GeoTheo

If you believe this to be the case than why does your creation through seemingly random natural processes( human sexual reproduction) not detract from the power of God?

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Geo,

There is abundant evidence for secondary causes. We find it in Scripture, don't we? (Have a close look at Genesis.)

The problem I see with the "random, material, completely natural" hypothesis is that the evidence for it is poor. Sure, YECs and some OECs have a difficult case to demonstrate. Some IDs have an agenda that is more political than truth-seeking. But, certainly the explanations of many Darwinists are also quite faulty and laced with anti-ID/anti-creationist insults. On this alone there is good reason to be suspect of the motivation.

The theistic realist position is highly respectable, and yet it is rejected out-of-hand by those who claim to seek the truth but would rather prevent any serious public debate on the merits of Darwinism. There is much shouting and name-calling, but little serious dialogue. Perhaps the greatest hindrance is the naturalist's insistence that God could not possibly care that much for Man.

I think it was Jonathan Wells who wrote that the scientific community should "fix itself", before suffering immense embarrassment and reduction in funding. This is likely in the near future, since it is clear that "the people" are growing tired of the condemning naturalistic dogmatism that characterizes many of our scientific establishments, and which maintains a refusal to take the ID movement seriously.

Vanderzyden

ps418

Now that's ironic, coming as it does from a Moonie who's own book on evolution, <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/" target="_blank">Icons of Evolution,</a> is chock-full of misrepresentations and errors.

And of course, the scientific community has a long and well-documented history of 'correcting itself' in light of new evidence, whereas creationists have a nasty habit of repeating the same tired arguments for decades after they've been refuted (not to say that there are not exceptions on either sides, however).

Kevin Dorner

Er... not to put a fine point on it, but that's what science is... the study of the natural world. Are you going to play fair and insist that churches are "dogmatically theological" and that they should give lessons in logic and skepticism every Sunday or they will be "embarassed" and "lose their funding" if they don't give in to your demands? My auto mechanic does not blame the troubles with my car on the supernatural... should I complain he is "dogmatically mechanical?" Neither did my dentist pray over my cavity while applying a filling, yet it worked properly. Strange that this "dental dogmatism" could have any success.

If you take the naturalism out of science, it isn't science anymore. Scigirl explained that much more lucidly than I care to in her last post, but you ignored it (as usual.)

Much like other creationists, you attempt to call science a sort of religion. This is the textbook definition of a "straw man" in which one redefines an opposing argument to be ridiculous, and attacks the parody instead of the real thing, much like protestors burn a straw effigy instead of the real person.

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Albion

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. "The people" aren't going to be tired of naturalism as long as it carries on providing medicine and clean food and water. The ones tired of naturalism are the cultural renewal activists (mostly the ID professionals and their followers, even if DI has officially dropped "renewal" from the name of its science agency), not the people in general. Most people seem to have a better grasp of the difference between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism than the IDists claim to have.

KnightWhoSaysNi

But once you have done that (i.e. having a "close look at Genesis" to determine biological history) then you are attempting to make the Bible into a scientific textbook, which isn't science at all. There are creation legends from a variety of religions besides yours. How can it be scientific to accept the creation legends from your religion a priori but reject everyone else's? Scigirl once made a post about the pagan Finnish legend of "Young Egg Creationism." I can't seem to find it with a search, but maybe scigirl can point it out.

I'd be curious to know what your evidences are for "secondary causes."

No, I think a good reason to be suspicious of people's motivations is when they try to bypass the scientific community, using the political process and popular opinion Lysenko-style, to foist their pseudoscience into public schools. They alone become the self-appointed arbiters of truth who think they know better than the scientific concensus and seek to change scientific education without its consent.

Darwin, Wallace, and Huxley, in their days, did not try to bypass scientific concensus by appealing to popular opinion to force British legislators to change how biology is taught in the education system. The scientific community gradually accepted evolutionary science and it became mainstream. That's how new scientific ideas come and thrive. At first, it appears radical with controversy and criticism but eventually gains gradual acceptance by force of evidence and argument.

You seem to be assuming that theism and evolution are mutually exclusive. What would you say to people who are devout Christians and at the same time accept biological evolution?

Ah, the same Jonathan Wells who attempted to publically rebut a Nature article on Ubx gene evolution but <a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2002/ZZ/693_ncse_asks_discovery_institute_2_7_2002.asp" target="_blank">didn't even bother</a> to read the article beforehand.

Wells's institute might not have problems with funding from his religious and political supporters, but I'm sure he can teach us a thing or two about having "immense embarrassment" in the scientific community.

