|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Molecular Biology - The Final Frontier | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daydreamer Inactive Member |
A fellow SecWeb poster, Baidarka, posted an excerpt from an e-mail correspondence he was having with a creationist involving (in)famous modern creationists of various sorts with degrees in Biology:
quote: A few patterns arise quite quickly when examining this list, which I felt should be shared: -All 6 of these creationists, to my knowledge, were various degrees of biblical literalists, and hence creationists, before beginning their studies-2 of the 6 have degrees in general biology - no specific intra-curricular study in evolution -4 of the 6 have degrees in micro/molecular/cellular biology This last bit baked my brain for a few, before it dawned on me: -Its easier for them to find examples of 'irriducible complexity' to justify creationism because of the nature of proteins and similar molecules.-Because Darwinian Theory was originally developed to explain phylogenic diversity in the mid-to-late eighteenth century, while modern molecular/micro/cellular biology is a product of the mid ninteenth century, thus molecular/micro/cellular bio (outside genetics) has seen the least application of evolutionary theory out of any Biology subset. -Because soft tissue is almost never preserved for very long, and because objects as small as cells leave few to no archeological imprints around the bone, there is no historic record to parallel the Fossil Record to support evolution Not one of these scholars became a creationist in response to the study of population genetics, the fossil record, and evolution. Indeed, it seems to me that, whether intentional or not, these men never studied these things through the standard channels - through courses taught at universities. Thus it is my opinion that for these six gentlemen, evolution never stood a snowball's chance in hell.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi Daydreamer. Welcome to evcforum!
Interesting analysis. My take on the whole "argument from authority" issue - especially dealing with "biologists who don't believe (sic) in evolution" like we hear all the time - is that for every creationist/IDist biologist there are thousands of biologists etc who DO accept the ToE. In fact, the extraordinarily limited number of biologists who subscribe to some form of creationism are faaaar outnumbered by the biologists who, for example, subscribe to the metaphysical aspects of the "gaia hypothesis". In other words, you can always find SOMEBODY to buy off on ANY theory. Doesn't mean they're not full of it... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daydreamer Inactive Member |
I agree - from what I've read the percentage of those who accept evolution in the population at large is 53%, compared to 95% of those who have a degree in biology.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3239 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
quote: One other comment Daydreamer, the concept of Irreducible Complexity is the brainchild (or pipedream depending on your point of view) of Michael Behe of Lehigh University. Dr. Behe is a molecular biologist. As both myself and others have pointed out in numerous forums Irreducible Complexity has a number of fatal flaws, as do M. Behe's examples of IC. Part of the mental error in finding this approach tenable is the manner in which Dr. Behe intruduces his cascades, he actually does them backwards. For example, if you examine simple vs more complicated clotting systems you find that the layers of control appear to be added to the initiation portion of the reaction, not the terminal portion. Dr. Behe did not point this out in his reference to Dr. Dolittles (sp?) work. And that is just one flaw amoung many. His statistics concerning biological systems and protein formation are abysmal using the same a priori assumptions that most creationists use, which use invalid or highly questionable assumptions (ie calculations for maximum mutational rate based on hemoglobin for variation between ape and man). ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daydreamer Inactive Member |
Actually, I knew Behe was a molecular biologist, I just couldn't find any descent mini-bios of him to tack onto the existing list. Thanks anyway though.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
I know Ian Macreadie personally and to my knowledge he came to the literalist viewpoint in later years although I'll ask him next time I see him - OK? I know he only 'came out'
Would now be a good time to post an extract of a recent obituary on a famous population evoltuionists that clearly ppoints out that everything that most poulation geneticists do is microevoltuion? They even used that dirty word themselves!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Feel free. Remember, however, that it had better be in context AND had better take into consideration any other germane bits of information on the individual's work and writings. IOW, no typical creationist "Stephen Gould says there are no transitionals" misrepresentation. Research your assertion BEFORE reporting it so the rest of us don't have to. Thanks.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daydreamer Inactive Member |
Could you tell me more about these two people? I.E. whether they were religious before their conversion, whether their change was during a period of turmoil in their life, how strongly were they for evolution before and how strongly they are for (and which) creationism after, etc.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Although I know Ian Macreadie well we mainly talk mainstream shop and daily life stuff. I'll ask him again.
