My friend said she was asked the question about faith and science in her

[Thewrongstuff]

Oh, I absolutely appreciate "genetic drift"! Genetic drift is readily observable, BUT it never produces more genes. Right?

Natural selection and genetic drift are observed. Mutations are also observed. What's never been seen is the development of any new function.

Ahem....(these are just some)



8.) Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene.
Hall BG, Zuzel T
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1980 Jun 77:6 3529-33

Abstract​

Mutations that alter the ebgA gene so that the evolved beta-galactosidase (ebg) enzyme of Escherichia coli can hydrolyze lactose fall into two classes: class I mutants use only lactose, whereas class II mutants use lactulose as well as lactose. Neither class uses galactosylarabinose effectively. In this paper we show that when both a class I and a class II mutation are present in the same ebgA gene, ebg enzyme acquires a specificity for galactosylarabinose. Although galactosylarbinose utilization can evolve as the consequence of sequential spontaneous mutations, it can also evolve via intragenic recombination in crosses between class I and class II ebgA+ mutant strains. We show that the sites for class I and class II mutations lie about 1 kilobase, or about a third of the gene, apart in ebgA. Implications of these findings with respect to the evolution of new metabolic functions discussed.​

****
9.) Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions.
Hall BG
Biochemistry 1981 Jul 7 20:14 4042-9

Abstract​

Wild-type ebg enzyme, the second beta-galactosidase of Escherichia coli K12, does not permit growth on lactose. As part of a study of the evolution of new enzymatic functions, I have selected, from a lacZ deletion strain, a variety of spontaneous mutants that grow on lactose and other beta-galactoside sugars. Single point mutations in the structural gene ebgA alter the enzyme so that it hydrolyzes lactose or lactulose effectively; two mutations in ebgA permit galactosylarabinose hydrolysis, while three mutations are required for lactobionic acid hydrolysis. Wild-type ebg enzyme and 16 functional mutant ebg enzymes were purified and analyzed kinetically to determine how the substrate specificities had changed during the directed evolution of these new functions. The specificities for the biologically selected substrates generally increased by at least an order of magnitude via increased Vmax and decreased Km for the substrate. These changes were very specific for the selected substrate, often being accompanied by decreased specificities for other related substrates. The single, double, or triple substitutions in the enzymes did not detectably alter the thermal stability of ebg enzyme.​

----

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Sir Buckethead]

I have seen this ship! As of 4 months ago it was still partially submerged in that same position in Liberia, but I think theyre trying to raise it now. I can't believe that pictures of it are going around the interwebs. I love that ship!

 

[FinchHead]

Good god. Is there seriously only ONE person defending the rational viewpoint? This seriously baffles and saddens me. The amount of ignorant comments in this thread is unbelievable. We got one clown coming in favor of creationism, a bunch of people with some vague, unthoughtout variation on the Christian god, and then others who just have no clue what the hell they are talking about.

Topontheclouds, you have far more patience then I ever could dealing with these *****s. Any time you nail a point on the head, they will roll out from underneath with a joke or a plainly ignorant statement. It's like punching a cloud.

Ghostfoot, you seriously need to be ashamed of yourself for being a creationist. It's simply embarrasing, and you have no place in a science based profession with that level of delusion.

 

[ghostfoot]

There are various types of mutations. Gene/DNA inversion, deletion, insertion, translocation etc... Most of these events create useless results, even detrimental.

However, these anomoalies can in fact lead to positive changes. See
http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

The mutation destroys an active protein. Doesn't creating functions (and all life-forms) require more than that?

 

[Thewrongstuff]

Good god. Is there seriously only ONE person defending the rational viewpoint? This seriously baffles and saddens me. The amount of ignorant comments in this thread is unbelievable. We got one clown coming in favor of creationism, a bunch of people with some vague, unthoughtout variation on the Christian god, and then others who just have no clue what the hell they are talking about.

Topontheclouds, you have far more patience then I ever could dealing with these *****s. Any time you nail a point on the head, they will roll out from underneath with a joke or a plainly ignorant statement. It's like punching a cloud.

