OK I seriously wanted to know this....

[SocialistMD]

But I think there are plenty of places in medicine - immunology and psychiatry come to mind - where a grounding in evolutionary theory could provide a lot of insight, even if they aren't necessary per se to contribute. My own statement was based on my exploration of Darwinian medicine; I definitely think it has a contribution to make to medicine, and I see some immediate ways in which evolutionary theory should impact the treatment of disease (or at the very least, give grounds for further exploration of particular issues).

Darwinian medicine is but one area of a vast field in which one could work, and saying the concept of evolution is all but necessary to make a contribution in the field of medicine is a stretch at best. Even in immunology, you don't have to explain why something is the way it is to define what it is, what it does and how to modify it to one's advantage (enhance it for cancer or suppress it for transplant). If anything, I think the advances can be used to indirectly support evolutionary theory rather than the other way around; most discoveries are made first, with their evolutionary origin postulated later.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SocialistMD]

Thanks, it's nice to see my fan club is still up and running I'm glad you're still obsessed with replying to my posts, pal.

Not to deflate your ego, but I wouldn't call it an obsession...

 

[leechy]

Darwinian medicine is but one area of a vast field in which one could work, and saying the concept of evolution is all but necessary to make a contribution in the field of medicine is a stretch at best. Even in immunology, you don't have to explain why something is the way it is to define what it is, what it does and how to modify it to one's advantage (enhance it for cancer or suppress it for transplant). If anything, I think the advances can be used to indirectly support evolutionary theory rather than the other way around; most discoveries are made first, with their evolutionary origin postulated later.

Well, I don't want to debate, since we are 90% in agreement; like I said before, I don't rule out a creationist being able to contribute. Re-reading my posts, I don't think I stated that evolution is "all but necessary to make a contribution to the field of medicine"; I said a lot of things in academic medicine / research don't make sense to me except in the context of evolution, and I see medicine as a subset of biology. But I totally agree that I may be wrong in extending that assumption to other people.

I suppose the best way of stating my position is that I see a disbelief in evolution as an unfortunate loss to an academic medical researcher, as it closes off an additional source of insight, but not necessarily a crippling one. I do know that I personally would feel crippled without it, though. Many of the medical questions I'd like to investigate are based on my study of evolution.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

There you go, Psycho. You hate when people judge you by one comment, but here you just can't resist getting in a little dig on homosexuals by saying that they're not comfortable with themselves, which is far from the truth. You're doing several things here: judging a group based on your interactions with a few; implying that homosexual lifestyle is wrong and that homosexuals themselves "know" they're wrong; and that homosexuals "bash" others, which is so far from the truth, considering it is gay people in this country who face hatred from the general masses (and from you.) That's pretty offensive, PSYCHO.

Let's reconstruct the scenario that insued my comment; perhaps you'll better understand, but probably not b/c you really don't want to.

Reckoning, you're so smart, and I love the arguments put forth. However, I think the pathology of psycho is quite simple. Methinks the psycho is gay. Gay, gay, gay.

i.e. your argument has hit a brick wall so you feel the need to personally insult people as a last resort.

that's exacxtly what i thought, so i decided to ignore it.

It's interesting that homosexual people aren't confident in their own lifestyle that they feel it's a mechanism to bash others.

I will ignore the rest because you obviously have a problem. In fact i will ignore you from now on and I suggest you do the same for me by also utilizing the "ignore" feature. Good day, have a good life, stinkycheese. May you find happiness somewhere in something more constructive.

 

[GuyLaroche]

Pot, meet kettle.

When phrased that way, the meaning of the expression "pot calling the kettle black" is lost. I am sure that pot is quite familiar with kettle - both being well-used kitchen utensils and all - and they do not need you to reacquint them with each other. No, I believe the expression arises from pot making an accusation against kettle that applies to pot as well. It was not a matter of never having met.

 

[NPursuit]

Okay I'll take you up on that.



Here you make a personal attack on someone because she states she's an atheist.

Nah, she fully deserved that one. She was being a total @##ch momma prick on that one.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I don't think there is anything wrong with believing in God as a scientist -- I do -- but I just think it requires a totally different mode of thinking. Science is evidence-based, while religion is faith-based (and consequently cannot be proved or disproved)

If you chose not to believe in "DNA" or "hard scientific evidence," that's fine. Just know that a lot of therapeutic modalities you will administer and prescribe to your patients are grounded in the sciences.

i don't see why you can't believe in DNA, genetics, scientific evidence, etc and still believe in creation.

 

[Gut Shot]

Note I mentioned religiosity correlates to charitability. Europe is probably the least religious place on earth at the moment.

Ah, so all those European heathens are greedy too? Since we all know that correlation does not indicate causation, I would like to point out that modern Europe has obviated much of the need for charitable giving by their chosen social and political structures. Who needs church-run homeless shelters and soup kitchens when there is such a huge publicly-funded, government run safety net for the citizenry? I'm not arguing that Europe does things any better or worse than we do, but they have chosen a higher tax burden and a so-called "welfare state" in order to keep people out of poverty. In fact, if you view European taxes as compulsory charity, they might be some of the most charitable folks on the planet.

The rise of these socialist democracies in Western Europe has nicely paralleled the decline of religious sentiment in that part of the world. It's a fascinating topic that I have recently become interested in. I'm waiting for my copy of "Sacred and Secular : Religion and Politics Worldwide" by Pippa Norris, et al. to arrive in the mail so I can begin some more reading.

