me.

Actually I think we are boring each other…

ARWallace wrote:Why would I want to thwart that? That seems to be what you are trying to do.

Not thwarting Wallace.. Questioning yes…

ARWallace wrote:It is true beyond reasonable doubt. But it is not proven. Nothing in science is proven. Proofs are for mathematics. Really, Gman, I respectfully submit that our discussion would be more fruitful if you would read some philosophy of science. I really mean this in a sincere and non-condescending way: knowing that scientific ideas are not proven in science is really a basic, fundamental idea. Maybe start with some Karl Popper and work forward.

Wallace, the problem here is that you are trying to shove it (DE) down my throat as a fact and claim that God has nothing to do with nature. I'm simply telling you that is not a truthful statement… We simply do NOT know, and science can't really explain it either.. It's practically a matter of faith on both sides of the coin..

ARWallace wrote:Once again, there are hypotheses that exist that can account for the origins of organic molecules capable of being acted on by natural selection. These hypotheses are based on testable assumptions (e.g. of the nature of the atmosphere when life arose) as well as experiments that either produce, or don't produce viable results. We're going in circles here.

Yes, big circles here.. If you want to say you have a hypotheses and assumptions (not facts) that is fine with me.. Again, I have provided testable hypotheses for ID…

ARWallace wrote:Which ones?

That you are trying to explain the origin of life excluding God..

ARWallace wrote:Yes. As I have said over and over again — this is what science is. And if life arose through the acts of the divine, then science cannot and will not offer an explanation.

Baloney… Science cannot and will not offer an explanation for life if life arose through the acts of the divine? Again where is your PROOF for this outrageous God nixing claim? Why are you even posting here in this board Wallace? Have you read our guidelines yet?

ARWallace wrote:HOLY COW!!! Where did I say that?????? I have stated clearly and unambiguously that theories do not offer explanations for things like the purpose of the universe! Why are you misrepresenting me, Gman?

Holy cow!! Wallace… Have you been reading what you have written here in this forum?? You stated, “You must exclude supernatural explanations as part of your explanatory system.” You stated, ”You can't involve god in any explanatory system for natural phenomena and still call your explanation science.” God stated that HE created everything.. You take God out of the equation and what do you have left? Nothing except naturalism… Atheism.. You OWN god, your OWN belief system, your OWN origin of life, and your OWN meaning of life…

ARWallace wrote:I can't link it. It is a pdf file I downloaded from the journal. And I may be computer illiterate, but I don't know what pm-ing it is. But you at least seem to be admitting that you did not read an article that you linked in rebuttal to my evidences for serial endosymbiosis. It's a baby step forward.

PM = Private Message. Use the message center at the top of the page and send it to my name then..

ARWallace wrote:Right. I didn't prove anything. That's not what we do in science. I did provide evidences that you more or less ignored and now simply refer to as “assumptions”. ** shrugs again *

Right.. No you didn't prove anything here except that God is NOT part of the equation..

ARWallace wrote:So you didn't read paragraphs 2-4. You still don't understand what facts and theories are. There's nothing else I can do.

Oh, so now you claim you have facts?? I know what a fact is and I know you don't have any..

ARWallace wrote:Fair enough. Maybe it didn't. That's what a hypothesis is — a provisional statement. But that doesn't change the fact that it offers an explanation for the problem you claims exists. So do the other 3 or 4 articles I linked. Maybe they were not THE explanation for how ribose sugars developed on Earth. The point is, they offer a possible solution to said problem. So you can reject them if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that naturalistic explanations exist for the first 3 problems stated on the page you linked. What more do you want?

What more do I want? The truth.. Possible yes, factual no…

ARWallace wrote:Darwin did not question the meaning of life in the Origin of Species. And I certainly have not. Where are you getting this from? What's more, I am not making a theological statement in saying that science can offer naturalistic explanations for the origin of life. At worst, I have stated that science has an explanation for a phenomenon that contradicts a singular view of the origins of life described in some religious texts when read literally. Is that the problem you have? That this statement contradicts some peoples' religious views? That doesn't make the statement religious — nor the ToE. It just raises the hackles of folks who hold particular religious beliefs, and for that, I apologize. But it certainly doesn't make the ToE a religious belief.

Hackles?? No Wallace.. Do you remember trying to explain abiogenesis to me earlier? The origin of life? You were claiming that you have the proof for the origin of life.. And God, you said, CANNOT be a part of it.. This is atheism.. You have just elevated your science as the final authority for everything we observe.. Again, whenever you take science and question the meaning or origin of life, then you are making a belief system out of science, the answer for everything, your own concerns, your own morality, a religion... Now Darwin's Origin of Species, where natural selection takes the place of God?? This is religion versus religion.. DE is simply a belief system about the past and you are saying it has the final authority, even to nix God out of the world… Sorry, I'm against you and against your statements! We are not talking about science here at all.. This is a theological debate with a capital "T"...!!

Go read what evolutionists say like Theodosius Dobzhansky, he stated, "Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, the biological, and human or cultural development. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."