Ghostfoot, you seriously need to be ashamed of yourself for being a creationist. It's simply embarrasing, and you have no place in a science based profession with that level of delusion.

Are you joking me?

-

Ghostfoot, some proteins help activate genes that aid in dev. while other proteins supress beneficial genes from what I've read. Which one are you referring to on the site?



BTW, just because the theory of evolution is not complete does not mean it is not correct.

 

[suwaifo]

Good god. Is there seriously only ONE person defending the rational viewpoint? This seriously baffles and saddens me. The amount of ignorant comments in this thread is unbelievable. We got one clown coming in favor of creationism, a bunch of people with some vague, unthoughtout variation on the Christian god, and then others who just have no clue what the hell they are talking about.

Topontheclouds, you have far more patience then I ever could dealing with these *****s. Any time you nail a point on the head, they will roll out from underneath with a joke or a plainly ignorant statement. It's like punching a cloud.

Ghostfoot, you seriously need to be ashamed of yourself for being a creationist. It's simply embarrasing, and you have no place in a science based profession with that level of delusion.

Actually, I haven't said all of what I really want to say . I've diverged to jokes because this situation has obviously become an argument between two walls that won't collapse. Finchhead, you are a *****. 'nuff said. Don't ever tell anyone what to be ashamed of, you don't know jack. Who says I have the authority to judge you? I don't. But you still are ignorant. Science ain't so grand, science is just a word they tack on so that no one flames scientists like they do clergymen. I tried to avoid making personal attacks and what not but wow. Are you going to say, "oh this guy says "ain't" he must not be good at studying science!" If so, I wouldn't be surprised. You think our thoughts are unthought out? I'm utterly amazed but unlike you, I'm pretty hopeful that you'd grow up one day.
You think your words are bold because you clicked bold? No points have been nailed, many other points were ignored, and this has become a thread for people to vent and rant. If you haven't figured that out yet, grow up kiddy. Finchhead, you obviously can't see beyond what's empirical. Perfect for a scientific profession, am I right?

 

[suwaifo]

Are you joking me?

-

Ghostfoot, some proteins help activate genes that aid in dev. while other proteins supress beneficial genes from what I've read. Which one are you referring to on the site?



BTW, just because the theory of evolution is not complete does not mean it is not correct.

Looks like someone needs to review the definition of theory. How can a theory ever be incorrect within itself?

 

[Thewrongstuff]

Looks like someone needs to review the definition of theory. How can a theory ever be incorrect within itself?

First, you are nitpicking.


Second, from Campbell

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

From another biologist:


Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change


Third, why cant a theory be incorrect?

—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

 

[suwaifo]

First, you are nitpicking.


Second, from Campbell

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

From another biologist:


Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change


Third, why cant a theory be incorrect?

—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

There's a difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

 

[MattD]

Do I really need to request that you take a course in grammar? My grammar may not be perfect, but at least I know where capitalizations go.

No but you can request that I take a course in keyboard repair, so that my glitchy shift key will work more better.

ass

 

[FinchHead]

my glitchy shift key will work more better.

Hee hee

 

[Thewrongstuff]

There's a difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

Ok and? That was pretty random.

 

[axlaxl1]

Wow, great morning read.

 

[VoiceofReason]

This thread is sickening. At least the other thread had some intelligent discussion, this one is full of staggering ignorance. The majority of this does not even warrant a response.


The reason you guys have such trouble with the idea of life arising through natural processes is that it's difficult for a human to comprehend the vast expanses of time that we're talking about here. Evolution, and certainly abiogenesis, both take place on geological time scales... or think of it this way:

It is theoretically possible for life to have arisen naturally, even though the chance is statistically low. But what happens to a statistical chance on a long enough timeline? It approaches 100% likelihood.

Peace.

 

[nevercold]

First and foremost, some of you are debating the existence and/or role of God based on the scientific study of evolution and the physical history of the known Universe. The very first mistake being made here is that you are debating something that you have not even defined. You must proffer a definition of "God" or else derive a hypothetical definition of "God" as an initial step in making an argument either way.

