Friends,
You read my blog, so you know my concern for the economic health, social health, and spiritual health of America.
But, I will add one concern, our intellectual health.
Over the last 60 years what passes for intelligent discourse, research, and knowledge has dropped like a rock.
I just made some rather simple claims on an atheists blog about evolution.
Simply, if we have record of species dying off, and evolution is so easy in theory, why don’t we see real speciation happening all the time. Raup wrote Extinction. A great book by an Atheist Evolutionist. I recommend reading it: http://www.amazon.com/Extinction-Bad-Genes-Luck/dp/0393309274 .
The claims he made, I had come to independently on my own.
Dogs have been bred since they were placed into captivity. But, they can still interbreed with wild wolves. So, we know that it takes a lot longer than most evolutionary theory would state it takes for a breed to separate from a species.
Simple. Eloquent. Fact.
But, we have laboratory ‘rats’ being used to prove speciation can happen fast. Well, doesn’t that laboratory germ need an intelligent designer to force it to change? Yes, it does need at least an ignorant designer.
Simple. Eloquent. Fact.
Abiogenesis has never happened. (Abiogenesis is creating life accidentally, in other words, creating “life from non-life,” the opposite we see around us, “life must come from life.”). There is no evidence that Abiogenesis (life from non-life) has ever happened. And if it did happen, it should happen all the time.
Simple or it is not simple.
These basic assumptions (a priori?) are made all the time in Evolutionary Theory.
Life can come from non-life, easily. [But, we don’t know why it is so difficult now.]
Life mutates well. [Except history has shown the opposite.]
Because I cannot prove God he cannot exist. [Well, you cannot prove Evolution either, but you still claim it exists.]
Extinction is irrelevant. [Well, actually it is the only part of Evolutionary Theory we see all the time all around us. Just save a whale …. So, if we are experiencing a rather massive extinction right now – I defer to Dr, Raup for an overview of that – why aren’t we seeing new species?]
Extinction is relevant. God and non-life (Abiogenesis) creation both require faith. And history has shown us some rather strange things which cannot be explained by Evolutionary Theory.
What do my friends say?
Do you think we are really getting smarter? Are we evolving? Or, do you see signs we are de-evolving?
Wayne
luvsiesous 
Pingback: What do MY readers want to read? | luvsiesous
Here is my next reading list. I have also made notes on an additional 30 books from my local library. There are a couple more books, but being source books, they were in the $100 to $200 range each. Having consumed almost 100 books on the subject(s), I am getting rather decent on the subject.
Even if we do not agree on our final thesis.
And I don’t think I added any books for my next acquisition on Big Bang Cosmology ….
Human Evolution Source Book, The (2nd Edition) – Russell L. Ciochon
Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be – Daniel Loxton
Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea – Carl Zimmer
The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution – Sean B. Carrol
Fundamentals of Forensic DNA Typing – John M. Butler
Why Evolution Is True – Jerry A. Coyne
Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be – Daniel Loxton
Keywords in Evolutionary Biology – Evelyn Fox Keller
DNA Science: A First Course, Second Edition – David Micklos
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters – Donald R. Porter
Evolution, Second Edition – Douglas Futuyma
Human Evolutionary Biology: Human Anatomy and Physiology from … – Arndt Von Hippel
Keywords and Concepts in Evolutionary Developmental Biology (HUP) – Brian K. Hall
Nice idea, nice approach. Well, a bit egregious.
Wander through what’s available over at edge.org and get up-to-date on evolution. Especially rates of speciation and how variable that really is.
How variable is it?
Here’s a virus that mutated in confined laboratory conditions in 15 days:
http://tinyurl.com/87pjm36
Yes, but that goes against true empiricism. We should be able to see good mutation in nature without human intervention.
The biggest problem I have with Evolutionary Theory is that it ALL points to an external living influence to conduct the change.
All empirical evidence proves life does not come from non life. Abiogenesis has NEVER been observed. ALL ‘laboratory tests’ indicating abiogenesis are under extremely controlled circumstances.
Wayne
You have a lot of reading to catch up on. Which is why I recommend primary source or qualified secondary source articles about science.
But, I’m not a teacher. I gave you a starting point: edge.org is a solid start for just about anything concerning science and especially if you care to examine how human beings react to that knowledge.