The other guy was a mainstream church goer but definitely only by tradition to make his wife happy. His work in electron microscopy pointed him to a grand designer. At the same time he attended a series of seminars on Old Testament archeology. It is his testimony that in that same year he then had a personal Acts 2 experience in isolation. Months later he discovered an old prayer book with a picture of the Acts 2 phenomena and realised that is what had happened to him. I know of no problems in his life at that time. But, boy, did it stir up his family! I was brought up in a Christian 'fundamentalist' home and can make no claims to independent 'conversion' although I in myself know that I have worked through both my own salvation and scientific study on creation/flood. 15 years ago I disagreed with some of the well known creationists on speciation, mutations, galaxies, radiodating and thermodynamics. They've almost all come around to my way of thinking except perhaps on thermodynamics!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daydreamer Inactive Member |
quote: Link to Acts 2 for other non-Xians: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/acts/notes.html#2 I was anticipating such a response - in my experience conversions towards creationism tend to me paired with change towards greater religiousity and tend to be emotional rather than rational experiences.
quote: I take it then that you're a multiple acts-of-creation OEC?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Sorry, I am a YEC but was always convinced the galaxies were billions of years old, that good mutations occur etc. With Humphrey's cosmology old galaxies are now reconcilable with YEC and I just never understood why some creationists insisted that good mutations never occur. I agree that good mutations can occur but that this doesn't necessarily explain the origin of genomes.
We distinguish between emotions and 'heart issues'. IMO 'conversion' involves 'heart issues'. Most human beings will then have an emotional response to the outcome of such issues but I do not fundamentally believe that conversion is an emotional issue. I am utterly convinced of the truth of the gospel and I am not an overly emotional person. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-04-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5702 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Sorry, I am a YEC but was always convinced the galaxies were billions of years old, that good mutations occur etc. With Humphrey's cosmology old galaxies are now reconcilable with YEC and I just never understood why some creationists insisted that good mutations never occur. I agree that good mutations can occur but that this doesn't necessarily explain the origin of genomes. We distinguish between emotions and 'heart issues'. IMO 'conversion' involves 'heart issues'. Most human beings will then have an emotional response to the outcome of such issues but I do not fundamentally believe that conversion is an emotional issue. I am utterly convinced of the truth of the gospel and I am not an overly emotional person[/QUOTE] JM: I am utterly unconvinced and I am not an overly emotional person. Frankly, I am not sure what this thread is attempting to argue. If one wants to make it a democratic vote on how many 'credentialed' scientists accepts evolution or creation, evolution wins hands down. However, that is not a particularly strong argument since science does not proceed by 'majority rules'. Evolution and (old earth geology) succeed based on their explanatory and parsimonious scientific strengths and the religious 'bends' of the scientists are interesting, but totally irrelevant. Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daydreamer Inactive Member |
quote: Gap Creationism then?
quote: I understand your point - I merely meant that the origin of the belief is emotional (communing with one's god(s)/goddess(es) etc.) and reason comes afterwards.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]
I was brought up in a Christian 'fundamentalist' home and can make no claims to independent 'conversion' although I in myself know that I have worked through both my own salvation and scientific study on creation/flood. 15 years ago I disagreed with some of the well known creationists on speciation, mutations, galaxies, radiodating and thermodynamics. They've almost all come around to my way of thinking except perhaps on thermodynamics![/B][/QUOTE]
So, how is it that they were wrong all of those years, and how do you know that you are right? Aren't we just getting back to who's interpretation one feels like beliving in?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Daydreamer, I'm saying that, IMO, the origin of belief is conscience/attitude/response, not emotion. Emotion and full understanding typically come afterward. I believe that conscience/attitude/response is one of our deepest characteers and that that is what God looks at, not either emotions or intellect.
I would actually associate these three things that I came up with of the top of my head with 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul' with heart = conscience, mind = response, soul = attitude in a very approximate fashion. I ahven't done the Bible study on it but I wouldn't be surprised if Scriptually heart, mind and soul are inner primary properties of humans whereas emotions and intellect are 'secondary'. Many may view humans as naturalistic black boxes with emotions and intellect. I see us as a soul with deep underlying characteistics that only the Spirit can fathom. Via Humphrey's cosmology we have, via general relativistic time dialation (like near a black hole), 15 billion years of universe expansion and astrophysical processes during the literal creation week as measured at Earth's coordinates. In Humphrey's dynamical model the expansion itself automatically exponentially morphs the continuously varying fast and slow time zones together so that they have been running at the same rate for most of history. Sounds like hooey for you guys of course but it seems so far that it may be compatible with the data and will ultimately generate predictions that will enable it to be distinguished from the Big Bang. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-04-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024