Unfortunately, many atheists and agnostics do a very poor job of this because they cast this entity being called "God" into an anthropomorphic role which is much easier to disprove but an incorrect representation of what we are really discussing. Ironically, monotheists often do the same. At the very core of any definition of "God," believer or not, is some nature of an infinite being. As finite beings within a system, it is impossible for us to comprehend this infinity (the consequence of understanding infinity is to become infinite oneself).

The argument becomes whether or not to have "faith" that the infinity that exists beyond and throughout our physical Universe has sentient properties. This is the true decision point between atheists and monotheists. There is NO aspect of the physical world that can prove conclusively that a "God" exists or does not exist. The argument that random chance within our physical system is perfectly capable of producing the life and diversity we see today does not to address the origin of the material nor the occupation of infinity. There are philosophical arguments that get into this decision, but they are long and you can read them in your leisure (pronounced leh-zhure all snobby-like).

 

[BigMDT]

if you think being a scientist is very much like a fictional character in an old book, i wont argue against that.

heck...if we wanted to, we could make parallels between the American struggle for democracy and the story, "Star Wars".....that doesnt make "Star Wars" true now does it?

at the end of the day, science gives us reasonable predicting power about a large number of phenomenon, and we can use it to mold our environment.... religion is usually cemented in some written work and is almost soley based on faith in things that usually cannot be proven or disproven, nor can religion be used effectively to give us the results we want ---ie praying for a cancer victim and negging any medical treatment is probably going to kill someone.

just bc a book parellels what science does doesnt necessarily bring legitamacy to that book.....

 

[axlaxl1]

First and foremost, some of you are debating the existence and/or role of God based on the scientific study of evolution and the physical history of the known Universe. The very first mistake being made here is that you are debating something that you have not even defined. You must proffer a definition of "God" or else derive a hypothetical definition of "God" as an initial step in making an argument either way.

Unfortunately, many atheists and agnostics do a very poor job of this because they cast this entity being called "God" into an anthropomorphic role which is much easier to disprove but an incorrect representation of what we are really discussing. Ironically, monotheists often do the same. At the very core of any definition of "God," believer or not, is some nature of an infinite being. As finite beings within a system, it is impossible for us to comprehend this infinity (the consequence of understanding infinity is to become infinite oneself).

The argument becomes whether or not to have "faith" that the infinity that exists beyond and throughout our physical Universe has sentient properties. This is the true decision point between atheists and monotheists. There is NO aspect of the physical world that can prove conclusively that a "God" exists or does not exist. The argument that random chance within our physical system is perfectly capable of producing the life and diversity we see today does not to address the origin of the material nor the occupation of infinity. There are philosophical arguments that get into this decision, but they are long and you can read them in your leisure (pronounced leh-zhure all snobby-like).

What I am saying is that I have faith and believe in my faith and god. Whatsmore is that I believe in science as well. For me this is a good combination. Why is that such a problem?

 

[VoiceofReason]

What I am saying is that I have faith and believe in my faith and god. Whatsmore is that I believe in science as well. For me this is a good combination. Why is that such a problem?

Because a scientist's entire training model is in a sense the ultimate brand of skepticism, and to believe in God as a scientist therefore requires a huge mental disconnect.

Scientifically, there isn't a single piece of evidence for the existence of a God, and it could even be argued that the absence of evidence is actually evidence of absence (if we're to assume that God is like the christian god, for example.). Therefore it is manifestly rational and logical to judge that the notion "god exists" is at best, inane and, at worst, primitive and childish.

No two things necessarily have a reason to come into conflict just by virtue of being separate and different. However most religions contain a certain set of (from a scientific viewpoint) myths that are assumed to be true (from the religious viewpoint). Therein lies the conflict, and it is very real.