My reading list is quite long. Maybe you could catch up with me?
Unlike most Evolutionists, I actually read what people write.
Wayne
As I suggested – read what scientists, biologists write. Not commentators.
If you would like to fund some of my reading, I am looking to purchase another $300 off of Amazon (in evolutionary theory, mostly biology).
I have read most of my personal library on evolutionary theory. I have over 50 volumes on that. Well over $1,000 cost to me.
😉
Wayne
Hate repeating myself; but, wander through edge.org. The world’s leading scientists – especially those with a conviction that studies in humanities can and should be science-based – congregate there.
There is more reading there than you’ll ever catch up with. You can start with Steve Jones and the late Ernst Mayr or my favorite Murray Gell-Man, local to my neck of the prairie. We’re lucky enough to have frequent public access to the Santa Fe Institute. Then, multiply by 10 or a 100. That would just be in biology.
I have Mayr on my bookshelf.
I will stop by, but I normally only read books or peer reviewed journal articles for knowledge.
There is too much dis-information in all evolutionary studies, but there is even more on the internet.
IMHO.
Thanks!
I another post you said humans and Neanderthals are 4% related. That’s a misunderstanding. You’re confusing homology with cross-species genetic contribution. DNA homology is the similarity between two different DNA sequences. In the case of modern humans and Neanderthals, the homology is actually 99,7% which is obviously higher than the homology between humans and chimpanzees. Even with such high homology, Neanderthals will have unique variants of certain genes and what the Neanderthal Genome Project has discovered is that in non-African modern humans, 1-4% of the genes will be of the Neanderthal type.
That is not what was reported.
And most of the similarities between chimps and humans ignore the DNA sequence.
I manually counted some.
Can you provide a link to where this was reported? The claim that humans and Neanderthals are only 4% related is nothing less than astonishing considering that the similarity between e.g. the human and mouse genomes is at least 70%. What was it that you counted?
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/25/science/la-sci-neanderthal-immune-genes-20110826
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/06/neanderthals-dna-humans-genome
I don’t remember where I originally read it.
I counted a portions of DNA shown to me from research by a researcher in Human to Chimp DNA. If I remember correctly there were about 1000 sequences in the picture. I worked through the first 200. In that 200 there was well over a 20% mismatch of the DNA sequences to the naked eye.
Those articles say exactly what I wrote earlier, that 1-4% of the genes in non-African humans come from Neanderthals, probably as a result of inter-species breeding. As I explained, this doesn’t mean that we are only 4% related. DNA homology is 99.7% which means we are almost identical. In fact, many people nowadays consider Neanderthals not as a species separate from humans but a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalaensis).
KR,
I have looked and looked for the data. I have NEVER seen that data ‘published.’ Do you have a reference that publishes it in normal human speak?
I have a hundred books on Evolutionary Science. And I have nothing which explains the chimp or neanderthal similarities.
The only things I have found, are very short and way to technical for me to jump into.
Thanks!
wayne
This is the website for the Neanderthal Genome Project which was run by the Department of Evolutionary Genetics at the Max Planck Institute:
http://www.eva.mpg.de/neandertal/index.html
Wikipedia also has a lot of information on this subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
I used to contribute to wiki. I found the experts to not be very expert.
😉
I will check out the max planck..But, I really could use good books in my library if you know them. I have read most of “DNA” by Watson. Not a scientific work, but well written. I have read several others, but the actual study of DNA is shrouded in mystery – it seems.
Thanks
Wayne
You might want to look up the writings of Francis S Collins and Kenneth R Miller. Both are distinguished biologists who share your belief in God and also strongly believe in evolution.
Interesting.
Not what I heard Collins say. At least I think it was Collins.
And I know I saw one the other day.
PS, just got my account back, I will be posting again.
Wayne
Any presumptions made are obviously not just made up as they go along, they are based on the available evidence. This is standard operating procedure in line with the scientific method which you previously said you approve of. What makes this different?
Any assumption based upon a ‘faith’ is supposed to be ignored in modern science. But, all scientists I have read write about starting from assumptions.
Assumptions based on evidence, which is the opposite of faith. I really don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.
Interesting.