To quote the lone review of this book on Amazon: "The single strongest argument to be found in this book -- shown through extensive data anayis, rich evidence, and clear thinking -- is that societies where people have enough to eat, housing, healthcare, good education, and jobs are societies marked by LOW religiosity: few go to church and few believe in God or that the Bible is divine. Conversely, societies whyere life is precarious, marked by poverty, corruption, sickness, low education and unemployment, are societies marked by high degrees of religiosity. "

Incidentally, which of those descriptions best fits Mississippi (#1 for charitable giving in the US)?

 

[sweatybrain]

That was really a response to Crake.

But really, how does one reconcile the concept of the immaculate conception (assuming that you believe in that part of the bible) with modern concepts of genetics? I am opened to the idea that genetics as we know it today needs revision.

What's your take?

Edit:

I'd also like to know if you can point me out to scientific evidence that supports creationism. thanks in advance.

 

[DianaLynne]

Sigh.

Guys, its all "to each their own." I think we owe people who choose to have strong faith in a God respect for their beliefs, without denouncing it, and people whose sexual orientation might differ from us the same thing. No one knows all the right answers to everything. The only thing we can know for sure is what is right for ourselves.

However, I think it is cruelly unfair, just in a general aside, to compare the persecution faced by Christians to the persecutions faced by homosexuals in this country today. My little brother came out of the closet two years ago, and I would lose an arm and a leg to rid him of the pain that he's had to go through, at age 16 at that. I know there was a time where if he could somehow "turn himself straight," he would have done anything possible, and actually attempted suicide because he couldn't live with it. This story isn't uncommon for a lot of adolescents struggling with their sexuality, but I would say that it is extremely rare if not completely unheard of for Christians in this country. The two are utterly incomparable.

I admit, it's just an analogy and analogies are by nature flawed, but I disagree that they are incomparable. They are comparable. Realize that I myself am bisexual and have endured the loss of friends and family when I revealed that I am in a long term relationship with a woman. I have personally been attacked for who I am and have struggled to come to terms with my own spiritual beliefs, which have strong roots in Christianity.

I have read Psycho's posts and have occasionally been offended by their nature. They have sometimes come off as homophobic. But I feel that this thread is an excellent chance to draw a comparison between the persecution he feels from this mostly liberal group and how he comes off in some of his homophobic posts. I was hoping that he and some of those in his camp could get a dose of empathy from here. Because jeez, we're pretty rough on him.

I wish that these threads were more of an opportunity to learn about other ideas and how belief systems can coexist. Instead, we type "You're wrong, let me correct the error of your ways." Maybe Psycho will go into med school with an appreciation of those different than him (sounds like he's well on his way, I think you're great, Psycho, hang in there!) and we will let Christians have their beliefs.

So, take my analogy for what it is.

 

[GuyLaroche]

I admit, it's just an analogy and analogies are by nature flawed, but I disagree that they are incomparable. They are comparable. Realize that I myself am bisexual and have endured the loss of friends and family when I revealed that I am in a long term relationship with a woman. I have personally been attacked for who I am and have struggled to come to terms with my own spiritual beliefs, which have strong roots in Christianity.

I have read Psycho's posts and have occasionally been offended by their nature. They have sometimes come off as homophobic. But I feel that this thread is an excellent chance to draw a comparison between the persecution he feels from this mostly liberal group and how he comes off in some of his homophobic posts. I was hoping that he and some of those in his camp could get a dose of empathy from here. Because jeez, we're pretty rough on him.

I wish that these threads were more of an opportunity to learn about other ideas and how belief systems can coexist. Instead, we type "You're wrong, let me correct the error of your ways." Maybe Psycho will go into med school with an appreciation of those different than him (sounds like he's well on his way, I think you're great, Psycho, hang in there!) and we will let Christians have their beliefs.

So, take my analogy for what it is.

Each time I read a DianLynne post, I just feel the urge to sigh: "Oh Diana!"
If I can guess anything about her personality from her posts, it'd be that she is composed, mature, eloquent, tall.... Oh Diana!

 

[ajt2003]

Each time I read a DianLynne post, I just feel the urge to sigh: "Oh Diana!"
If I can guess anything about her personality from her posts, it'd be that she is composed, mature, eloquent, tall.... Oh Diana!

Don't forget hot - have you seen her pic?

Totally.

Keep on keepin' on...

 

[DianaLynne]

You guys are too cute! You just like me cuz I'm bi!

 

[SocialistMD]

Well, I don't want to debate, since we are 90% in agreement; like I said before, I don't rule out a creationist being able to contribute. Re-reading my posts, I don't think I stated that evolution is "all but necessary to make a contribution to the field of medicine"; I said a lot of things in academic medicine / research don't make sense to me except in the context of evolution, and I see medicine as a subset of biology. But I totally agree that I may be wrong in extending that assumption to other people.

I suppose the best way of stating my position is that I see a disbelief in evolution as an unfortunate loss to an academic medical researcher, as it closes off an additional source of insight, but not necessarily a crippling one. I do know that I personally would feel crippled without it, though. Many of the medical questions I'd like to investigate are based on my study of evolution.

And I hoped you meant as much, I just wanted to clarify.

 

[medstyle]

Psychodoctor, you truely live up to the name.

And Dianalynne, I fully endorse your struggle to embrace bisexuality. In fact, I am still trying to convert my girlfriend. If you have more pictures, kindly let me know, you sexy little minx.

