Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HRG · 07-17-2002, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
It creates a cunundrum. If the Earth is a thing it can be measured and quantified with naturalistic methods, but if its origin is supernatural but totally seperate from that source, then there is no way to determine the source by naturalistic means. All attempts will fail to present an accurate picture. It is off the grid.
So, if the Universe has a supernatural origin making up a naturalistic one just because you you choose to use naturalistic tools to investigate, is doomed to failure and only assures you of coming up with a false conclusion.

As the Spartans said to the Persians: "IF".

Note that an analogous statement holds if the universe had been created last Thursday by my cat; then any attempt to explain the universe along Christian lines is doomed to failure and only assures you of coming up with a false conclusion.

Yet for some strange reason I've never seen a Christian theologian propose to consider Last Thursdayism as an alternative.

HRG.

Oolon Colluphid · 07-17-2002, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:


So, if the Universe has a supernatural origin making up a naturalistic one just because you you choose to use naturalistic tools to investigate, is doomed to failure and only assures you of coming up with a false conclusion.

You know of some supernatural tools we can use?

Oolon

scigirl · 07-17-2002, 11:57 AM

For ex-robot (and others), let me clarify my position about scientists and religious beliefs:

I'm sure a person's background does affect they way they do science, or perhaps the types of science they will pick to study. There is no denying that. Therefore it is a good thing that scientists are diverse. They come from all walks of life, all countries, all cultures, all political beliefs, all religions, and so on. So hopefully, cultural biases perhaps tend to cancel themselves out (for instance, if "westerners" tend to be more skeptical than "easterners" or something like that).

I think that a person's political or religious beliefs does (and should) affect someone's attitute about the applications of science (being opposed to cloning, or a proponent of vaccines). However, these beliefs should not affect the acceptance or rejection of the science itself. That should be done using the scientific method - not political ideologies, not religion, not personal preference. Just cold hard science.

A Hindu for example, would probably morally object to the research I do (I study cattle blood and genes). However, the Hindu would not object to my actual findings that "Cattle express p40 protein."

This is fundamentally different from young earth creationists, and other specific beliefs which
are in direct conflict with the scientific discoveries themselves.

Imagine an MD who believes in phrenology, which is not an accepted practice of the scientific community (and has been proven wrong). Maybe he's intelligent, knows all the muscle groups and drugs, etc, but do you really want him researching brain disorders? I don't. If this physician rejects the data which proves phrenology wrong, than by default he also rejects the scientific principles used to procure this negative data. So what other types of errors is he making? I'd be worried, and if I was the NIMH, I wouldn't fund him if I knew about his beliefs in phrenology (especially if he planned on using them in his studies).

Ex-robot, we've had this conversation before and I know you don't agree with me because you know "smart" yecs and such. But YECS reject so much science, that I find it hard to believe they become scientists at all! If astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, biologists, geneticists, etc, are all incredibly wrong about huge theories, than perhaps the scientific method itself is flawed? But no scientist that I know of rejects the scientific theory - not even YECS. So how they reconcile this phenomoenon I don't really understand.

Even if they are doing good PCR reactions and getting published, it's hard for me to believe that it doesn't negatively affect their science. Just like the phrenologist MD. Sure - he can interpret MRI's like a mo fo. But what is he NOT doing? That's perhaps more important (and of course impossible to determine).

What about the YEC researchers? What are they not doing? What conclusions are they not drawing from data, because they refuse to believe in an old earth and evolution? What follow-up experiments are they not completing, because they refuse to accept certain tenets of science?

Is this all making sense? Please let me know if this is not clear.

scigirl

scigirl · 07-17-2002, 12:10 PM

In a related subject, I just read <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/286/5439/458?ijkey=wdICO7J7uPLqc" target="_blank">this article</a> from Science magazine, which talks about evolution and its applications.