I have a creation story which has been verified by modern science as the most accurate story in the history of man.
Howis that less scientific?
I’d also be very interested to see a link to the scientific verification of the creation story.
good one.
just because a Scientist does not believe the evidence does not change the evidence.
any more than it would change the evidence if i did not believe the evidence.
What does the Bible say came first? Darkness or light?
Well, you were the one who said that it had been verified by modern science so obviously it must be published somewhere.
Actually, I am writing that book.
I began to notice that Bible was more scientific than it should be. I had read a couple of Creation Science books that tried to ‘justify’ the Bible with new theories. Many of which were just guesses.
But, I noticed that Science was making claims that supported rather than disagreed with the Biblical account.
Which, by the way, is why they are looking for the ‘god particle.’
Any honest and objective scientist knows that something happened which defies modern science to explain. The first 3 seconds of the Big Bang are incredible …. But, we believe the first 3 seconds.
Ironically, I have been an OE-evolutioniest and a YE-creationist all because of the science. I find that interesting.
I guess I’ll have to wait until the book comes out then.
For a lot of that, yes.
Unfortunately, if I publish too much on my blog, the only way I can publish the book is self published.
Which is more profitable for me.
But, self-publishing normally reaches a much smaller audience of readers. And that is more important to me than profit.
I would still be interested in readable books on DNA research. I posted a blog for just that intent.
Thanks,
Wayne
I would seriously hope that the scientist don’t remove their intellects from the laboratory but I’m not sure I understand your point. Assuming they can accurately mimic the starting conditions on pre-life Earth, how would the intellects of the scientists influence chemical reactions?
The very presumptions they make are based upon their intellect. The only way to remove that would be time travel – which is not theoretically plausible. Despite all the hoopla.
How would you remove human intellect from the experiment?
I didn’t realize the YT clip would be embedded, sorry about that. I can’t edit my post but if this is against policy just remove it.
Actually no, I don’t. The work being done in the field of abiogenesis follows the same scientific method as all other research. You make observations which lead to a hypothesis, set up experiments to verify or disprove the hypothesis and finally work out a theory to explain your observations. If the theory is any good, it will not only explain the observed facts but should also make predictions which should be testable with further investigation. No faith required.
When you say that “if we make life in the lab it will not be abiogenesis”, are you saying that it will be “life from life”? That would obviously be a very poorly designed experiment. The whole point is to find out if it could happen by natural means, without the influence of a designer (divine or human) using only materials and physical conditions that would have been present at the time.
You seem to be assuming that the first life was DNA-based but that’s not necessarily the case. The interesting thing I’ve found while reading about this subject is that the hypotheses people are working on sort of blur the line between non-life and life. I mentioned Jack Szostak earlier and he is working on a model which is an extremely simple two-component system consisting of only fatty acids and RNA. No DNA and no proteins. He suggests that these two components can self-assemble into rudimentary “cells” (he actually calls them “protocells”) which can self-replicate, grow and divide. This is basically all that is needed to get an evolutionary process started although it would hardly constitute “life” by any definition.
It’s obviously still a long way from a modern cell but once the evolutionary process is started there are pretty plausible ideas on how to get from this “RNA world” to the “DNA/RNA/protein world” we see today. If you’re interested, the signature cdk007 has posted a number of YouTube videos explaining the hypothesis:
The origin of life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
The origin of the genetic code:
There are more but these are the ones that address what we’ve discussed.
It sounds nice to say there would be no intervention, but how would that be possible?
How would a scientist design an experiment that would remove his intellect from the laboratory?
What would that look like?
I see nothing disingenuous in assuming that life came from non-life. As I wrote earlier, the alternative would be that life has always existed which seems counter-intuitive. When you say that abiogenesis is not theoretically possible I assume you mean abiogenesis by natural means. Can you qualify that statement? There are some great minds working in the field of abiogenesis (like e.g. Nobel laureate Jack Szostak) and I seriously doubt that any of them would waste their time on something that could be demonstrated to be impossible.
I’m not sure what you mean by “types of DNA” and why we would have millions of different types, could you elaborate? The fact that DNA seems to be the universal carrier of genetic information (except in RNA viruses) is probably because it’s the most efficient molecule for the job. Evolution is about competition and if organisms that use DNA are more efficient than organisms using other molecules to store their genetic information then the DNA organisms will obviously be the ones that prevail.