Anyway, I think the point of this discussion is that this kid probably won't have many friends at any school.

I don't like the these Christian threads because I hate hearing people try to meld science and faith together. If you believe in god, great, but there is and will never be proof for it. And you cannot dispute what you actually see and observe. Thats why science will always give you the best explanation for anything and religion will always be a maybe. Why is that so hard to grasp?

 

[SocialistMD]

When phrased that way, the meaning of the expression "pot calling the kettle black" is lost.

But you still seemed to know what I meant...maybe the meaning of my expression wasn't lost, afterall.

 

[sumfratrisamor]

I don't like the these Christian threads because I hate hearing people try to meld science and faith together. If you believe in god, great, but there is and will never be proof for it. And you cannot dispute what you actually see and observe. Thats why science will always give you the best explanation for anything and religion will always be a maybe. Why is that so hard to grasp?

And I hate hearing people try to separate science and faith. If you believe there is no God, I'll pray for you, but there is and will never be any proof, logic, or reason behind your belief. Science DOES give you the best explanation for anything, and that explanation IS religion. Why is THAT so hard to grasp?

 

[liverotcod]

You guys are too cute! You just like me cuz I'm bi!

I don't know that "like me" goes quite far enough.

 

[NEATOMD]

I don't like the these Christian threads because I hate hearing people try to meld science and faith together. If you believe in god, great, but there is and will never be proof for it. And you cannot dispute what you actually see and observe. Thats why science will always give you the best explanation for anything and religion will always be a maybe. Why is that so hard to grasp?

I in no way intend to argue with you over this matter, but since you asked... Religion is partially a means for understanding science, always has been. Ever read Genesis 1? Most other religions have explanations for "scientific things." Therefore, as long as religion exists, the two will be intertwined. For instance, people who believe in evolutionary teachings might look at similarities between two species and say it is due to close evolutionary ties. A creationist might say that the similarity comes from the fact that all life was created by the same artist (have you ever noticed how all famous artists have styles with characteristics that are often found in alot of their work) To this day, no single piece of evidence has ever been found to disprove creationism. To this day, niether has any piece of evidence proven that life began by chance. In my opinion (if you disagree, that's your choice) it takes more faith to believe that we are the combined result of trillions of accidents that occured over the past 3.5 billion years. The statistical improbability of such makes me skeptical. For instance, there are 3.9 Billion base pairs in the human genome. Scientists say that life began 3.5 billion years ago. This means that to have evolved into our current state as humans, on average, we must have had over one ADDITIONAL base pair added every year since the beginning of life. This doesn't even take into account that most mutuations/addition result in cell death. Maybe that's not significant enough for you... Scientists still have no explanation for the different amount of chromosomes that exist throughout different forms of life. We know that the deletion or inclusion of even a single chromosome leaves any species unable to reproduce. One example of this is when horses and donkeys are bred to make mules (which are stagnant) Also, humans with odd amounts of chromosomes are also stagnant. Am I saying that finding proof that organisms can still reproduce after a chromosomal shift in nature will disprove creationism? No, I'm just saying that Creationism has answers where mere science doesn't. These are just a couple examples from a very inexhaustable list...I hope this answers your question.

 

[Reckoning]

Why is that so hard to grasp?

I have a suggestion, instead of trying to reason with someone who cannot distinguish dogma, faith, and spirituality with emprical data, observable phenomena, and other vestiges of science, try turning you body 90 degrees and bang your head repeatedly against the wall. I promise the wall will be far more compliant to your efforts.

As a Christian, I firmly believe that I insult the gifts that God gave me (ie my brain) if I do not honor my senses by thinking critically. Question the texts, question the priests, question your own experience. If you stop questioning, well, you're dead.

My .02 for free.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Psychodoctor, you truely live up to the name.

And Dianalynne, I fully endorse your struggle to embrace bisexuality. In fact, I am still trying to convert my girlfriend. If you have more pictures, kindly let me know, you sexy little minx.

Anyway, I think the point of this discussion is that this kid probably won't have many friends at any school.

I don't like the these Christian threads because I hate hearing people try to meld science and faith together. If you believe in god, great, but there is and will never be proof for it. And you cannot dispute what you actually see and observe. Thats why science will always give you the best explanation for anything and religion will always be a maybe. Why is that so hard to grasp?

I also go to a very liberal undergrad school and am well respected for my views and have never had a problem with anyone;

not that it matters nor is pertinent to this discussion, but I've always had a wide group of friends and they include people of different nationalities, genders, sexual orientation and religious belief.

 

[Brain]

I in no way intend to argue with you over this matter, but since you asked... Religion is partially a means for understanding science, always has been. Ever read Genesis 1? Most other religions have explanations for "scientific things." Therefore, as long as religion exists, the two will be intertwined. For instance, people who believe in evolutionary teachings might look at similarities between two species and say it is due to close evolutionary ties. A creationist might say that the similarity comes from the fact that all life was created by the same artist (have you ever noticed how all famous artists have styles with characteristics that are often found in alot of their work) To this day, no single piece of evidence has ever been found to disprove creationism. To this day, niether has any piece of evidence proven that life began by chance. In my opinion (if you disagree, that's your choice) it takes more faith to believe that we are the combined result of trillions of accidents that occured over the past 3.5 billion years. The statistical improbability of such makes me skeptical. For instance, there are 3.9 Billion base pairs in the human genome. Scientists say that life began 3.5 billion years ago. This means that to have evolved into our current state as humans, on average, we must have had over one ADDITIONAL base pair added every year since the beginning of life. This doesn't even take into account that most mutuations/addition result in cell death. Maybe that's not significant enough for you... Scientists still have no explanation for the different amount of chromosomes that exist throughout different forms of life. We know that the deletion or inclusion of even a single chromosome leaves any species unable to reproduce. One example of this is when horses and donkeys are bred to make mules (which are stagnant) Also, humans with odd amounts of chromosomes are also stagnant. Am I saying that finding proof that organisms can still reproduce after a chromosomal shift in nature will disprove creationism? No, I'm just saying that Creationism has answers where mere science doesn't. These are just a couple examples from a very inexhaustable list...I hope this answers your question.