It is difficult to practice good science and simultaneously hold the view that "god exists." It takes an extraordinary internal disconnect in one's brain to do so. So much that I'm amazed that any scientists believe in any sort of "higher power" at all. A scientist's entire post-secondary and collegiate training is, at its core, one long specialization of the ultimate brand of skepticism. The fact that there are any "religious" scientists at all isn't a testament to the veracity of their religion (religious scientists don't all practice the same religion); it's a testament to the deep rooted level of brainwashing that takes place at an early age, and/or the lengths to which people--even the most rationally minded people on the planet--will go for emotional comfort.

The reason that science and religion clash so often is that one is concerned with understanding what is real, and another is concerned with imposing its own version of what is real. Fundamentally different goals and procedures lead to conflict.

 

[armybound]

One could reconcile their faith and scientific beliefs if you see them as separate, distinct concepts. You believe in the sanctity of life so you're against abortion but you believe in justice, so you're pro-death penalty. To say you believe in both is contradictory, but they're separate issues with special cases, so you can reconcile them.

I've been a scientist for a while and am just now trying to have faith and become a christian. I can tell you that the absolute most difficult part of the process is trying to believe something that has no proof suggesting it's real after you're taught to scrutinize things based on evidence presented.

 

[axlaxl1]

One could reconcile their faith and scientific beliefs if you see them as separate, distinct concepts. You believe in the sanctity of life so you're against abortion but you believe in justice, so you're pro-death penalty. To say you believe in both is contradictory, but they're separate issues with special cases, so you can reconcile them.

I've been a scientist for a while and am just now trying to have faith and become a christian. I can tell you that the absolute most difficult part of the process is trying to believe something that has no proof suggesting it's real after you're taught to scrutinize things based on evidence presented.

for me it was the exact same thing however when I saw how neat and wonderful things are through god I accepted science and god together. For me god was the baddest scientist of them all. i am happy you are finding your faith. In the least it will only make you a better person. just stay away from the Fox News chanel.

 

[MattD]

Anyone else notice the subtle and likely unconscious deification of science itself that seems to take place in many atheist scientists minds? Not trying to rile anyone up, I just find it interesting.

 

[VoiceofReason]

Anyone else notice the subtle and likely unconscious deification of science itself that seems to take place in many atheist scientists minds? Not trying to rile anyone up, I just find it interesting.

I think you're seeing things that aren't there. Care to provide an example?

 

[dd128]

for me it was the exact same thing however when I saw how neat and wonderful things are through god I accepted science and god together. For me god was the baddest scientist of them all. i am happy you are finding your faith. In the least it will only make you a better person. just stay away from the Fox News chanel.

So I've been reading over this thread and the other evolution thread and there seem to be a lot of parallels. Either way, religious topics aren't going to be handled well in a forum where mostly bio buffs reside, myself included. And I'm afraid to say that a lot of your claims with how perfect certain things work in nature is not evidence of God. It's called "God in the Gaps" and is not a good way to have faith. And in all honesty to compare God to a scientist just seems a tad weird...

And nothing is wrong with fox news

 

[FinchHead]

for me it was the exact same thing however when I saw how neat and wonderful things are through god I accepted science and god together. For me god was the baddest scientist of them all. i am happy you are finding your faith. In the least it will only make you a better person. just stay away from the Fox News chanel.

This is the kind of thinking that develops when your intellect is dulled by constantly talking to and being around simple people who think this kind of sentiment is not vapid.

 

[axlaxl1]

And I'm afraid to say that a lot of your claims with how perfect certain things work in nature is not evidence of God. It's called "God in the Gaps" and is not a good way to have faith. And in all honesty to compare God to a scientist just seems a tad weird...

And nothing is wrong with fox news

OK close your eyes. Imagine you were the worlds greatest scientist, your IQ is 325 and you can manipulate genes anyway you want them and you have discovered every stem cell and embryonic stem cell that will produce anything and everything you want. You can manipulate genes and dna, hell you can create your own genes and DNA. You're telling me you wouldn't think and or act like you were a god that is essentially a scientist?

Of course god was a scientist what the heck else explains all this stuff?