There are actually different types of DNA in that they use slightly different versions of the genetic code but I don’t think that’s what you were referring to.
To get back to abiogenesis I don’t think we will ever be able to elucidate exactly how it happened. That would basically require that we build a time machine and go back 3.8 billion years in time and watch it happen. What the researchers in this field hope to achieve is a coherent theory which shows one or several possible paths from non-life to life by natural means without breaking any physical or chemical laws and which is supported by laboratory experiments. We’re certainly nowhere near that goal but there are interesting working hypotheses that are definitely worth pursuing.
KR,
Thank you for your comments and questions.
If we make life in a lab, it will not be abiogenesis. The programming required to get life going (DNA) is pretty complex. I doubt anyone would say that it isn’t.
There is no method to prove or disprove your assumption of life from non-life – abiogenesis.
That is not the Scientific Method I like. That is ‘faith.’ IMHO.
Don’t you agree?
Wayne
OK, Abiogenesis is life from no-life. It is more difficult to prove, IMHO, than it is to prove God exists. It has never been observed. It has been postulated, but is not even theoretically possible.
But, it is assumed by most evolutionary biologists.
And that is rather disingenuous. Isn’t it?
If God created life, and I truly believe like the other billion Christians in the world, then it would be equally difficult to prove he did. Because neither method have left any DNA evidence to prove their method.
Or, not.
We have one single DNA on earth. No one argues it – at least I haven’t found anyone arguing it yet. One DNA strain. Why don’t we have 1,000,000 different types of DNA? If we came from ‘different’ starts and stops; if Evolution is possible at all; why don’t we have more than one creation event?
What do my friends say?
Wayne
“Because I cannot prove God he cannot exist. [Well, you cannot prove Evolution either, but you still claim it exists.]”
There is sufficient evidence for the evolution theory for it to be plausible. God has no evidence, and as such probably doesn’t exist.
Science is based on hypothesis, testing, rigorous studying and changing. Religion is rigid, based on superstitious myth in a historically inaccurate book, and doesn’t have any valid evidence.
Science is not about “Proving” or “Disproving” things. It is about finding evidence for / against. There’s so much evidence for evolution, it makes perfect sense and so many people believe it is the best explanation for the earth’s development.
You’re also confusing two issues. You could be a Christian who believes in evolution and the big bang theory, because religion is the “why” and science is the “how”, if you want to look at it that way.
You make evolution sound like a religious belief, which is absurd.
Larry,
You react to the 66 books found in the Bible and say; those 40 different authors did not have spiritual experiences, because I cannot conjure up God.
That is conflating a dog who answers to you with your needing to answer to your dog, isn’t it?
I never said I didn’t believe in any of that ….
Healthy skepticism is out of vogue isn’t it?
The Big Bang proves God exists. As does Abiogenesis.
IMHO.
Hey, hope I didn’t appear to try to be provoking you in any way. That’s not my intention at all, and sorry if you feel like you’re having to defend your beliefs now.
You pose a great argument with the “40 different authors” thing. It’s the first argument that’s made me feel slightly agnostic-y. Seems like you’re a respectful person with your beliefs backed up, so fair game to you.
Larry,
I don’t feel provoked.
But, I do know that many people do believe. That is a proven scientific element that is oft ignored.
Thanks!
Wayne
On the other hand, as to why atjeism is so common among biologists, I think the following quote from JBS Haldane, who was, among other things, one of the founders of Population Genetics, sums up the reason pretty well:
— JBS Haldane, In the preface to Fact and Faith, 1934.
Good quote, it gave me pause as I read it.
Good to know you thought over it.
Well, life exists so it obviously had to come from non-life at some point. Or are you saying life has always existed? Even if you believe that God created life, that’s still “life from non-life” so it would still technically be abiogenesis.
The reason we don’t see abiogenesis happening today is simple: life already exists. Whatever puddle, hot spring or ocean floor vent we could imagine life starting in is already teeming with microbial life that will quickly consume and re-cycle any biomolecules that could serve as a starting point. Life is a very effective barrier against a second abiogenesis.