What can the theory of evolution do for us? Plenty: (I cut out lots of chunks for brevity)

Quote:

Today's molecular deciphering of the genomes of living species, whether focusing on homologous gene sequences, gene segments, chromosomes, or entire genomes, provides a new vision of important evolutionary questions about natural history, species origins and survival, and adaptation to occupy ecological niches. The comparative genomics approach is already revealing valuable insights into developmental functions, reproductive enhancements, inborn errors, and disease defense mechanisms that have protected our ancestors (and ourselves) from extinction.
...
After centuries of study of comparative anatomy, behavior, and physiology to better understand human medicine, genomic information is reversing the course of information flow. Our knowledge of human genetics is leading the genomics era, so much so that human gene regulation and orientation inform us as to animal gene action.
...
The understanding of complex disorders such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity has advanced considerably through the use of mouse and rat models (26-28). [...] Seminal advances in our understanding of obesity have come from the positional cloning of a number of mouse gene mutations (such as fat, tubby, obese, and diabetes) that cause obesity, a well as subsequent studies showing that some of these gene homologs are mutated in morbidly obese humans (26). One mouse mutation that suppresses diet-induced obesity (mahogany) was shown to be homologous to the human gene attractin, which encodes a serum glycoprotein secreted by activated T lymphocytes, which modulates immune cell interactions (27). Recent human clinical trials extending these inferences for therapeutic intervention to treat these devastating diseases are particularly promising (29).
...
Studies of hypertension in rats have uncovered multiple potential candidate genes for the same disease in humans, identified by comparative mapping (28). Aneuploidy for a small segment of mouse chromosome 16, homologous to human chromosome 21, has implicated not just one gene but the cluster of genes that together contribute to the developmental consequences of trisomy 21, Down syndrome (30). There are many additional examples of similar interactive reasoning in human-rodent genomic considerations. Most workers take for granted the occurrence and utility of parallel genome organization between humans and rodents. The Jackson Laboratory's genome database lists more than 1000 spontaneous mouse mutations, of which 128 have been characterized at the DNA level (31). Fifty-eight of these (45%) have homologous gene mutations discovered in humans with an associated genetic disease. Thirty-five of these gene variants (60%) were first discovered in mice, leading to characterization of the human homolog, and the rest (40%) were first reported in humans, stimulating mouse mutation detections (31).
...
Nearly every human gene has a mouse homolog (known exceptions are some Y-chromosome analogs that are present in either human or mouse but not in both species) (40). This means that mouse homologs of virtually all human genes will one day be amenable to polymorphism discovery, to mutation by knockout, to transgenesis, and to medical intervention trials.
...
Genome projects targetting the domestic dog and cat benefit from special genomic advantages for companion animals, including thousands of years of domestication (estimated to be at least 15,000 years for dogs and 7000 years for cats) driven by artificial selection (48). Over 33 cat and 400 dog breeds contribute enormous morphological, behavioral, and phenotypic variation that is documented and segregated among established purebred lineages. Furthermore, the veterinary profession provides trained clinical observers who are documenting breed-specific biomedical conditions (heredity and infectious and degenerative disease)--a medical surveillance second only to that of humans. Some 364 genetic diseases have been described in dogs (49) and over 200 in cats (50). Cancer registries exist for both cats and dogs, arising from genetic, viral (such as feline leukemia virus), and environmental origins (49, 50).
...
Mouse knockouts deficient in hypocretin, the ligand of Hcrtr2 gene products, also have sleeping disorders, providing strong affirmation for the etiology of narcolepsy via hypocretin G-protein signaling in the brain stem and basal forebrain. At this writing, no human variants of the hypocretin receptor gene have been reported, but the implication of the existence of a hypocretin pathway by comparative inference is provocative.

Here's the conclusion in full:

Quote:

Conclusions
Until recently, comparative genomics was a cottage industry overshadowed by genetic advances in human and model organisms. Improved technologies and the potential for valuable applications have put the prospect of dense gene maps of domesticated livestock and companion animal species within our reach (Table 1). Some immediate practical applications of these maps that we envision include: (i) supplying animal models for human genetic diseases based on explicit gene homology as monitors for pathogenesis and therapy; (ii) an opportunity to identify candidate polygenes that affect human and veterinary disease; (iii) assessing multifactorial characters and pathologies; (iv) the discovery of evolved adaptations in mammal species that ameliorate maladies homologous to human hereditary and infectious diseases as a prelude to gene therapy, a concept termed genomic prospecting (78); (v) developing treatments for veterinary pathologies based on human trials for homologous gene defects; and (vi) the prospect of building fatter pigs, finer wool, leaner beef, more tasty chickens, or faster racehorses. Hope for each of these potential applications is growing in our community every day.
There are additional ambitious expectations with regard to basic biology. Among them are (i) the hope of explaining the physical clustering of gene families (such as the major histocompatibility complex, immunoglobin genes, Hox genes, the T cell receptor cluster, and chemokine receptors) as adaptive combinations of coordinate cis regulation, gene editing, or selective retention; (ii) the chance to understand whether even longer linkage associations preserved for tens of millions of years through billions of individuals in thousands of species are merely "frozen accidents" or were selectively retained by developmental or functional dependence (79); (iii) the opportunity to resolve the 100- to 150-million-year-old phylogeny of mammal orders using genomic segment exchanges as phylogenetic characters; (iv) the discovery of precipitous genomic events, such as the invasion of endogenous retrovirus families, preserved in modern genomics as molecular fossils of ancient epidemics; (v) the application of gene maps to nondomestic species, offering biologists the mapping tools to identify genetic determinants of reproductive isolation, adaptation, survival, and species formation.

One day soon, sequencing centers will begin to target mammals beyond humans and mice. The comparison of full genome sequences offers opportunities to identify gene birth and death in mammal lineages (for example, chimpanzee versus human) (54) as has already been approached with compared prokaryote genomes (25). The promise of comparative genomics for mammals extends further than we can imagine, as few biological disciplines will not be enhanced by knowledge of the natural history of the genes that make up living forms.

scigirl

scombrid · 07-17-2002, 01:12 PM

Medicine in the style of the Biblical Literalist

from the skeptics annotated bible

Quote:

God's treatment for leprosy: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. 14:2-32

ex-robot · 07-17-2002, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:


No. It's more like. "These people do good astronomy (or whatever). Therefore, they're opinions on biology must be right."

That is just your opinion with no basis. They clearly state the reasons for the list.

Quote:

Too bad ICR can't produce a single population biologist, former or otherwise, who considers special creation to be an correct explaination about the diversity of life.

Another appeal to authority by an evolutionist and not a creationist.

xr

scigirl · 07-17-2002, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-robot:
Another appeal to authority by an evolutionist and not a creationist.

Ok. Care to prove this assertion wrong?

scigirl

ex-robot · 07-17-2002, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ex-robot:
Does inventing the MRI, using microbes to detect land mines, discovering ways to use yeast to fight aids, malaria, etc. fall under your list of mundane tasks that ordinary scientists do?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Were those on that site too? If not, please provide a link. They sound interesting.

<a href="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html" target="_blank">Biological Scientists</a>

Look at Fliermans for microbes to detect land mines. (that is just one of the major things he has done)
Look at Macreadie for yeast and aids. (this might be in more detail at his organization's website)
Look at Damadian for the MRI.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if I did agree with your point, it is still way to generalized. It still wouldn't apply to everyone. Even if they believe the Bible spoke directly in their field, it would still only cover 1% of it and probably none of that particular situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If believing in the Bible, and creation, doesn't make a whit of difference in the every day live of a scientist, than why mention it at all?

Believing the Bible and Creation are two things. They can pray everyday for God to help them use their minds to solve the problem at hand, have a bible study, etc., but "creation" as in Adam and Eve, the flood, and created kinds may never come up in his mind. Although Kramer does state in In Six Days that he did approach the canola oil problem from a created kinds perspective.

Quote:

So you are willing to agree with me that creationism does not automatically help a scientist. Ok.

Of course! Just like humans evolving from ape-like ancestors does not automatically help a scientist.

Quote:

I still maintain that it can also hurt scientists. Let's look at the examples you mentioned. Inventing an MRI is engineering, not science, and you do not need to accept evolutionary priniciples to be an engineer.

Excuse me? Read his bio and some of the links with it. He wasn't given the ideas or plans to build it. I would say biology, biophysics, and physiological chemistry played important parts in his research. Also, evolutionary principles as you usually define evolution are not a problem.