 

[VoiceofReason]

OK close your eyes. Imagine you were the worlds greatest scientist, your IQ is 325 and you can manipulate genes anyway you want them and you have discovered every stem cell and embryonic stem cell that will produce anything and everything you want. You can manipulate genes and dna, hell you can create your own genes and DNA. You're telling me you wouldn't think and or act like you were a god that is essentially a scientist?

Of course god was a scientist what the heck else explains all this stuff?

lol

 

[qtpai]

Believing in God has nothing to do with doing good science, which explains the fact that, indeed, nearly all the greatest scientists have been theists. This is because science is not a mode of thinking but simply a method through which a particular mode is directed. While, in training, one's mode of thinking is consistently such that one can employ the method of science, this does not exclude other modes of thinking, which can be employed in the service of other methods, such as the method of spirituality. Science, then, is not a frame of mind but merely a method through which an a priori mode of thinking can be directed to discern empirical truths about the world--one which is more adept in some individuals than in other individuals, and one which can be cultivated. To say, then, that a scientist must be an agnostic is to fundamentally misunderstand what it is to be a scientist and what it is to be a theist. In fact, I think it fundamentally misunderstands being.

 

[variablistic]

Believing in God has nothing to do with doing good science, which explains the fact that, indeed, nearly all the greatest scientists have been theists. This is because science is not a mode of thinking but simply a method through which a particular mode is directed. While, in training, one's mode of thinking is consistently such that one can employ the method of science, this does not exclude other modes of thinking, which can be employed in the service of other methods, such as the method of spirituality. Science, then, is not a frame of mind but merely a method through which an a priori mode of thinking can be directed to discern empirical truths about the world--one which is more adept in some individuals than in other individuals, and one which can be cultivated. To say, then, that a scientist must be an agnostic is to fundamentally misunderstand what it is to be a scientist and what it is to be a theist. In fact, I think it fundamentally misunderstands being.

I must disagree. As scientists, our minds are permanently warped. How many times did we all learn the "scientific method." It's a funny notion, as we all rolled our eyes at it in college after having it pounded into our heads since 3rd grade. But you take X many courses in the sciences and pretty soon you begin to think in the terms of the scientific method. Why Why Why. The scientific method is no longer a method, but it is, as in your words, a frame of mind. I believe that to a scientist, attempting to employ a different "method of thinking" such as a "method of spirituality" is denying the self.

 

[NewmansOwn]

One could reconcile their faith and scientific beliefs if you see them as separate, distinct concepts. You believe in the sanctity of life so you're against abortion but you believe in justice, so you're pro-death penalty. To say you believe in both is contradictory, but they're separate issues with special cases, so you can reconcile them.

I've been a scientist for a while and am just now trying to have faith and become a christian. I can tell you that the absolute most difficult part of the process is trying to believe something that has no proof suggesting it's real after you're taught to scrutinize things based on evidence presented.

Are you implying that a pro-choice individual does not believe in the sanctity of life, or an anti-death penalty individual does not believe in justice? Or was this purely theoretical...

Also, out of sheer curiousity, why have you decided to become a christian now? Do you find science's answers/postulations unsatisfactory?

 

[DeadCactus]

That really is a horrible, horrible reply. You couldn't present a more misinformed view of either science or religion if you just bypassed the answer and made balloon animals instead...

 

[coffeebythelake]

There's a difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

You mean... like there is a difference between pennies and dollars?

 

[coffeebythelake]

OK close your eyes. Imagine you were the worlds greatest scientist, your IQ is 325 and you can manipulate genes anyway you want them and you have discovered every stem cell and embryonic stem cell that will produce anything and everything you want. You can manipulate genes and dna, hell you can create your own genes and DNA. You're telling me you wouldn't think and or act like you were a god that is essentially a scientist?

Of course god was a scientist what the heck else explains all this stuff?

One problem with your logic. You haven't proved god exist.

 

[armybound]

Are you implying that a pro-choice individual does not believe in the sanctity of life, or an anti-death penalty individual does not believe in justice? Or was this purely theoretical...

Also, out of sheer curiousity, why have you decided to become a christian now? Do you find science's answers/postulations unsatisfactory?