I don’t know that evolutionary theory has stated that speciation would be a rapid process. To take your example with wolves and dogs, it is belived that the genus canis (to which wolves and dogs belong) diverged about 3 to 4 million years ago and that’s considered a recent event in evolution. Is it surprising then that we don’t see a lot of speciation happening before our eyes?
Concerning the assumptions you claim that evolutionary theory makes I don’t really recognize them. I haven’t seen anyone claim that abiogenesis happens easily. If that were the case, we would probably have seen signs of life on other planets by now. I don’t understand what you mean by “life mutates well” and “extinction is irrelevant”, could you explain that?
The assumption “because I cannot prove God he cannot exist” that you attribute to evolutionary theory looks like a straw man argument to me. Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the existence or non-existence of God. There are plenty of biologists who believe in God and have no problem with evolution, like e.g. Ken Miller who is a very eloquent lecturer on evolutionary theory.
Whew! That is a lot to answer. Let me start with rapidity.
Assuming that domestic dogs and wolves split 2 may (million yrs ago).
And domestic dogs have been bread over the last two to four thousand years.
Would micro-evolution (breeding) show a greater speciation during its short life than macro-evolution (nature) has shown?
So, if several million years is what it takes to move from wolves’ ancestors to dogs & wolves.
Then, if one speciation step takes more than a million years. And a billion is only one thousand times that, have we had enough time to move from one-cell plants, to multi-cell plants, to one-cell animals, to multi-cell animals, animals reproducing with eggs. To land animals. to mammals. to humans?
Shall we deal with abiogenesis soon?
Wayne
Evolution proceeds in parallel, not in steps. All the bacteria and viruses in the world (very demonstrably) do not wait, for example, for our species to evolve resistance to them before they proceed to the next step.
All the available evidence suggests that this indeed happened, albeit partly in parallel rather than in strictly sequential steps. Isn’t that a fascinating glorious thought?
Probably not. The great thing about science is that when we do not know something, it is considered a virtue to accept ignorance. The precise mechanisms of abiogenesis (which all the available evidence suggests must have occurred at least once on our planet) remain unknown an by what I have seen of the field, in my (non-expert) opinion would remain unknown for quite some time to come.
This is not a basic tenet of Evolutionary Theory. Evolutionary Theory itself says nothing about God: that question is of no relevance to the theory. What is does do is cast a lot of doubt on the creation myths of several (all?) religions, but even that is not central to the theory.
You are saying that their genome is evolving. But they already had those genes. Right?
“You are saying that their genome is evolving. But they already had those genes.”
I am not sure what that means.
Bacteria, viruses, etc.
It is often argued that they evolve. But, their genomes are essentially intact.
It is not like they become new species. They merely react to external influence, and parts of their genetic structure dominate the offspring.
The same would happen after a nuclear explosion. Some would live some would die depending upon genetic predisposition.
Wouldn’t that make sense?
Depends upon how you define species. I think for most biologists when a bacterium evolves to the extent that it can metabolize citrate instead of glucose, (as was demonstrated by Lenski’s experiments within 20 years, and without any artificial selection pressure), the time has come to call it a new species.
It is not as preposterous as it sounds. Humans and other great apes are “clearly” different species, aren’t they? And yet they can probably interbreed: since they are almost as genetically as horses are to donkeys for example, and horses and donkeys can interbreed.
Actually, it is fiction that great apes and humans are that close.
It is stated that humans are 4% related to our nearest ancestors, Neanderthal. But, we are 98% the same with our very distant chimpanzee ‘cousins.’ How does that make ‘sense?’
You will find yourself in disagreement in all the available data on that count.
It is stated that humans are 4% related to our nearest ancestors, Neanderthal.
Citation needed. The 96-8% statistic comes in part from from DNA similarity studies which measure closeness of physical properties of DNA obtained from species, and also from sequencing studies:
Click to access Chimp_Analysis.pdf
http://www.nature.com/uidfinder/10.1038/nature04072
Citation? I am not sure where I read the Neanderthal information.
That should be common knowledge by now.
Just as the chimp data ‘is.’ And it should be common knowledge that in the chimp data, all of the data pointing away from the conclusion was IGNORED. I know. I manually COUNTED a string ….