Quote:

Also, all the other examples dealt with microbes. I'd be willing to bet that the scientists that did study yeast and HIV still believed in microevolution (you'd have to be a bloody fool not to). So in their cases, their beliefs about human origins is irrelevant, because they are not studying human origins.

Your point about believing in "microevolution" is irrelevant. All those scientists believe in "microevolution" or whatever you want to call it. That is not the issue. Don't microbiologists study how particular microbes "evolved" to where they are today?

Quote:

However, show me a person who used YEC to make advances in research into human behavior, or population genetics, ecosystems, etc (things that are intricately tied to ToE).

Don't know of any and not really interested at the moment.

Quote:

scigirl

P.S. I disagree with your theory that the ICR is not trying to show that creationism helps science. They think they are a science (I disagree), so of course they believe that creationism helps you as a scientist!

Nope. Gish even says creationism as God created, blah, blah, is not scientific. They believe of course that "scientific principles" in the Bible can help a scientist, but that is another matter for another day.

xr

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: ex-robot ]

ex-robot · 07-17-2002, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:

Ok. Care to prove this assertion wrong?

scigirl

No, my point was another appeal to authority by evolutionists and not creationists.

xr

RufusAtticus · 07-17-2002, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-robot:
That is just your opinion with no basis. They clearly state the reasons for the list.

Well it's a pretty well supported opinion then. Basicially, the only time I have encountered such lists is when creationists try to assert that they mean something.

Quote:

Another appeal to authority by an evolutionist and not a creationist.

No, it's an appeal to the experts. The problem with creationist appeals to authority is that they are never actually appealing to real authorities.

~~RvFvS~~

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-17-2002, 11:57 AM	#63
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	For ex-robot (and others), let me clarify my position about scientists and religious beliefs: I'm sure a person's background does affect they way they do science, or perhaps the types of science they will pick to study. There is no denying that. Therefore it is a good thing that scientists are diverse. They come from all walks of life, all countries, all cultures, all political beliefs, all religions, and so on. So hopefully, cultural biases perhaps tend to cancel themselves out (for instance, if "westerners" tend to be more skeptical than "easterners" or something like that). I think that a person's political or religious beliefs does (and should) affect someone's attitute about the applications of science (being opposed to cloning, or a proponent of vaccines). However, these beliefs should not affect the acceptance or rejection of the science itself. That should be done using the scientific method - not political ideologies, not religion, not personal preference. Just cold hard science. A Hindu for example, would probably morally object to the research I do (I study cattle blood and genes). However, the Hindu would not object to my actual findings that "Cattle express p40 protein." This is fundamentally different from young earth creationists, and other specific beliefs which are in direct conflict with the scientific discoveries themselves. Imagine an MD who believes in phrenology, which is not an accepted practice of the scientific community (and has been proven wrong). Maybe he's intelligent, knows all the muscle groups and drugs, etc, but do you really want him researching brain disorders? I don't. If this physician rejects the data which proves phrenology wrong, than by default he also rejects the scientific principles used to procure this negative data. So what other types of errors is he making? I'd be worried, and if I was the NIMH, I wouldn't fund him if I knew about his beliefs in phrenology (especially if he planned on using them in his studies). Ex-robot, we've had this conversation before and I know you don't agree with me because you know "smart" yecs and such. But YECS reject so much science, that I find it hard to believe they become scientists at all! If astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, biologists, geneticists, etc, are all incredibly wrong about huge theories, than perhaps the scientific method itself is flawed? But no scientist that I know of rejects the scientific theory - not even YECS. So how they reconcile this phenomoenon I don't really understand. Even if they are doing good PCR reactions and getting published, it's hard for me to believe that it doesn't negatively affect their science. Just like the phrenologist MD. Sure - he can interpret MRI's like a mo fo. But what is he NOT doing? That's perhaps more important (and of course impossible to determine). What about the YEC researchers? What are they not doing? What conclusions are they not drawing from data, because they refuse to believe in an old earth and evolution? What follow-up experiments are they not completing, because they refuse to accept certain tenets of science? Is this all making sense? Please let me know if this is not clear. scigirl

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.