I offered that as an example of being able to believe in two seemingly contradictory ideas. If you value life, why would you be pro-death penalty? A life is a life, right? Of course people can believe both.. I'm anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.

Honestly, I'm mainly looking at becoming a christian because my wife is a christian and it's important to her. Crappy reason, I know. I like science and I'll always be a scientist first, but I do see the benefit of having faith, having that being that relieves the pressure of always having to be perfect and in control. It's a release valve.

 

[Maxprime]

Believing in God has nothing to do with doing good science, which explains the fact that, indeed, nearly all the greatest scientists have been theists.

I agree that people can compartmentalize their beliefs into work (science) and personal (religion).

But I think you will find that your statement about nearly all great scientists being theists is incorrect. I mean . . . Einstein, Feynman, Hardy, Curie, Pauling, Turing, Watson, Sagan, Darwin, just for the more recent ones that we can confirm.

We could also say that most great scientists were racists, as racism has unfortunately existed throughout most of human history.

 

[axlaxl1]

One problem with your logic. You haven't proved god exist.

I believe! And that is good enough for me. Actually I will take it a step further. I believe in science, I know god is real.

Think about all of the science that we really don't knoknw that is all theory based because we don't have the ability to see an atom or electron. We have hiesenbergy (yea spelling I know) uncertiny principles and a bunch of other close assumptions but really not fact. Yes there are a few laws in science but not as many as you'd think.

 

[NewmansOwn]

I believe! And that is good enough for me. Actually I will take it a step further. I believe in science, I know god is real.

Think about all of the science that we really don't knoknw that is all theory based because we don't have the ability to see an atom or electron. We have hiesenbergy (yea spelling I know) uncertiny principles and a bunch of other close assumptions but really not fact. Yes there are a few laws in science but not as many as you'd think.

But no one understands how you 'know' "God" is real...You're not making any sense.

 

[Maxprime]

I believe! And that is good enough for me. Actually I will take it a step further. I believe in science, I know god is real.

Think about all of the science that we really don't knoknw that is all theory based because we don't have the ability to see an atom or electron. We have hiesenbergy (yea spelling I know) uncertiny principles and a bunch of other close assumptions but really not fact. Yes there are a few laws in science but not as many as you'd think.

I'll use similar logic.

Think about what we don't know . . . etc. We can't see infrared light without some fancy machine, maybe it doesn't exist, etc. Therefore, there could be a teapot orbiting around Jupiter. I believe it, therefore it's true.

One of my favorites - "Gravity is just a theory, why don't you jump out of a plane and let me know how that goes?"

I have a good question for you. How are you so sure that your personal god exists and that all the other religions are wrong? The big 3 are all pretty much the same, but if you guess wrong you're stuck in hell with the rest of us.

 

[axlaxl1]

I'll use similar logic.

Think about what we don't know . . . etc. We can't see infrared light without some fancy machine, maybe it doesn't exist, etc. Therefore, there could be a teapot orbiting around Jupiter. I believe it, therefore it's true.

One of my favorites - "Gravity is just a theory, why don't you jump out of a plane and let me know how that goes?"

Yes, but what about anti-gravity or dark matter for that isntance. They say that the current explanation of gravity by mass is amazingly off. That there must be some amazing energy source dubbed (dark matter) and they are building airplane hangers full of the worlds most amazing technological equipment to find out about it. So while jumping out of a plane might be easy to figure out that we will fall is because our little human brains have figured it has to do with some physical properties means that there is no god? OK you got me convinced.

You probably don't even believe in Santa Claus

 

[Maxprime]

Yes, but what about anti-gravity or dark matter for that isntance. They say that the current explanation of gravity by mass is amazingly off. That there must be some amazing energy source dubbed (dark matter) and they are building airplane hangers full of the worlds most amazing technological equipment to find out about it. So while jumping out of a plane might be easy to figure out that we will fall is because our little human brains have figured it has to do with some physical properties means that there is no god? OK you got me convinced.

My example was to show you that your logic is flawed. Thank you for telling me that my similar example's logic was flawed. I appreciate the help.