Amazing what data REALLY says.
As for the Neandertahal study, I fished out the studies. When people quote the “4% sharing of genes” figure, they are using it in the sense that you and any one of your parents share roughly 50% of the genes.
On the other hand, the 95% figure that is often quoted for great apes is the similarity between an “average” human DNA and the average “chimp” DNA. It wouldn’t even make sense to compare your and your parent’s DNA in this setting (how on Earth would I define “an average you”: there is only one of you after all :)). The corresponding figure between neanderthals and humans is currently reported to be around 99% (references below).
Average Human-Chimp similarity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12368483
Lawrence Berkeley Lab release discussing the Neanderthal-Human and Chimp-Human differences:
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Genomics-Neanderthal.html
Awesome! I gotta do some more ‘light reading.’
whew!
Then why argue God did not start life? Abiogenesis …. God is live, and everything we have EVER seen points to needing life to start life. Doesn’t it?
Sorry, but there is a few rather BIG problems with the “God started life” process.
1) There is no coherent definition of what a “God” is. Is it Jehovah you are talking about? Or the Parbrahm of the Vedas who created the gods who created this universe? Or is it Allah?
2) If, no matter what definition of God you chose, he/she/it is “live”, we haven’t solved the problem at all: what created god?
3) “everything we have EVER seen points to needing life to start life”: This does not seem to be true, because of point 2 above. Firstly, for logical reasons: you have to break the regress somewhere. It seems much more reasonable to suppose that the first non-life to life transition was to primitive organisms than to suppose that the first such transition was to some sort of “god” organism which was already complicated enough to create the rest of life forms. Secondly, the transition between life and non-life isn’t as precise as it appears to be. Are viruses live?
Viruses?
OK, which is more preposterous?
To believe a ‘god’ did it when the ‘god’ has spoken through prophets.
Or, to believe scientists figured it out when none of them were there?
Don’t both require ‘faith?’
As I asked earlier, which “god” are you talking about? Jehovah, Allah, Parbrahm? Or some other? And if it is exactly one of these, what reasons do you have to say that the other do not exist? For any one of these gods, what reason would I have believing their prophets on the question of the origin of life when much of what they said about other topics has conclusively been proved to be in direct opposition to fact?
When did anybody say that? What any reasonable scientist would say is that we do not know how life started, and I explicitly said this here in one of my comments above. What they would say that on current evidence, it seems likely that life has not existed for ever, and hence abiogenesis must have occurred at least once. To me (and many other scientists) it then requires a far bigger jump of faith to imagine that the first instance of abiogenesis produced a “god” complicated enough to create the other life forms, than to imagine that the first instance of abiogenesis produced something far closer to the simpler life forms we see around us today.
I have never heard of Parbrahm. That does surprise me. Allah has a very short history.
Jehova of the OT would be the God I would speak of.
Af the prophets I have read, the 40 prophets who wrote the Old and New Testament have the best story of early cosmogony. IMHO.
Parbrahm has a longer history than Jehovah. The Rigveda is easily one of the oldest books in existence, and describe this enigmatic character (often called by other names, anf often just by properties) as the creator of the gods who created the universe.
And what cosmogony would that be? That Earth is somehow “special”? and is supported on pillars? and was created in six days 6000 years ago?
You know.
I have heard that. But, having read all of the Bible, I have never seen that. Can you tell me where that comes from?
1 Samuel 2:8
“He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’S, and he hath set the world upon them.”
I see that you can try to interpret it metaphorically, though I don’t think that is what is being done here.
The Bible like, any mythological book is riddled with scientific inaccuracies (the chief among them being the bloopers in Genesis, unless you torture them into metaphors). I don’t fault it for that though, some of the stories and passages are really nice (again, just like other mythological religious texts). My personal favourite in the Bible is Ecclesiastes (I am not sure if you consider it part of the Bible though).
It is much easier to read that passage as a metaphor. It is a person describing God.
Further, the Bible was originally written for primitive people, most of whom could not read and write.
Is projecting post-modern, post-Christian, views upon ancient people and ancient writing is similar to looking at the moon and saying, “I see a man on the moon?” Don’t you think?