ARWallace wrote:I did answer your question: it doesn't. And neither does “macroevolution”. Now answer my question — do you not see the logical inconsistency in believing plate tectonics as an explanation for the Earth's geological features yet disbelieving the ToE as an explanation for its biodiversity? You seem to be avoiding the central thesis here.

We've been through this before.. You can't to try an pull a logical argument on me because I don't agree with your pigeon hold logic… Plate tectonics cannot interfere with the existence of God.

ARWallace wrote:Respectfully, I am not trying to misconstrue the meaning. These are your words — literally — “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that design is another form of creationism and that it violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state funds to religion.” Now, either you meant to say something else in which case you misspoke (3 times) — which is fine since we all do this. Or you said something that was factually inaccurate and are trying to save face by implying that I am misunderstanding you. It's a trivial matter, really. But it takes a big person to eat crow and admit they are wrong.

Yes I know I stated that… But you missed my point on it and took it out of context.. If you would have read my very first post on it you would have understood why I wrote it that way. The Edwards v. Aguillard was all about creationism, no doubt, HOWEVER, the Dover plantiffs and society in general have used the Edwards v. Aguillard case AGAINST the ID advocates labeling it as another form of creationism or design as I put it on my second post… Again ID wasn't around in the 80's.. Perhaps I should have made that clearer and not used the term design in the beginning. Often the term creation and design can be used in ID circles to mean the same thing… So now you know.

ARWallace wrote:Because I may or may not disagree with something that one other person may or may not have said? Curious.

Not just one person… The majority of persons..

ARWallace wrote:I'm sorry. What is DE again?

For you? The explanation for everything.. Your god..

ARWallace wrote:Now, G. Did you read this article either? I doubt it. Because I did. Ruse is making the claim that some ardent supporters (starting with Huxley and continuing on to Gould and Wilson) of the ToE have used it to advance social agendas, and in so doing have rendered a secular belief system. And I tend to agree. But that's the fault of those ardent supporters. Ruse goes on to add “Today, professional evolution thrives. But the old religion survives and thrives right alongside it.” And “There is no need to make a religion of evolution. On its own merits, evolution as science is just that -- good, tough, forward-looking science, which should be taught as a matter of course to all children, regardless of creed.” Do you similarly agree with Ruse on this?

Yes I have read the entire article.. Ruse even equates evolution to the gospel.. And how does this negate what he stated earlier? He states, There is no need to make a religion of evolution. On its own merits, evolution as science is just that.. He just claimed that science and evolution, on its own merits is just that… A religion… So? This is exactly what I've been telling you..

He also states, in the language of Stephen Jay Gould “We learn that evolution "liberates the human spirit," that for sheer excitement evolution "beats any myth of human origins by light years," and that we should "praise this evolutionary nexus -- a far more stately mansion for the human soul than any pretty or parochial comfort ever conjured by our swollen neurology to obscure the source of physical being."

Praise this evolutionary nexus? A far more stately mansion for the human soul? This is the exact definition of religion.. Something that excites the soul.. Probably should say, “stare into the abyss (nothingness) with pride.. “

ARWallace wrote:So by that definition, all scientists who hold their theories true with faith are practicing religion. Holy cow — someone call the NSF and retract finding for all of science! No, that is an inadequate definition you cherry picked. Read M-W's first definition: “the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance” where religious is defined as “relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity”. Moreover, you avoided this “provide examples of rites, traditions, observances, rituals and practices common to all religions. Then explain how my simple statement that “the scientific community views theories as ideas that are true beyond reasonable doubt” qualifies as a religion.” Weak, Gman. Weak.

The word “religion” has many different definitions.. Webster's Dictionary defines religion 4. “Cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” And they don't always have to pertain to the supernatural. If you want to go by the other definitions, I'll take Ruse/Gould's definition:

“We learn that evolution "liberates the human spirit," that for sheer excitement evolution "beats any myth of human origins by light years," and that we should "praise this evolutionary nexus.”

Sounds religious to me.. Something that touches one's very soul.. A spiritual journey...

ARWallace wrote:Shrug, shrug back. Apparently you don't understand the philosophy of science. Oh well.

I'd say Dr. Ruse understands it better than both of us…

ARWallace wrote:Actually, it was a stab at a pun — menopause…manypause. Forget it.

Oh, and ad hominem? You say that I'm menopausal now?

ARWallace wrote:I understand what you're getting at, and I have tried to be clear about this. Science simply excludes supernatural acts because it has to — otherwise it can't logically or empirically or objectively answer the questions it seeks to answer. But science doesn't deny the existence of god(s) — it is totally mute on the subject. And it is limited in the kinds of questions it can ask and answer. So that is why religion and philosophy exist. I hope you can wrap your mind around that and see that I — that science — are not anti-religion.

No… Your science excludes the supernatural.. You say science simply excludes supernatural acts because it has to? You are elevating your science as the final authority to EXCLUDE God from nature.. Therefore it is muting God.. Period.

Gman, You'll never make it as a scientist, because you just PROVED something. DE is a religion.


Gman carved it up.

Gman,

>>Why are you even posting here in this board Wallace? Have you read our guidelines yet?