You probably don't even believe in Santa Claus

Guilty as charged.

 

[axlaxl1]

now Santa is not real. What is this world coming to? sad sad.


lol, lighten up. I believe in god and in science and when I raise my family and have my practice I will keep everything into perspective.

 

[ryan464]

I know who Francis Collins is... but do you? Are you aware that since writing his book, Collins has conceded that there is no evidence for god and that he merely believes in the possibility of god's existence? By the way, I agree with this point. Scientists should believe in the possibility of everything.

No where in his book does Collins advocate anything but evolution through natural selection. And in this book he says science can neither prove nor disprove god. His point was to dispel the idea that one must side with either God or Darwin; they can both live in harmony. And your claim that he merely believes in the possiblity of god's existence is false; as i just saw an interview with him a month ago discussing his faith, which is still very much Christian (unless it has suddenly changed in the last month).

 

[axlaxl1]

No where in his book does Collins advocate anything but evolution through natural selection. And in this book he says science can neither prove nor disprove god. His point was to dispel the idea that one must side with either God or Darwin; they can both live in harmony. And your claim that he merely believes in the possiblity of god's existence is false; as i just saw an interview with him a month ago discussing his faith, which is still very much Christian (unless it has suddenly changed in the last month).

I'll go one step further. Darwin is fine in my opinion. I believe in evolution. why not? All one has to do is tamper with the genetic code a bit and wa la you have a new species on your hands. What if god first just wanted dinasours and millions of years later said you know what, I am going to make a being in my image and lets see what he/she will do. why is this so hard to give a chance? I like what Collins has to say and I am waiting on his book.

 

[NewmansOwn]

I'll go one step further. Darwin is fine in my opinion. I believe in evolution. why not? All one has to do is tamper with the genetic code a bit and wa la you have a new species on your hands. What if god first just wanted dinasours and millions of years later said you know what, I am going to make a being in my image and lets see what he/she will do. why is this so hard to give a chance? I like what Collins has to say and I am waiting on his book.

It's not hard to give a chance -- no one is horrified by the idea of god existing. The problem is, you have claimed to KNOW god exists, but lack any evidence outside of your own personal belief.

"Knowledge - the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning"

This is the definition of knowledge. So what's your reasoning?

 

[littlealex]

Interview.

She gave me her answer of what she said but I thought of it like this.

"I believe in god more now than ever after pursing a biology degree. We as scientist are all trying to be like god and that is the basis of the ongoing pursuit of science." you like you like?

Take it go ahead. I have quotes that will blow you away.

Scientists don't really give a crap about god, nor are we trying to be like god. We pursue the truth through free thinking. God is the one that supposedly kicked humans out of eden for thinking for themselves.

"Free will," but only if you support me. Practice your free will instead of worshipping me mindlessly? Go to hell. Mindlessly follow every written word I say? Welcome to heaven.

If we were all trying to be good Christians, none of us would had questioned the word of god and pursued medicine. You're dying of cancer? It must be god punishing your sins. Pray to the lord and thou shall be healed.

So no, the pursuit of truth is the basis of science. God's got nothing to do with it.

---

As for the dinosaur theory, great, whatever. The trouble is that if god is perfect, you figured he would had included that part in the bible. I guess you can argue that the bible is imperfect, if so, how closely should we follow it? If it is not inspired by god, and instead written by humans, shouldn't we treat it as a good book instead of The Book?

---

A note on those that bash religious people for the faith aspect. The truth is that being an atheist takes as much faith as being a religious person. Because we CANNOT possibly know if the answer is True or False, it is 50/50 either way. For those of us that believe in evolution and science and free will and truth, we specifically believe in those things. There's not to say that a form of higher being could not had created the origin of life, then left it running and evolving by itself. We simply cannot know, but we, through faith, choose to believe that life can form spontaneously.

