Mcnugget or the omelette - a profound evolutionary dilemma (Jul/31/2007 )

I would call it breeding or selective breeding or rearing. But the unbearable is in work with GM plants (at least it seems so, if the crops outcross), or with dogs + Dingo or dog + wolf etc etc. But Poodles are just an outcome of human dullness, I guess wolves will prey on them not mate They are the chickens among the Canoidea.




You can read between the lines

---

From an egg where else? If artificial selection (breeding..whatever) has human intelligence (although there are several hits and misses) and hands printed all over it, if we go then to nature, why is the idea of a designer so abhorrent to most hard-core evolutionists? I know, I know..there's no proof (the believers are always demanded to provide one), it's untestable, no verification nor falsification, the God hypothesis is unnecessary so should be shaved off by Occam's razor...so on and on and on. This uncompromising militant stance, doesn't it violate the true spirit of science? There are theistic scientists e.g. Kenneth Miller, Francisco Ayala and co who are as committed to the theory of evolution as they are to their faith. Why should there be a clash?

confused as always,

casandra

---

humans can breed chickens ergo there must be a god - bit of a leap dont you think?

i get the feeling i'm not alone in this view - faith is ok (if a little based on fantasy) and perfectly happy to be mixed up in the same person as a bit of science - its when people dont just have faith and science but try to create a hybrid of the two and start talking science with bits of faith inserted - and look aghast when they get a few dirty looks from the "non believers"

and as for religion - who can tell me when hell was invented and by whom ( and why purgatory was added to the mix)

dom

---

Even the catholic church and Mr Pope reject Creationism. But if you or anybody else would find a proof that an intelligent designer is/was involved, then science would accept it. But (lucklily) this is still missing. And that evolution is only a theory/concept with several gaps and uncertainties but untill now the best we have to explain what we see and what it is (was) going on, is a commonplace.
Why not this way (even me as atheistic hard core evolution-supporting reductionist would accept this view): Science describes the world in a verifable (or falsifiable) way. But as a (human) formal system of thought it is inescapable incomplete (e.g., think of Gödels 'incompleteness theorem' or Heisenbergs 'uncertainty principle').
Science can discover and proof principles, processes, effects, etc. but there are limits. For example the questions for "Why?", Whereto?", Wherefrom?" (in a more general context) are at least as good (or only?) answerable by religion or philosophy or any other "view of life".
In terms of our evolution debate, religion may interpret evolution as creation. Or even (but for me too extreme): Natural science can substantiate creation as a evolutioary process. And (better for me) religion can give sense to the total system of evolution/science (citated and modified from a theologian).
So both views should be or can be responsible for different topics of the same field and only partly overlap and compete. So: "Why should there be a clash?"
I would like it if such a 'moderate' view could find some more supporters.

Now time for supper, best would be a chicken-curry, that's one of the best ideas of cuisine evolution

---

I'm almost speechless hobglobin (and that's rare) have you been reading the papal encyclicals? The church has learned from the Galileo affair and even our late pope has declared that in terms of science we are but laymen. In one of your previous posts you stated that believers are not victims but rather culprits covering up the criminal history of the church, actually, to its credit, the church has never denied its bloody history. It recognizes the fallibility of humans. It has never claimed to be perfect.

I detest it when I feel compelled to defend my faith. In principle I don't see any need for christian apologetics but I can fully understand why many believers are forced to defend so. I think it was Daniel Dennett or Paul Geisert (when they were calling people to join the Brights org) who announced that it's high time to call a spade a spade and I see no problem with that. But if you call a spade not only a spade but a lying stupid spade, don't act surprised if the spade rises up to whack you in the head and that's exactly what is happening. Your "bright" to my "super" oh yeah really "in your face" but very provocative of a backlash causing further rift between the them and us.

My faith is personal (and this is probably true with a lot of believers) and I don't want any extremists from both ends of the divide to tell me what to believe and how to live my life. And I agree science doesn't have all the anwers and religion is struggling with a lot of issues but every man should have the right to pick his own poison or rather make his own choice. And for me butter chicken is better than the curried one.

---

Only as big a leap as non-living to living cell, methinks. Come off it dom, you know that wasn't the point being made. There are many stepping-stones in between (just like my somewhat flippant response).