If we are to accept that the non-educated (in biology) public trumps the scientifc concensus in scientifically understanding the history of life on this planet, we might as well teach astrology along with astronomy in schools, museums and observatories, and use the Psychic Friends Network to help determine future weather and predict hurricanes and volcanic eruptions. Scientific theories are not accepted and rejected by public opinion, and it would be frightening day if it was.

As far as your claim goes that the evidence for evolution is "poor" here's another challenge for you to consider:

It is predicted in evolutionary theory that we should have vestigial molecular evidence of our past evolutionary ancestry. This was confirmed when molecular biologists found precisely these things (and we'll probably find more in the future). Here's one example:

Most animals are capable of synthesizing vitamin C (ascorbic acid), but humans and other primates cannot (we have to eat fruit and vegetables to get vit. C or else we'll get scurvy). It was predicted and confirmed that humans do in fact have the gene that allows the synthesis of vitamin C (but it is non-functional). This same non-functional pseudogene is also found in other primate species.

Biologists believe that at some point in our evolutionary history, a common ancestor of all primates developed a mutation that made the gene non-functional. This had no effect on survivability because their diets were likely rich in vit. C anyway.

As a creationist, how do you explain vestigial molecular evidence? Why do we have a non-functional gene in our DNA that allows us to synthesize vit. C? Is it merely an amazing coincidence that other primate species share this same non-functional gene?

Source: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#molecular_vestiges" target="_blank">Molecular vestigial characters</a>

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

monkenstick

here Vanderzyden, the urate oxidase pseudogene demands an explanation;


Human Urate Oxidase Psuedogene CDS (exons 1-8)

atggcccact accataacaa ctataaaaaga atgatgagg tggagtttgt ccgaactggc tatgggaagg aaatggtaaa agttctccat attcagtgag atggaaaata tcacagcatt aaagaggtgg caacttcagt gcaacttact ctaagttcca aaaaagatta cctgcatgga gataattcag acatcatccc tacagacacc atcaagaaca cagttcatgt cttggcaaag tttaaagaa atcaaaagca tagaagcctt tggtgtgaat atttgtgagc attttctttc ttcttttaac catgtaatcc gagctcaagt ctacatggaa gaaatccctt ggaagcatct tggaaag aatggagtta agcatgtcca tgcatttatt cacactccca ctggaacaca cttctgtgaa gttgaacagc tgagaagt ggaccccaag tcattcattc tggaatcaaa gacctcaagg tcttgaaaac aacacagtct ggatttgaag gtttcatcaa ggaccagttc actaccctcc ctgaggtgaa ggactgatgc tttgccaccc aagtgtactg caagtggcgc taccaccagt gcagggatgt ggacttcaag gctacctgg gacaccattc gggaccttgt catggagaaa tctgctgggc cctatgacaa aggtgaatac ttgacctctg tgcagaagac cctctgtgat atccaggtgc tctccctgag ccgagttcct gcg atagaagata tggaaatcag cctgccaaac attcactact tcaacataga catgtccaaa atgggtctga tcaacaagga agaggtcttgctgc cattagacaa tccatatgga aaaattactg gtacagtcaa gaggaagttg
tcttcaagac tgtga

Chimpanzee Urate Oxidase Psuedogene (exons 1-8)

atggcccact accataacaa ctataaaaag aatgatgagg tggagtttgt ccgaactggc tatgggaagg atatggtaaa agttctccat attcagtgag atggaaaata tcacagcatt aaagaggtgg caacttcagt gcaacttact ctaagttcca aaaaagatta cctgcatgga gataattcag acatcatccc tacagacacc atcaagaaca cagttcatgt cttggcaaag tttaaagaa atcaaaagca tagaagcctt tggtgtgaat atttgtgagc attttctttc ttcttttaac catgtaatcc gagctcaagt ctatgtggaa gaaatccctt ggaagcatct tgaaaag aatggagtta agcatgtcca tgcatttatt cacactccca ctggaacaca cttcggtgaa gttgaacagc tgagaagt ggaccccaag tcattcattc tggaatcaaa gacctcaagc tcttgaaaac aacacagtct ggatttgaag gtttcatcaa ggaccagttc actaccctcc ctgaggtgaa ggactgatgc tttgccaccc aagtgtactg caagtgacgc taccaccagt gcagggatgt ggacttcaag gctacctgg gacaccattc gggaccttgt catggagaaa tctgctgggc cctatgacaa agatgaatac tcgccctctg tgcagaagac cctctgtgat atccaggtgc tctccctgag ccgagttcct gcg atagaagata tggaaatcag cctgccaaac attcactact tcaacataga catgtccaaa atgggtctga tcaacaagga agag gtcttgctgc cattagacaa tccatatgga aaaattactg gtacagtcaa gaggaagttg tcttcaagac tgtga