I would beg to differ with you. I think I've said this elsewhere but I'll say it again. I think the point is trying to explain how complex beings such as ourselves came into existance. The two competing ideas are creationism and evolution by natural selection. I would consider God to be a complex being if he could design and create us and know our hearts and every actions. Here's where creationism is flawed: it requires the pre-existence of complexity to generate complexity. Evolution by natural selection does not require this. I know some of you will say that the probabilities involved with evolution are very small, but what is the probability of a deity forming? I would dare say it's much smaller than those we're dealing with in evolution.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I in no way intend to argue with you over this matter, but since you asked... Religion is partially a means for understanding science, always has been. Ever read Genesis 1? Most other religions have explanations for "scientific things." Therefore, as long as religion exists, the two will be intertwined. For instance, people who believe in evolutionary teachings might look at similarities between two species and say it is due to close evolutionary ties. A creationist might say that the similarity comes from the fact that all life was created by the same artist (have you ever noticed how all famous artists have styles with characteristics that are often found in alot of their work) To this day, no single piece of evidence has ever been found to disprove creationism. To this day, niether has any piece of evidence proven that life began by chance. In my opinion (if you disagree, that's your choice) it takes more faith to believe that we are the combined result of trillions of accidents that occured over the past 3.5 billion years. The statistical improbability of such makes me skeptical. For instance, there are 3.9 Billion base pairs in the human genome. Scientists say that life began 3.5 billion years ago. This means that to have evolved into our current state as humans, on average, we must have had over one ADDITIONAL base pair added every year since the beginning of life. This doesn't even take into account that most mutuations/addition result in cell death. Maybe that's not significant enough for you... Scientists still have no explanation for the different amount of chromosomes that exist throughout different forms of life. We know that the deletion or inclusion of even a single chromosome leaves any species unable to reproduce. One example of this is when horses and donkeys are bred to make mules (which are stagnant) Also, humans with odd amounts of chromosomes are also stagnant. Am I saying that finding proof that organisms can still reproduce after a chromosomal shift in nature will disprove creationism? No, I'm just saying that Creationism has answers where mere science doesn't. These are just a couple examples from a very inexhaustable list...I hope this answers your question.

excellent!!

And I will add to all those arguing against creation: surely you know that Darwinism can only explain life from single celled organism all the way to present day life. Surely you know that life began in the 'primordial soup' as a bunch of amino acids that formed proteins that formed RNA that eventually formed DNA. Surely, you also know that the odds of these amino acids actually forming DNA strands are next to nothing. Like one in a gazillion! So then, how did it happen? Either life was very very very lucky or could maybe a higher being not of this world made it happen?

Surely you also know that the rate of mutations, the driving force behind Darwinism and natural selection, is so slow that it is impossible for single celled organism to evolve into the highly complex neuron network of the human brain in the 700 million years or so that life has been around. That is, unless there was a driving force. Could it be a higher being that provided this driving force?

In conclusion, I am not here to disprove evolution, far from it. In fact, I believe evolution occurs, but there are too many loopholes associated with it to disprove a higher being from which life was created, I only gave to examples. This is the only logical explanation, and it is up to you now to disprove such.

 

[NEATOMD]

I just thought these two articles were interesting. They both point out that about 75% of medical doctors believe in miracles and believe that they have seen them. That's a pretty significant evidence that medicine and religion are intertwined. One might say, proof that something higher than science is out there. Meanwhile, science can't prove that many miracles (medical or not) did or did not happen. Faith, on the other hand does offer an explanation.

http://www.s8int.com/doctorsfaith.html
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42061

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I would beg to differ with you. I think I've said this elsewhere but I'll say it again. I think the point is trying to explain how complex beings such as ourselves came into existance. The two competing ideas are creationism and evolution by natural selection. I would consider God to be a complex being if he could design and create us and know our hearts and every actions.

but He does!!! God is sovereign, omnipotent, omiscient and omnipresent!

Here's where creationism is flawed: it requires the pre-existence of complexity to generate complexity. Evolution by natural selection does not require this. I know some of you will say that the probabilities involved with evolution are very small, but what is the probability of a deity forming? I would dare say it's much smaller than those we're dealing with in evolution.

and that is the only way it can be explained..by a deity who can create complex life forms as well as all life forms. Evolution requires too many chance events happening at some exact time in a particular sequence requiring certain conditions. it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does in creation.

 

[Brain]

excellent!!

And I will add to all those arguing against creation: surely you know that Darwinism can only explain life from single celled organism all the way to present day life. Surely you know that life began in the 'primordial soup' as a bunch of amino acids that formed proteins that formed RNA that eventually formed DNA. Surely, you also know that the odds of these amino acids actually forming DNA strands are next to nothing. Like one in a gazillion! So then, how did it happen? Either life was very very very lucky or could maybe a higher being not of this world made it happen?