I have to take issue with your stance about faith. You seem to consider faith, that is religious faith, as some kind of fantasy leap into nothingness. As a Christian, I can tell you straight-up that faith in a Christian sense is possibly better translated as "trust" or "reliance". It's all evidence-based.
The thing that makes "faith" strong is where it's placed. Simply having faith in 'faith', or being really really really sincere in one's beliefs will fail in the face of scrutiny (just think about the sincerity [totally misplaced] of the Nazis against the jewish people of Europe), whereas having faith/trust/reliance in evidence will not, assuming the evidence stands up to unbiased scrutiny. If that sounds a bit like our trust as scientists in experimental results when we defend a thesis or a paper, then so be it.

So why do you say faith is based in fantasy? Be specific, please, otherwise there's no way anyone can respond.

Finally, Hell is understood as being that place where God, and every single attribute of His nature, is not. That means there won't be sunshine, warmth, friends generosity, light, help or anything else that we consider 'good' in the world. The idea of hell has developed through the ages; originally it was simply the place of the dead, but it started to be considered as a place of torment and punishment. We know that by the time of Jesus, Hell was considered a terrible place (He described it as a place of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth - how tormented do you have to be to gnash your teeth??). Purgatory was added by the Roman Catholic church in mediaeval times. You'd have to check with a Catholic theologian for the ins and outs of it, because I'm a Protestant, and I don't believe in it!

---

hi swanny
thats possibly the sanest answer i've heard in a long time (btw purgatory was invented so that rich people could still eventually go to heaven no matter how nasty they were and thus still had a good reason to give money to the church)
hell is the lack of gods love and the lack of the love of god (past) transformed to the torture and maiming of the sinner for eternity (now) - obviously too subtle for the masses (or not giving enough control over the masses) oh and a bit of dante.
I was brought up as a christian but hated the hypocrasy of teaching the simple love of god from a polished marble altar covered in expensive drapes and gold and jeweled chalices. i always remembered the time jesus upturned a few tables in the temple and then went on to sit with a few of his friends and share some wine and bread - this then became a chanted, repeated drone which missed the entire point - thus i see religion as an act of hypocrisy used and abused in the past and present but i do not condem someones belief in god as my parents had it and for a brief stint in childhood so did i (very brief if i'm honest)

however

when people start using the simple fact that a good scientist will always deny having proof of an idea (we work in theories to allow for change) but say they do have the proof (i remember going to a meeting of a friends "group" and listening to architectural plans for noahs ark - proof it was real) it annoys me.
I.D. taught in schools?
what started off as a man saying be nice to people has become a political animal.

oh and the "fantasy" bit - nobody wants to die but we all do and when it happens we will rot and rejoin the earth - no more - no less
do you honestly believe a part of you will float into the heavens and be immortal?

you know i promised myself i would stay away from these questions and stick to the science so i'm afraid these will be my last words on the subject - sorry if i didnt give you all the answers you wanted but i have work to do

dom

well almost

http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/arti...php?storyid=337

---

I’m gonna risk climbing out of the bunkers since I got winged when purgatory, a catholic doctrine was mentioned earlier. Besides this is still my thread no matter how many twists and turns some people have already given it .Dom, do check out purgatory's description in the online catholic encyclopedia or the Vatican official website so next time you do a bit of bashing you'd have a better, more informed basis (straight from the horse's mouth) instead of the tabloid version you’ve got or Dante’s literary one . And if you mockingly ask me if I believe in any of that crap, I would tauntingly challenge you with a “what the f**k is it to you?” . Can you see where this is going..no where but downhill from here until it’s time to call in the fire department. C’mon dude…it’s my life, let me wallow in my “fantasy” or my “insanity” and let me be the judge of that. And being a hypocrite… it’s not a human trait singular to the church or the religious. Actually there’s always a place for one more...hypocrite, that is, whether inside or outside of the church.

I really don’t understand what the fuss is all about, this imagined threat to society that you think is posed by the faithful when in fact most of western world is highly secular. Well, the US is maybe a special case but that's largely thanks to George Dubya. <sigh>With all the progress that our civilisation has achieved thru science and technology you'd think that we would have also moved forward in terms of human understanding, compassion, empathy etc...unfortunately...these are merely noble ideals (or claptraps). Dominic are you sure that your last post is your last words on this matter bec I can rile you up some more just to test your resolve

running for cover,

casandra

---

Here is the text of a PM I sent to Dominic a couple of days ago. His lines are italicised.