BLAST Pairwise Alignment of the two sequences above;

Score = 1702 bits (885), Expect = 0.0
Identities = 905/915 (98%)
Strand = Plus / Plus


Human Urate Oxidase Pseudogene translated:

Met A H Y H N N Y K K N D E V E F V R T G Y G K E Met V K V L H I Q Stop D G K Y H S I K E V A T S V Q L T L S S K K D Y L H G D N S D I I P T D T I K N T V H V L A K F K E I K S I E A F G V N I C E H F L S S F N H V I R A Q V Y Met E E I P W K H L G K N G V K H V H A F I H T P T G T H F C E V E Q L R S G P Q V I H S G I K D L K V L K T T Q S G F E G F I K D Q F T T L P E V K D Stop C F A T Q V Y C K W R Y H Q C R D V D F K A T W D T I R D L V Met E K S A G P Y D K G E Y L T S V Q K T L C D I Q V L S L S R V P A I E D Met E I S L P N I H Y F N I D Met S K Met G L I N K E E V L L P L D N P Y G K I T G T V K R K L S S R L Stop

Chimpanzee Urate Oxidase Psuedogene translated:

Met A H Y H N N Y K K N D E V E F V R T G Y G K D Met V K V L H I Q Stop D G K Y H S I K E V A T S V Q L T L S S K K D Y L H G D N S D I I P T D T I K N T V H V L A K F K E I K S I E A F G V N I C E H F L S S F N H V I R A Q V Y V E E I P W K H L E K N G V K H V H A F I H T P T G T H F G E V E Q L R S G P Q V I H S G I K D L K L L K T T Q S G F E G F I K D Q F T T L P E V K D Stop C F A T Q V Y C K Stop R Y H Q C R D V D F K A T W D T I R D L V Met E K S A G P Y D K D E Y S P S V Q K T L C D I Q V L S L S R V P A I E D Met E I S L P N I H Y F N I D Met S K Met G L I N K E E V L L P L D N P Y G K I T G T V K R K L S S R L Stop


(non)function of urate oxidase psuedogene:
urate oxidase is an enzyme in mammals involved in purine synthesis

premature stop codons are shared by humans chimps at amino acid residue number 33

this severly truncates the protein - including the three peptide signal sequence "SRL" at the end of the protein which targets urate oxidase to the peroxisome.

It is clearly a broken gene, in both humans and chimps, broken in the same places.

common descent explains the evidence elegantly. Can you come up with any other logical explanation for these pseudogenes Vanderzyden?

Starboy

monkenstick, that is both beautiful and profound. Christianity is a hollow shell compared to science.

Starboy

Vanderzyden

As a matter of fact I do insist, for myself and other theists, that we be careful to distinguish our personal preferences from the search for truth. Here is part of my recent response to scigirl:

Yes, tragically, some of those "Christians" you know are very likely uncritical of their own beliefs. They see "faith" as a substitute for a failure of reason. They don't think it through, and consequently they live highly inconsistent lives. When confronted with varsity-level questions, their beliefs are shown to be synthetic. Of course, I can say that I don't always live consistently with my beliefs. Frequently, I find myself regretting much of what I've done in any given day. I have personal experience of what Paul is writing about in the seventh chapter of his letter to the Romans:

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing."

But, with much confidence, I can say that the typical naturalist is no better when it comes to consistent living and critical thinking. In many discussions, it's difficult to ask questions because the defiant shouting is so loud. The name-calling and dogmatic posturing indicate clearly that beneath the surface lies a fear of facing the "tough questions". The vanity of the heart prevents many from developing a desire for the truth.

As I have indicated several times, naturalism is a PHILOSOPHY (having as its chief maxim that "nature is all that is"). This philosophy is non-scientific, although many scientists adopt it as they interpret their scientific data. Darwinism is a branch of naturalistic philosophy, and those who subscribe to it are often found to be uncritical of their views.

Let me know what else is necessary to make this clear.

G'day,

Vanderzyden

Albion

How about a lucid explanation of why this problem with naturalism extends only as far as evolutionary theory and not to the whole of science (including cancer research, which you seem to think is so much more useful than and quite different from, evolutionary theory).