First, arm yourself with the facts. Evolution by natural selection begins at the molecular level. The proposed sequence was NOT amino acids to RNA to protein. More likely it was the emergence of a self replicating molecule, most likely a form of RNA polyermase, which is not a faithful enzyme so the mutation rate will be accelerated. Certain RNA viruses (ie, HIV and others) experience everything single mutation combination possible within a day.

Surely you also know that the rate of mutations, the driving force behind Darwinism and natural selection, is so slow that it is impossible for single celled organism to evolve into the highly complex neuron network of the human brain in the 700 million years or so that life has been around. That is, unless there was a driving force. Could it be a higher being that provided this driving force?

True, the probability is small. However, given a very large span of time things with very small probabilities can and probably will happen. If we humans were to live 100 millions years, we could never cross a street because we would almost certainly be run over at some point.

We all have evolved from a single cell into a complex organism with over 3 trillion cells, and we did it over the course of 9 months inside of our mothers' wombs.


I

n conclusion, I am not here to disprove evolution, far from it. In fact, I believe evolution occurs, but there are too many loopholes associated with it to disprove a higher being from which life was created, I only gave to examples. This is the only logical explanation, and it is up to you now to disprove such.

First, you are forgetting the single most important component of evolution: natural selection. Organisms with a beneficial mutation are better able to reproduce. Thus, this mutation increases in frequency throughout the population. Nothing magical at all about this. I don't think you really comprehend that the 4 billion years this planet has existed is a really, really long time. Over such a long time span, even the most improbably of events will happen. Also remember that the universe is infinite and has an infinite number of worlds. Over the whole universe, maybe the probabilities aren't that small.

I suggest you do some reading before trying to argue for or against evolution. Here is a good place to start: "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins or even "The Origin of the Species" by Charles Darwin (it's an easy read, surprisingly)

 

[Brain]

but He does!!! God is sovereign, omnipotent, omiscient and omnipresent!





and that is the only way it can be explained..by a deity who can create complex life forms as well as all life forms. Evolution requires too many chance events happening at some exact time in a particular sequence requiring certain conditions. it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does in creation.

But where did the deity come from? What's the probability of a deity forming? Again, chance is NOT involved in evolution.

 

[Reckoning]

I in no way intend to argue with you over this matter, but since you asked... Religion is partially a means for understanding science, always has been. Ever read Genesis 1? Most other religions have explanations for "scientific things." Therefore, as long as religion exists, the two will be intertwined. For instance, people who believe in evolutionary teachings might look at similarities between two species and say it is due to close evolutionary ties. A creationist might say that the similarity comes from the fact that all life was created by the same artist (have you ever noticed how all famous artists have styles with characteristics that are often found in alot of their work) To this day, no single piece of evidence has ever been found to disprove creationism. To this day, niether has any piece of evidence proven that life began by chance. In my opinion (if you disagree, that's your choice) it takes more faith to believe that we are the combined result of trillions of accidents that occured over the past 3.5 billion years. The statistical improbability of such makes me skeptical. For instance, there are 3.9 Billion base pairs in the human genome. Scientists say that life began 3.5 billion years ago. This means that to have evolved into our current state as humans, on average, we must have had over one ADDITIONAL base pair added every year since the beginning of life. This doesn't even take into account that most mutuations/addition result in cell death. Maybe that's not significant enough for you... Scientists still have no explanation for the different amount of chromosomes that exist throughout different forms of life. We know that the deletion or inclusion of even a single chromosome leaves any species unable to reproduce. One example of this is when horses and donkeys are bred to make mules (which are stagnant) Also, humans with odd amounts of chromosomes are also stagnant. Am I saying that finding proof that organisms can still reproduce after a chromosomal shift in nature will disprove creationism? No, I'm just saying that Creationism has answers where mere science doesn't. These are just a couple examples from a very inexhaustable list...I hope this answers your question.

Not all answers are created equal. I talk to a friend at work who subscribes to the intelligent design paradigm and he cites similar arguments. He seeks out books that support this argument and reads voraciously. Really smart guy and top-notch scientist. But two things come up that make the discussion go lame:

1. Why does the absence of an explanation imply God? Science is not static because there is much that we don't know.

2. Deistic beliefs pre-dated the notion intelligent design. Particularly, my friend's belief in God predated his understanding of intelligent design. As a scientist, I think that he was biased to say the least when he sought out this theory. I think it is a little suspicious that one can start with the explanation (God) before fully understanding the problem (eg complexity of the human genome).

There are lots of things about this universe that baffle us, but simply saying that God made it that way, rather that seeking to understand the hows and whys, is cheating.

 

[NEATOMD]

Here's where creationism is flawed: it requires the pre-existence of complexity to generate complexity. Evolution by natural selection does not require this. I know some of you will say that the probabilities involved with evolution are very small, but what is the probability of a deity forming? I would dare say it's much smaller than those we're dealing with in evolution.