I was brought up as a christian but hated the hypocrasy of teaching the simple love of god from a polished marble altar covered in expensive drapes and gold and jeweled chalices. i always remembered the time jesus upturned a few tables in the temple and then went on to sit with a few of his friends and share some wine and bread - this then became a chanted, repeated drone which missed the entire point - thus i see religion as an act of hypocrisy used and abused in the past and present but i do not condem someones belief in god as my parents had it and for a brief stint in childhood so did i (very brief if i'm honest)

I’m really sorry that the accumulated wealth of the church has become such a stumbling block for you (but I totally understand how that could happen). You should remember, however, that many people gave to the church out of gratitude, so I wonder, is wealth a side issue to something else? Do not feel any obligation to answer that, by the way!

when people start using the simple fact that a good scientist will always deny having proof of an idea (we work in theories to allow for change) but say they do have the proof (i remember going to a meeting of a friends "group" and listening to architectural plans for noahs ark - proof it was real) it annoys me.

I know what you mean!! I think that all comes down to people not reading the Bible in its correct context.

I.D. taught in schools?

I think there is a place for ID being taught in schools, and even in science class. I think kids today are more savvy than we give them credit for. If I was going to teach ID, it would have to be in its tightest definition: that of the question of the origin of life, rather than the number of species we see today (Having said that, you can easily see there will be implications that might get evolutionists hot under the collar…). A part of me thinks that one reason the hard-line evolutionists are so opposed is some of them realise the implications if life was designed – if there is a designer, it’s quite possible that he/she is still on the job (thus threatening Darwin’s random mutation and selection events); therefore, they are products of that designer, so the theory of absolute free will and independence goes ‘poof’ out the window. I think we need to not be afraid of getting two different theories together in a classroom, because if the ensuing debate is carried out correctly, the kids will learn a great lesson in critical thinking.


what started off as a man saying be nice to people has become a political animal.

I presume you are giving me the final summation of a much larger argument, because, unfortunately, Jesus never limited himself to ‘be nice to each other’. 

oh and the "fantasy" bit - nobody wants to die but we all do and when it happens we will rot and rejoin the earth - no more - no less
do you honestly believe a part of you will float into the heavens and be immortal?

As a Christian, I certainly don’t believe we just rot and rejoin the earth (although that is definitely what will happen to our bodies). Yes, I believe in an immortal soul, and yes, I do believe that when I die, I will go to heaven to be with God. But the only reason I think that way is because after a lot of critical study, I am convinced that on the first Easter Sunday, Jesus was physically raised to life by God, and more than that, he was raised to a quantitatively different kind of life (but don’t expect me to describe it, because there’s not enough information to give you that kind of detail). I will stop being a Christian when somebody shows me that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead.

http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/arti...php?storyid=337

Yes, very funny! A pity the writer limited their thought processes to such a point as to make God imprisoned (or at least handcuffed), as it were, to time-space. The fact of the Big Bang (and I’m pretty comfortable calling it a fact) does not mean that God also was made at the same time. I mean, that’s the great thing about being supernatural: you get to be outside of all that stuff, while still being able to be involved in it.

I’ve started to become of the opinion that if my thoughts suggest there’s something that God can’t do, or some kind of limitation that must logically be placed on Him, I need to change my thinking process, not tell God there’s something he can’t do!!

---

Just one more thing:
I'm really getting sick of the tired old argument that says that most of the world's ills, like war and poverty, have been "because" of religion. Taking just the last century, for example, both World Wars were caused by politics, not religion, as were the Korean and Vietnam wars (with a dash of independence from the colonial rulers) and the wars for independence in Africa (which too often turned into tribal blood-letting). And don't get me started about the starvation in Africa caused by secular dictators.

In addition, it has been the atheistic philosophers like Nietsche and Marx who paved the way for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mugabe's rape of Zimbabwe and Saddam Hussein (remember his war with Iran???). It seems to me that the genocides committed by dictators over the last century have been the logical conclusions to the atheists' philosophies, whereas a logical conclusion of the reviled and mocked evangelical Christianity was the abolition of slavery, celebrating its bicentenary in the UK this year. And while people happily talk of the hypocrisy of the church, nobody bothers to recall that individual Christians (like William Wilberforce and Mother Theresa) have done more to improve the life of the poor and needy than the humanists and their atheist posturing.

Let's face it, people, nobody has the monopoly on living truthfully in peace and total justice with everyone else, and nobody has the monopoly on doing the wrong thing. Pointing the finger at who's better and who's the worst is more ridiculous than rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic to get a better view: it's just simply wrong.

Now that I have all that lot off my chest, it strikes me that we have strayed a tad from the original question. Umm, does anyone remember what the original question was?

---