You're right. This likely isn't the place for me. What's more, this conversation is going nowhere fast. You aren't providing definitions of DE, but claim I represent them; you can't provide a working definition of macroevolution but claim it doesn't exist; you seem not to understand (or at least choose to reject) the basic philosophy of science; you conflate my statements, misrepresent me and remain unrepentant about it — heck you can't even man up and admit you were wrong; somehow it is my fault for misunderstanding the words you typed (3 times). And you have your laundry list of gripes with me. I can accept that. But since the only thing we can agree on is that we're getting nowhere, maybe the only way for us to make progress is for me to leave.

So I'll end wit this: G, I get why you're upset — I do. I hear it from many people in many venues — you feel that science (at least as it is practiced by mainstream scientists) excludes god. And in a limited sense, I agree with you — the fact is, methodological naturalism is the philosophy that governs the practice of scientific inquiry. And MN does exclude the supernatural in its methods of inquiry and modes of explanation. These are facts. I am not trying to ram them down your throat; they are simply true statements. Reject them is you must, but I didn't make these things up just to be contrary.

However, I don't feel that science and god are incompatible — in fact, quite the opposite. I feel that for those of religious faith who study science are understanding god's creation in wonderful ways. Robyn has said on several occasions that she marvels at the conditions in our universe that have led to our existence being possible — and she's right. Tweak just about any of the dials that set our universal constants even the slightest and the universe implodes and life on Earth ceases to exist. If you believe in a god that created the universe, and all of the laws that govern it, then it stands to reason that you would have to believe that he got us to our specific point in our existence of the universe using some fairly amazing natural processes. So studying these natural processes to understand the natural phenomena around us is not excluding god from the equation in the slightest — for those of religious belief, it is a fantastic way to understand their god and his creation on a whole other level. All that science says — or assumes — is that god does not intervene directly in the natural universe by moving the sun across the sky, causing earthquakes or creating new biological species. It is the laws and natural processes like natural selection, gravity and plate tectonics that do that. Studying them is to study god.

I'm sorry if I have upset the balance of this board. It was never my intent. I'll fade away and leave the discussions for those with shared faith.

Thanks for an interesting few months —
Al

I for one hope that you don't fade away. Interesting discussion

ARWallace wrote:you feel that science (at least as it is practiced by mainstream scientists) excludes god. And in a limited sense, I agree with you — the fact is, methodological naturalism is the philosophy that governs the practice of scientific inquiry. And MN does exclude the supernatural in its methods of inquiry and modes of explanation. These are facts. I am not trying to ram them down your throat; they are simply true statements. Reject them is you must, but I didn't make these things up just to be contrary.

I disagree. Science does not exclude God. Neither does it include God. Specifically, scientific investigations conducted using methodological naturalism (MN) is neutral to God's existence. In fact, the modern non-Creationist ID movement would not contradict methodological naturalism, because those true to such a position purposefully choose not to enter into the question of who the designer is (despite protests from their critics). To do so would be to mix personal philosophical and/or theological conclusions with scientific inquiry.

Likewise, MN is neutral to philosophical naturalism (positive atheism). However, an atheist's philosophical naturalism is more easily smuggled into MN clouding true scientific inquiry with atheistic personal opinion and bias. So where true ID proponents are criticised for not stating the designer (a philosophical and even theological affair), those who adhere to philosophical naturalism often don't even get an eyebrow raised when they do mix their atheistic philosophy with scientific practice. Science does not take philosophical stances, people do. If a position takes a positive philosophical stance on a matter such as God's existence or non-existence then surely it can be guaranteed someone is mixing their science with their philosophical opinions.

To respond to your other statement that MN excludes the supernatural in its methods of inquire, I also disagree. For all we know, what we perceive as supernatural may in fact being a part of the natural. Until someone can define that line of what makes something "natural" and something "supernatural" based upon sound reasoning, naturalism and supernaturalism are just terms we use for convenience to classify certain types of existences.

Kurieuo, I understand most of what you just posted, although the following puzzled me:

Kurieuo wrote: In fact, the modern non-Creationist ID movement would not contradict methodological naturalism, because those true to such a position purposefully choose not to enter into the question of who the designer is (despite protests from their critics).

How can ID avoid the implication of a Designer (the capital "D" means a supernatural Designer)?

At a minimum, ID requires an intelligent designer (lower case "d" means a natural designer). But then how does such a natural designer avoid owing its existence on a supernatural Designer?

IgoFan wrote:Kurieuo, I understand most of what you just posted, although the following puzzled me:

Kurieuo wrote: In fact, the modern non-Creationist ID movement would not contradict methodological naturalism, because those true to such a position purposefully choose not to enter into the question of who the designer is (despite protests from their critics).

How can ID avoid the implication of a Designer (the capital "D" means a supernatural Designer)?

At a minimum, ID requires an intelligent designer (lower case "d" means a natural designer). But then how does such a natural designer avoid owing its existence on a supernatural Designer?

ID, in theory, claims not to identify that designer. It simply indicates that the evidence would indicate a pattern of intelligence at work, not the source.