Hey Brain, I just wanted to say that I understand why see this as a flaw. While Christianity does offer a solution for this, I believe that I could not explain it well enough to do anyone justice. The thing is, I'm in no way an expert on it and I would rather not mislead you by saying something that may only end up causing more confusion. You really have to consider the whole Christian faith or none of it at all. Without going through the entire account with you, I cannot explain it. However, this so called "flaw" (the idea that God is complex and always was) is one of my favorite parts of Christianity. I would hate to believe in a God that was limited to my understanding and the laws that govern me. Humans can't truly grasp terms like infinity and forever. Basically, what it comes down to though, is that if God had the power to create life and all other things that exist, it is equally as likely that he can defy what we know as time. I might also note that Christians believe that God invented time (Genesis 1). It's hard to imagine that time might not be this constant thing we all know it as, but even science tells us that it is not. (reference: Einstiens theory of relativity) Basically, what you see as a flaw, I see as proof for Creationism.

 

[Reckoning]

Hey Brain, I just wanted to say that I understand why see this as a flaw. While Christianity does offer a solution for this, I believe that I could not explain it well enough to do anyone justice. The thing is, I'm in no way an expert on it and I would rather not mislead you by saying something that may only end up causing more confusion. You really have to consider the whole Christian faith or none of it at all. Without going through the entire account with you, I cannot explain it. However, this so called "flaw" (the idea that God is complex and always was) is one of my favorite parts of Christianity. I would hate to believe in a God that was limited to my understanding and the laws that govern me. Humans can't truly grasp terms like infinity and forever. Basically, what it comes down to though, is that if God had the power to create life and all other things that exist, it is equally as likely that he can defy what we know as time. I might also note that Christians believe that God invented time (Genesis 1). It's hard to imagine that time might not be this constant thing we all know it as, but even science tells us that it is not. (reference: Einstiens theory of relativity) Basically, what you see as a flaw, I see as proof for Creationism.

Cool response and infuses necessary uncertaintly and fallibility of human knowledge. Of which there is plenty of room in religion AND science.

 

[NEATOMD]

Not all answers are created equal. I talk to a friend at work who subscribes to the intelligent design paradigm and he cites similar arguments. He seeks out books that support this argument and reads voraciously. Really smart guy and top-notch scientist. But two things come up that make the discussion go lame:

1. Why does the absence of an explanation imply God? Science is not static because there is much that we don't know.

2. Deistic beliefs pre-dated the notion intelligent design. Particularly, my friend's belief in God predated his understanding of intelligent design. As a scientist, I think that he was biased to say the least when he sought out this theory. I think it is a little suspicious that one can start with the explanation (God) before fully understanding the problem (eg complexity of the human genome).

There are lots of things about this universe that baffle us, but simply saying that God made it that way, rather that seeking to understand the hows and whys, is cheating.

Read carefully:
I think it is a little suspicious that one can start with the explanation (Evolution) before fully understanding the problem (eg complexity of the human genome).

There are lots of things about this universe that baffle us, but simply saying that Evolution made it that way, rather that seeking to understand the hows and whys, is cheating

 

[evendry707]

i haven't taken the time to peruse all 20 pages of this thread, so i apologize if my 2 cents is redundant. Psycho Doctor, i grew up going to a chinese baptist church all my life. i prayed before exams, i prayed before meals.. and all in all, i was a good christian kid. at one point, i even argued against the separation of church and state on the basis of my perceived decline in the moral fabric of our nation.

now, i think all of that was bullsh*t. so many people have died over the centuries fighting over religious issues. christians have died. muslims have died. jews have died. christians, muslims, and jews alike were the murderers. i'd like to see somebody try to seriously justify the crusades, the salem witch trials, or extremist islamic jihad (and i mean suicide bombings and the such, no offense against those who understand the real nature of jihad) with a clear conscience. religion has been used as a pawn for centuries to further underhanded political agendas - and people continue to buy into it! why??!?!

psycho - does it really matter whether or not a medical school is christian friendly? i know you've been taught that you're supposed to be an ambassador of christ and what not - and it's great that anybody these days can commit themselves to any faith or ideal. but didn't christ also say not to be afraid of persecution? cuz that's what im gleaning from your original post. i liked one comment i saw in the post about always questioning things - and i firmly believe that means questioning the bible as well. just because revelations says that anybody who adds or takes away from the word will go to hell, doesn't mean that your sacred text is necessarily free from agendas beyond what christ may have intended. and you could say the same about ANYbody's religious institution. your faith is yours though, and i commend you for it, but don't you see that by merely trying to designate a "christian-friendly" school from other schools, you're essentially playing into the same kind of intolerance that christians claim they receive?

we live in such a complex society now - faiths clash. minds clash. cultures clash. but it's only because we let them. in all honesty, does it really matter whether or not God literally created the earth in 7 days? does it matter which great scientists were christians? evolution is NOT a fact - it's a theory at the macro level and we can support it at the micro level with natural selection. and that's important because we can actually use that knowledge to better understand science and perhaps improve our lives. do miracles happen? they sure do. do acupuncture and eastern medicine heal people? they sure do - and just because western science can't explain them right now doesn't mean there isn't a scientific basis for them. and im sure you've read it again and again how powerful prayer is when it comes to healing. but what about when Buddhists meditate? or Hindu's pray to their gods? if you tell me that they don't experience the same relaxation response as christians, and that their prayer doesn't do them good, then dude, you are an ignorant motherf***er.

ive been hearing the same stupid bullsh*t arguments for and against evolution, for and against creationism - and im so tired of it. i used to hand out those tracts! cmon - if we're all going to be doctors one day, can't we find something a little more meaningful to talk about when it comes to faith?

thanks for listening. i apologize if anybody reading this feels that im just trying to get on top of a soapbox.