Also a minor technical point. As I said before, evolutionary theory itself does not argue that god did or did not start life. What it does imply that on current evidence, no gods or goddesses ever seem to have influenced the course of the evolution of life after . Abiogenesis is not a part of Evolutionary theory.
That is like having religion without a spiritual element.
Either God started life on earth, or it is a-biogenetic in origin.
But, you have me thinking, because none of my evolutionary science books mention it. But, the rest are in storage.
As I said before, there are a lot of problems with the first hypothesis. To reiterate: 1) Which god? 2) What created whichever god you chose in 1) 3) Why is it more reasonable to suppose that a complicated omnipotent (among other things) would be the first “living” thing than to suppose that the first “living” thing would be closer to the simpler life forms we see today.
Number three (3) is the only solid argument. (1) Jehovah gave Moses a modern account of creation in Genesis. It would seem to be a first hand account. Or, at least very modern.
Why would God have to be created?
Why assume God is created? I think we would need to ask God if he was created. Wouldn’t we?
What about the account the Rigveda gives then? Why would you discount that and take up Jevovah’s? And why would not God have to be created? If not, why why would the same argument not apply to life, or the universe?
Also, why don’t you apply the same strict (and laudable) standards of scepticism that you apply to abiogenesis to, forgive the neologoism, “abiotheogenesis”?
Then why assume life was ‘created”? How do you know God exists? Remember a collection of stories does not count as evidence, every part of the world has one, and many of them are far grander than the Christian one.
Please understand that I am not trying to get into a war of mythologies here. The creation accounts in genesis, and in almost all other mythologies that I mentioned (including the Rigveda) make claims that have been falsified. To me that is a clear proof that if an omniscient, omnipotent god exists, then she hasn’t interacted with humanity yet?
You mix very good arguments with lessor arguments.
I do not assume God. I never have assumed God. I have written elsewhere, but God has spoken to me. I do not write about many of those occasions, but on one occasion he prevented me from encountering a train, I could not see.
Further, you bring up a list of ‘gods’ and prophetic literature that I know nothing about. In my experience that literature, and that set of gods, has had no influence upon my beliefs. Maybe if I had grown up differently,
But, I doubt I would have had the same religious experiences I have had.
And even if I did, that would not detract from what the Bible does say about Creation.
But you do realize the error of basing beliefs about the real world not on the observation of the world itself but on your psychological experiences? You say “God” has spoken to you. I do not doubt the sincerity of your belief (though I doubt its factual accuracy) and respect it. What would you say to a devout Vedantist who claims the same about his God, who has “talked” to him and assured him of the correctness of his beliefs which would be completely in contradiction to your own? Who is right? The Vedantist, or you? And if the Vedantist is wrong, why is he wrong, when there is equal evidence (nigh zero) for the existence of your respective gods outside your own beliefs and experiences. Indeed, contrary to what you said in one of your earlier comments, modern science flatly contradicts the major factual claims of all major world religions, including, but not limited to, virgin birth (not as uncommon in religious mythologies as you would think), rising from the dead (ditto), age of the universe (“orthodox” christianity: 6000-10000 years, most branches of Hindusim: 20 billion years), the position of earth in the cosmos (most religions: geocentrism).
Perhaps I should repeat that I am not trying to doubt the sincerity of your personal beliefs. I am just trying to reiterate the observation you made: that religious beliefs are mostly a function of where and when one happens to be born. I am just trying to add in the conclusion that for this reason, they should not be held in the way of real scientific evidence.
I agree. But, since I lived through my experience, it must in my epistemology have greater rank than that of our Vedantist.
And since one occasion physically saved my life. I have to give it real weight in a meta-physical sense.
Wayne
I can really understand your point. Thanks for being honest that the Vedantist’s position can have a greater rank only in your epistemology, just as his position will have a greater rank only in his his epistemology. If I may say so, I truly appreciate this clarity of thought.
You are welcome. I have always tired to discuss rather than dismiss other views.
Even when I do get angry, I try to remain clear.
Unfortunately, you and I are doing much better than most who discuss this. Personally, I think most people just stay away from this discussion. But, those who do discuss tend to be a little angrier than most of the rest of us.
Wayne
And I agree that my beliefs do not restrain Science.
But,
1. Why should Science restrain me?
2. Why should Science have free reign? The eugenicists last century believed that Science was absolute. They killed many people to further Science.
