scigirl

You really are teaching biology! Please do the students a favor and get educated about the scientific method. It doesn't have to be in relation to biology - any scientific field is fine.

I would rather prove to you that your above statement that I quoted is seriously flawed, rather than babble to you about abiogenesis.

Just to give you my background if it helps: I have a bachelors in biology, a masters in immunology, and currently in medical school. I did scientific research for several years in both immunology and also neurobiology. Oh and I can make guacamole!

The first thing you have to do is realize that science does not have to be an enemy to your faith. You yourself have listed a bunch of scientists that, despite their beliefs in God or in the Bible, still used the scientific method to learn more about the universe.

However, saying that, I want to point out that scientific "beliefs" (I hesitate to use the word belief here) are fundamentally different from religious beliefs. Thus, there is conflict when someone has both a scientific belief, and a religious belief, about the same issue. Let's explore some of the differences:

1. Science theories always require evidence. The more, the better. Religious beliefs always require faith due to a lack of hard evidence.

2. Scientific theories, in order to be accepted, must "jive" with other scientific theories in other fields. In other words, if a physics scientist discovers something that "disproves" a tenet in biology, then the two must be studied more, and reconciled in some way. For instance, maybe the physics scientist is wrong, or perhaps the biology tenet was wrong, or some of both.

Religious theories often contradict with other religious theories, and there is usually no effort to reconcile conflicting beliefs other than to say, "My god is right, your god is not!"

3. Science works, and thrives on, controversy and criticism. One of the most important parts of a seminar given by a scientist is the "Question and Answer" session - where other scientists attempt to poke holes in, or refine or clarify, the theory at hand.

Unfortunately this is a difficult balance for the scientific community to find, at times. You don't want to be too skeptical of new theories, because some of them might be right! On the other hand, you don't want to be too accepting, because then you won't see the flaws.

Anyway, the way most science works is the scientist sets out to disprove his own theory. If he/she genererates data that contradicts the theory, than the theory is weakened. If on the other hand, the data seems to fit the theory, than the theory is strengthened. This process continues on over and over for every new theory that gets proposed. No it's not perfect - and in today's fast-paced society, especially in some fields like medicine, some theories are "accepted" before they have been rigorously tested. However, this is not due to flaws in the scientific method, it is due to a number of other factors - such as lack of scientific education in society.

Religion, IMHO, does not rely on controversy. Rarely have I seen a priest open up his sermon for critical questions during the church service. In some cases, questioning is outright discouraged.

4. The body of scientific knowledge has grown and gained much depth over the past thousand years. Read a science text from 100 years ago, and read one from today. Wildly different aren't they! Scientific theories are constantly being added too, subtracted from, and altered, as we gain more understanding about our universe.

Religous texts on the other hand haven't changed a bit in a thousand years (except perhaps the language they are in, and Thees to He's). American society today is radically different from biblical society. We no longer have slavery, we no longer have arranged marriages, women are allowed to do more stuff than just pop out babies, we are not nomadic (well sometimes we are). Yet this Bible which is supposed to be a guidebook on life hasn't changed at all, or been added to, in several hundred years! I see that as a serious flaw of religious texts.

5. Scientific theories themselves are a-moral. In other words, they are neither good nor bad all by themselves. They are simply our current descriptions of the universe.

Now if we wanted to do a moral action, like say, cure cancer, we may use those scientific tenets to do so. Also, some people unfortunately use science to do terrible things - like develop nerve gasses to use on their enemies. These facts though have nothing to do with the validity of cancer theories or neuron theories themselves.

Religion on the other hand claims to not only be correct in its claims, but also claims to have all the moral answers.

6. The scientific community is very diverse - it is made up of people from all over the world. People with very different religious, political, and economic backgrounds can still all do science together because in a sense it is a common "language." People in India are publishing their results in the same journals as people in the USA or Russia. It would be very difficult for them to even think about having an "agenda" in terms of disproving a religion, for example, since they ARE so diverse.

I've heard many creationists accuse the scientific community as being all atheistic and trying to disprove god. Perhaps they mean a scientific community different from the one I'm familiar with.

scigirl

scigirl

sciteach,

Here's a resource for you to get started in your biology education - an online biology book:

<a href="http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookTOC.html" target="_blank">http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookTOC.html</a>

Some excerpts from this chapter:
<a href="http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookintro.html" target="_blank">http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookintro.html</a>
I highly recommend you peruse this site, or one like it.

scigirl

scigirl

If you want some evidence for the symbiosis theory, read on: I posted this a while back in a thread called <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001345&p=" target="_blank">Ways that evolutionary theory is advancing medicine</a>:

Endosymbiont theory explains the side effects of some antibiotics.

The endosymbiont theory states that around a billion years ago, prokaryotic ancestors of mitochondria were internalized by other anaerobic cells. This created a cell with a new organelle, which has a double membrane and its own genome.

This theory is based in part on the following observations when comparing bacteria and mitochondria:

Both have circular DNA.

Mitochondria have their own ribosomes (protein-making machinery), and the size of the rRNA component is more similar to a bacteria than to the cytosolic eukaryotic rRNA ribosome component.

Proteins synthesized in the mitochondria have a formyl group added to them, like bacteria but unlike other eukaryotic proteins.

There is sequence homology between the mitochondrial plasmid and bacterial DNA.

The second proof listed above, that mitochondrial ribosomes are similar to bacterial ones, has important medical implications. Some antibiotics (drugs designed to kill or inhibit bacterial growth) act by inhibiting bacterial ribosomes. Endosymbiont theory predicts that these drugs will also inhibit mitochondrial function.

From Lodish et al (a cell bio text):
scigirl

scigirl

Apology accepted. Stick around and you will learn way more than you ever wanted to know about DNA, fossils, and a man called "Kent Hovind!"

scigirl

RufusAtticus

I don't think it is really possible to compare the "pace of evolution" in these instances.

Note every spot on the earth was in such eXtreme conditions. Besides, thermophilic bacteria show that stable proteins can exist at or above 100 degrees C.

RufusAtticus

Sciteach,

You will find the following resource helpful.

<a href="http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/contents.html" target="_blank">National Academy of Science's Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science</a>

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Ab_Normal

[rant]
This to me reveals one of the big problems in how teachers are educated and hired. It is my understanding that teaching college emphasizes pedagogical technique over knowledge of a subject field. So sciteach, as a starting teacher, ends up in a situation where he/she is teaching a complex subject that he/she has no in-depth knowledge of. Just what I want for my child!
[/rant]

Please continue posting those edifying links! (I'm bookmarking them too.)

Neruda

So that's where the "mantis" bit comes from! I'm currently a biology major at U of O, and there's a good chance I'll be an entomologist when I leave this place. It's always fun to meet another insect lover!

Non-praying Mantis

Thanks, Scigirl!

Sciteach, pay attention to what Scigirl wrote. She is one of the best scientists (but not nearly the only one) debating on this forum, and I agree 100% with her above posts.

However, I can't believe that noone has mentioned <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org" target="_blank">this web page</a>, yet.

This one is probably the best site on the web for learning about evolution and the procedure for science in general. Excellent!

Please, read your textbook!

NPM

Starboy

Scigirl, you forgot the most important thing about science. In all scientific controvercies, nature is the final deciding factor. Appeals to faith, or the bible or to sentiment will not do. If there is currently insufficient knowldege of nature to decide it, it remains undecided until such time as it becomes known. Only confirmation or disconfirmation from natural sources is allowed. Such as it is, that is science dogma.

Starboy

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>