 

[vikaskoth]

i think those were some good comments, its crazy how this thread has 10 pages in the span of two days, i think

 

[Reckoning]

Read carefully:
I think it is a little suspicious that one can start with the explanation (Evolution) before fully understanding the problem (eg complexity of the human genome).

There are lots of things about this universe that baffle us, but simply saying that Evolution made it that way, rather that seeking to understand the hows and whys, is cheating

I like that technique, use it all the time to test my thoughts.

BUT, Darwin didn't think up evolution then start sailing around the world looking for evidence. He proposed his theory after years of observation and study. Scientific observations have continued to evolve and modify evolution to reflect our current understanding. The origin of species is and always was contraversial because it challenged the church's authority on the history of the earth.

Unlike the Bible, the Origin of Species is not the authoritative and final word on evolution. It is of more historical importance than anything given for example our advances in understanding of the genome. But the basic tenet of evolution has withstood a phenomenal amount of scientific scrutiny that creationism has never had to endure.

 

[Reckoning]

i apologize if anybody reading this feels that im just trying to get on top of a soapbox.

Well said. Thanks for the post.

Edit: I mean the entire post, I just didn't want to quote the whole thing.

 

[NEATOMD]

Darwin didn't think up evolution then start sailing around the world looking for evidence. He proposed his theory after years of observation and study. Scientific observations have continued to evolve and modify evolution to reflect our current understanding. The origin of species is and always was contraversial because it challenged the church's authority on the history of the earth.

Unlike the Bible, the Origin of Species is not the authoritative and final word on evolution. It is of more historical importance than anything given for example our advances in understanding of the genome. But the basic tenet of evolution has withstood a phenomenal amount of scientific scrutiny that creationism has never had to endure.

What you said here is definately true. The point I was making, however, is that most people are taught evolution way before they are taught the complexity of the genome just as most Christians are taught creation far before they are taught the complexity of the genome.
With regards to world views: Just as one might first apply the ideals of creationism to everything he or she sees or hears, so does the person who believes in evolution.

 

[Reckoning]

What you said here is definately true. The point I was making, however, is that most people are taught evolution way before they are taught the complexity of the genome just as most Christians are taught creation far before they are taught the complexity of the genome.
With regards to world views: Just as one might first apply the ideals of creationism to everything he or she sees or hears, so does the person who believes in evolution.

Yessir. That's the nature of dogma...

 

[sweatybrain]

excellent!!

And I will add to all those arguing against creation: surely you know that Darwinism can only explain life from single celled organism all the way to present day life. Surely you know that life began in the 'primordial soup' as a bunch of amino acids that formed proteins that formed RNA that eventually formed DNA. Surely, you also know that the odds of these amino acids actually forming DNA strands are next to nothing. Like one in a gazillion! So then, how did it happen? Either life was very very very lucky or could maybe a higher being not of this world made it happen?

Surely you also know that the rate of mutations, the driving force behind Darwinism and natural selection, is so slow that it is impossible for single celled organism to evolve into the highly complex neuron network of the human brain in the 700 million years or so that life has been around. That is, unless there was a driving force. Could it be a higher being that provided this driving force?

In conclusion, I am not here to disprove evolution, far from it. In fact, I believe evolution occurs, but there are too many loopholes associated with it to disprove a higher being from which life was created, I only gave to examples. This is the only logical explanation, and it is up to you now to disprove such.

psycho, neatoMD:

your argument against evolution is flawed on several levels. First, the argument that the rate of mutation is too slow to account for the appearance of, say, human, is inaccurate. Look at DNA polymerase or RNA polymerase from the most archaic life forms, say organisms from the Archae domain. Polymerases from many of these organisms are used for doing mutagenesis during PCRs. The rate of mutation is, in fact, quite high, and there is no way of knowing how much higher it would be millions of years ago. In fact, viruses, one of the more primitive life forms, have very high mutation rates. Secondly, you essentially made the blind watchmaker argument; that life as we know it is far too complex to arise from mere chances. But I ask you this: what are the statistical probability that God created men in 7 days? Is this probabiliity greater than the probability of evolution?

The "evidence" for creationism, I argue, is based on faith. The scientific evidence does not exist (or is murky at best).

My reconciliation is the following hypotheses: ki) the book of Genesis is not meant to be taken literally; seven days in God's time could be very different from our current definition of time, and/or ii) God allows evolution.

 

[fotolilith]

thanks for listening. i apologize if anybody reading this feels that im just trying to get on top of a soapbox.

Well said! I'm glad there are people out there who can be secure in their faith and not have to stoop to persecution and hatred to do so - THAT is what I consider a true CHRISTian.

 

[leechy]

I have a suggestion, instead of trying to reason with someone who cannot distinguish dogma, faith, and spirituality with emprical data, observable phenomena, and other vestiges of science, try turning you body 90 degrees and bang your head repeatedly against the wall. I promise the wall will be far more compliant to your efforts.

This is among the best advice ever given on SDN

 

[NEATOMD]

psycho, neatoMD:

your argument against evolution is flawed on several levels. First, the argument that the rate of mutation is too slow to account for the appearance of, say, human, is inaccurate. Look at DNA polymerase or RNA polymerase from the most archaic life forms, say organisms from the Archae domain. Polymerases from many of these organisms are used for doing mutagenesis during PCRs. The rate of mutation is, in fact, quite high, and there is no way of knowing how much higher it would be millions of years ago. In fact, viruses, one of the more primitive life forms, have very high mutation rates. Secondly, you essentially made the blind watchmaker argument; that life as we know it is far too complex to arise from mere chances. But I ask you this: what are the statistical probability that God created men in 7 days? Is this probabiliity greater than the probability of evolution?