3. Ironically, many of the same types of research they performed are now performed on bacteria and mice . . . .
Firstly, I should say I am not a big fan of Science with a capital s. “science” is just a process of fining things, nothing more, nothing less.
1. It shouldn’t at all. What I (and I believe most other scientists) would like is for scientific investigation to take its course without it betting fettered by religious doctrines, for history shows us that only when this freedom is granted to science, it can truly work to improve humanity’s understanding of the universe, and to use this understanding to improve the human condition. Imagine where humanity would be if some iconoclasts in several cultures had not promulgated their belief in heliocentrism, for example, while facing the threat of religious persecution. The concern is only that the age of religious dogma taking precedence over rational inquiry should not return.
2) It shouldn’t. As before, I again think this is problem of the “Science with a capital S” syndrome. I don’t hold the process of science as responsible for the miseries that were wrought by the use of the nuclear bomb, or by the killing that went on in the name of science: it was the people who used the results of a scientific inquiry in a warped way who are to be held responsible, not the process itself. However, I do contend that science, and not religious texts, perhaps comprises a greater guide to ethics. The reason I am opposed to eugenics is not because it is opposed to religious doctrine, but simply because it causes pain and suffering. On the other hand, the ideas behind eugenics can have beneficial consequences: it is for example common now for married couples to consider any genetic risks that a potential offspring can have before (for example, through a mismatch of Rh factors).
3. The ethics of scientific research are another matter altogether. I do think that it is somewhat hypocritical for humans to have no qualms eating animals but being opposed to the use of same animals in research. I should declare a personal bias here though: I am a vegetarian, and not for religious reasons.
I appreciate your candor.
I think (2) bothers me most. I always worry when science is not held accountable for the use of science in war, but religion(s) are held accountable when leaders misuse religion.
😉
wayne
I may have been unclear in my first reply, I didn’t mean to suggest that dogs and wolves were split 3 to 4 million years ago but that the genus canis (to which dogs and wolves belong) split off from the other members of the bigger canidae family (like foxes, African wild dogs and other species) about 3-4 million years ago. Dogs and wolves have not actually split into two species as they can still inter-breed to produce fertile off-spring. This is hardly surprising as the first domestication of wolves is believed to have happened about 20000-30000 years ago, a mere blink of an eye on an evolutionary time-scale. Dogs are considered a sub-species of canis lupus (Canis lupus familiaris).
I suppose dog-breeding could theoretically lead to speciation but it’s unlikely. The problem (from a speciation point of view) is that breeding means the purpose-less natural selection has been replaced with human selection which obviously has purpose but not the purpose of speciation. Speciation means the splitting of a lineage into two forms which cannot inter-breed to produce fertile off-spring. Clearly, a dog which only produces sterile off-spring with other dogs would be of no interest to a breeder and so would not be selected for. Of course, if the actual purpose of the breeding was to achieve speciation that would be another matter but that would seem to require in-breeding which comes with its own set of problems.
The way speciation is believed to happen in nature involves some sort of separation between to subsets of a population, either by geography or by different behavioural patterns. Gradually, over many thousands of generations, the two populations drift apart genetically until they can no longer inter-breed to produce fertile off-spring. This is obviously a very different scenario than dog-breeding.
The best current estimate is that the first simple cells appeared about 3.8 billion years ago. The rate of speciation is a highly debated subject among evolutionary biologists but I think we can all agree that this is a pretty long time.
What about abiogenesis?
I gotta finish reading your reply then I’ll get back to abiogenesis ….
Whew!
I’m not sure I like the term “spiritual health”. Specifically, it implies believing in spirits is in some way healthy.
Interesting.
For me spiritual health is believing in God in a healthy way.
There are many who are spiritually unhealthy.
Don’t you agree?
Wayne
I’m interested in how you make the judgements of what is “healthy” or not. Could you give some examples?
I love your “pure logic”. I just posted “Painting on the Wall” a few minutes after you. It relates to what you’re saying. That’s how I just found you, Sir. Think I’ll chk u out very soon, but first I have a yard to mow! What a winter we’re having! Please chk my blog, I think you’ll like it. (I’ll be back!)
Great!