I reject not the concept of god, but the organised religion's attempt to prevent the followers from thinking for themselves. I believe the only way a truly logical person whose goal is to pursue truth and not blindly accept the information offered to him, but STILL believe in god, is to logically reject the parts of bible and organized religion that does NOT fit the evidence in the world. The bible said that the world was created in 7 days and you don't think so? Well eff the bible. The church believes god hates gay people and cites scriptures to prove it? Well eff the church. The commandments said that if you worship a false idol, you'd be sinning? Well eff the commandments. Doesn't it seem illogical that if you lead an honest, good life dedicated to serving others and end up in hell? If it IS illogical, then the purpose of life should be to lead a good life WITH or WITHOUT god. Given such a concept, god becomes obsolete.

Treat religion as nothing more than it is: information that suggests how to live a happy life. Never abandon logic in favor religious conformity.

 

[armybound]

yeah, Christians really bother me with the "knowing" god exists thing.. you ask for proof and they say he "reveals himself to me" and "talks to me" and stuff like that. that's kinda crazy. I think there's nothing wrong with faith, but saying you have proof is a little silly.

 

[joyrunner]

I just finished reading this thread as well as the other one that ended up as a creationism/evolution debate.

I think that the original post for this thread is a valid one that deserves respectful discussion. There are many pre-meds who are religious and will be interviewing for med schools this year, and I would appreciate some discussion on what one would say to a question on faith and medicine.

I've been informed ad-nauseum about the beliefs of some people posting on this thread and the other thread. I respect that you are informed, but relax a bit on the debating. It's not helpful to the purpose of the thread. An answer to how you would respond to a prompt on your belief system (by an adcom member) would be.

 

[Maxprime]

An answer to how you would respond to a prompt on your belief system (by an adcom member) would be.

I've thought about this some - especially since I live in the South. Southern Christians, in my experience, are generally very hostile towards atheists.

I think questions about such matters are fair game in med school interviews (I've heard much worse), but there should be a point to the question. If they asked simply what my faith was and moved on, I would be disturbed by what the point of the question was.

If an issue came up, I'd reply that, in an era of evidence-based medicine, my personal belief system has no effect on what I will do for my patient. If any issues of belief systems arise, they should be concerns of the patient.

 

[axlaxl1]

I just finished reading this thread as well as the other one that ended up as a creationism/evolution debate.

I think that the original post for this thread is a valid one that deserves respectful discussion. There are many pre-meds who are religious and will be interviewing for med schools this year, and I would appreciate some discussion on what one would say to a question on faith and medicine.

I've been informed ad-nauseum about the beliefs of some people posting on this thread and the other thread. I respect that you are informed, but relax a bit on the debating. It's not helpful to the purpose of the thread. An answer to how you would respond to a prompt on your belief system (by an adcom member) would be.

You have made a great point. Ethical questions, especially about treating someone in some hypo situation in regards to that person's religion or ethnicity are always common questions in interviews. What I hope my response did is gave the person the understanding I believe in my faith but I am totally comfortable with science too. Really that is all I am saying.

 

[variablistic]

It's not helpful to the purpose of the thread. An answer to how you would respond to a prompt on your belief system (by an adcom member) would be.

Some possible questions that may address this issue:

What is the relationship between science and medicine?

What kind of role should religion have in medicine?

In your PS, you mention your faith... etc. How do you personally reconcile the inherent differences between science and religion?

In short, I would talk about how medicine is science, but that I would never discredit a patient's belief system.

 

[MattD]

I've thought about this some - especially since I live in the South. Southern Christians, in my experience, are generally very hostile towards atheists.

I'm not going to debate the existence of God on this forum, as it's kind of an exercise in futility. I am curious though, why it is that so many of the athiests on here are SO hostile towards the theists? I mean, yeah, usually the complaint is that religious folk are always pushing their faith on others. But I've very rarely seen someone on here try to tell people they're going to go to hell or whatnot for being an atheist. I do VERY frequently see atheists badgering the religious mercilessly about how stupid, uninformed, and illogical they are, and how they can't POSSIBLY have religious faith and still be a good scientist (and by extension, doctor I suppose). So to those hostile atheists, I ask, what is it that threats/bothers you SO much about someone else having religious faith? It's a belief that has no impact on you personally whatsoever! So why the hostility?