The "evidence" for creationism, I argue, is based on faith. The scientific evidence does not exist (or is murky at best).

My reconciliation is the following hypotheses: ki) the book of Genesis is not meant to be taken literally; seven days in God's time could be very different from our current definition of time, and/or ii) God allows evolution.

I don't think you've read the posts between the one you quoted and where you posted...All of those issues were addressed, so I won't rehash them.

However, I might add that Viruses are not life...nor do scientists believe humans are decendants of the archaea. Furthermore, though archaea do have high rates of mutations, they do not have near the number of base pairs as humans and other higher mammals. The argument is not that life could not have mutated enough to have evolved, but that the addition of so many nucleotides that just "happened" to be in the right order is statistically improbable. Another common creationist argument is that in order for life to evolve complex features such as eyes and arm, they would have undoubtedly gone through periods of unusefulness, where evolution (seeking the more fit) would have selected against these species as they would be wasting resources. I do understand, the evolutionary stepping stone argument, which has NO proof...but is a solid attempt at an explanation for this issue regarding the flaws in evolution.

 

[leechy]

I just thought these two articles were interesting. They both point out that about 75% of medical doctors believe in miracles and believe that they have seen them. That's a pretty significant evidence that medicine and religion are intertwined. One might say, proof that something higher than science is out there. Meanwhile, science can't prove that many miracles (medical or not) did or did not happen. Faith, on the other hand does offer an explanation.

http://www.s8int.com/doctorsfaith.html
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42061

Yeah, very interesting articles. I read about this somewhere else... I think someone had posted in the Everyone forum. I have nothing against people believing in miracles if they so choose. My only worry is that the belief in miracles could keep physicians from looking more deeply into the cause of rare outcomes - such examination could help bring these rare and wonderful outcomes to other patients.

 

[LauraMac]

but He does!!! God is sovereign, omnipotent, omiscient and omnipresent!

why is it okay for you to say that god exists and has all these characteristics, but it's not okay for me to say i think it is all make believe?

when i do that i am called a bigot, and you tell me i deserved to be waitlisted at a school. so nice and "christian" of you!

 

[LauraMac]

I did not make any comment b/c she stated she is an atheist. My comment was in reference to her calling Christianity "fantasyland" or something to that effect; therefore she attacked Christianity, I did not attack her.

i do think christianity is all a fantasyworld. that is my opinion. that is not an attack on christianity.

 

[indo]

i do think christianity is all a fantasyworld. that is my opinion. that is not an attack on christianity.

Well, Catholicism is an aerobics class.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

i do think christianity is all a fantasyworld. that is my opinion. that is not an attack on christianity.

i do think lauramac's atheism is a fantasyworld. that is my opinion. that is not an attack on lauramac.

 

[LauraMac]

huh? Last I knew going to church does not make one a Christian. A church can call itself Christian and teach everything against the Bible and it would not be a true Christian church. maybe we better just leave it to God....

another post where you say there is a god.



and no, i do not have a problem with you doing this. just pointing out that you can talk about god as if he exists (your belief), but i can't talk about him as if he is a fantasy (my belief).

 

[LauraMac]

i do think lauramac's atheism is a fantasyworld. that is my opinion. that is not an attack on lauramac.

you can think that my atheism is a fantasyworld. i don't take it as a personal attack. all i take it to mean is that you think atheism is wrong, which is fine.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Evolution is an obsolete, demented, theory that ought to have been nailed shut into its coffin a long time ago. The whole theory is based on speculations, assumptions, and analogies that do not hold (bacteria mutate ergo humans evolve, blablabla).

 

[leechy]

Furthermore, though archaea do have high rates of mutations, they do not have near the number of base pairs as humans and other higher mammals. The argument is not that life could not have mutated enough to have evolved, but that the addition of so many nucleotides that just "happened" to be in the right order is statistically improbable.

We know there's a lot of apparently useless DNA in the human genome; it could very well be that periodically a segment of DNA gets replicated and "mistakenly" tacked on to the end of a genome, and as long as it doesn't adversely affect your functioning, it's not going to be selected against. Years later, a chance mutation may turn that extra segment into something useful (or not useful, but the not useful ones don't do as well). I have a particular example for this, but it escapes me at the moment. I think it was the myoglobin/hemoglobin family of proteins...

Another common creationist argument is that in order for life to evolve complex features such as eyes and arm, they would have undoubtedly gone through periods of unusefulness, where evolution (seeking the more fit) would have selected against these species as they would be wasting resources. I do understand, the evolutionary stepping stone argument, which has NO proof...but is a solid attempt at an explanation for this issue regarding the flaws in evolution.

There are actually a lot of "simple" eyes in nature... take those little beady eyes on sea creatures, for example. (They always gross me out). These could have been altered and improved upon with time. Also, our eyes have flaws in them - we've actually got blood vessels running in front of our retinas. That doesn't seem to me the way an intelligent designer would make eyes, if he were doing it ex nihilio (though to the person of faith, God has His ways). It so happens evolution went down one path and could never correct itself so as to make the wiring optimal.

But all this isn't really significant. I'll weigh in with a more philosophical post in a few moments.