The Watchmaker

[Meadmaker]

How about pointing to good scientists who are christian and accept evolution, such as Francis Collins.

I think that needs to be a part of any argument. On a related note, that's why I brought up Michael Behe. He's a main promoter of Intelligent Design, and he believes in evolution.

Most of the resistance to evolution comes from the perceived threat to religious belief. If you could get them to realize there isn't really any such threat, the rest would fall into place, at least eventually.

 

[elaine]

I think that needs to be a part of any argument. On a related note, that's why I brought up Michael Behe. He's a main promoter of Intelligent Design, and he believes in evolution.

Most of the resistance to evolution comes from the perceived threat to religious belief. If you could get them to realize there isn't really any such threat, the rest would fall into place, at least eventually.

At least with the those who are not thoroughly convinced that the evidence for evolution is planted by Satan.

 

[Lothian]

I think part of a very good argument would be to make sure it's understood that evolution and religion aren't incompatibleI once saw an article, I think it was in Skeptical Inquirer, about debates between evolution and creation. The folks at ICR were staging them in the '80s, and the article was asking if it was wise to participate. The audience was never evolution friendly, and the scientist representing evolution frequently ended up looking bad. The writer of the article was saying that the venue just wasn't fair to the scientist.

I thought that was really, really, wimpy. Cowardly. A cop out. I wondered how I would try and participate in such a debate, and I decided my opening line in my opening statement would be "The heavens are telling the glory of God." (It's from psalms, and has been used as a moderately popular hymn.) Then, go on to explain to the audience that if you want to know more about God, you should look to His creation. And what does His creation tell us?

'His creation' tells us that that there are natural explainations for the things he takes credit for. It tells us that a simpler more realistic model of the universe does not have a god in it.

The important thing was that I thought it would get the audience thinking in their terms. Sure, you wouldn't leave with a bunch of converts, and there would be some who thought you were Satan incarnate for twisting the Holy Bible that way. However, if you did it right, you would leave with one in ten willing to listen. That's a darned sight better than Dawkins usually does.

Yes you could meet them half way. "Look when I drop this ball it falls to the floor. We call it gravity. God makes it happen." When we are talking science we can not bring in the supernatural and unprovable.
'Faith' is not a scientific answer. What we need to do is to make people understand and accept the scientific evidence, where it exists. If the religious then want to build a god of the gaps they can. Science however can never accept that gods fills gaps with out evidence. We don't know how the big bang started. It might have been god. However, the flying spaghetti monster has just as much supporting evidence.

Dawkins is right science and faith don’t mix. If we try to mix them we weaken science. I am sure that evolution would be more popular if science included an [insert your own preferred deity here] in the theory but that is no longer science.

I don't think it's fair to cite innumeracy. We don't have the numbers. "Millions of years" is not a number.

What we have is that the development of life was highly improbable, but we had so many chances that (at least) one got lucky. Until we can quantify "highly improbable" and "so many chances", we don't have numbers.

What we have is people who in respect of the origins of life mistake a fantastically small chance multiplied by billions of opportunities with no chance. In reality the odds in first calculation are quite high as our existence demonstrates.

Most of the resistance to evolution comes from the perceived threat to religious belief. If you could get them to realize there isn't really any such threat, the rest would fall into place, at least eventually.

Science is a threat to any religions whose revealed truths are contradicted by the evidence. Evolution is a massive threat to the Christianity of the 1800’s. It is not a threat to Catholicism today who I understand accept it (unless Benny has changed his mind again).

 

[Ossai]

Meadmaker

You're still 0 for 3,

OK, so you can’t count either.

although the ignorance is debatable.

Not really, you’ve more that qualified yourself as ignorant of the subject.

However, the specific question that led to the charge of ignorance was relating to experimental evidence of cell formation. I am indeed ignorant of any such experimental evidence, but I believe that is caused by the fact that there is no such evidence.

Facts would help your case. Do you have any?

Yep, tons in fact. But since you claim to be so knowledge of biology, you won’t need my help in researching them will you? [sarcastic]For a quick reference try Talk Origins. We don’t know everything but research as been and is still ongoing.[/sarcastic]

Two things: First, the atheists have been very much involved in the secularist agenda very apparent in the United States.

What secularist agenda would that be?

Second, last I checked, Europe was part of the world.

Why you must be referring to those atheist riots in Europe set off by those Danish cartoons.

The simplest thing that we know that reproduces itself is a cell.

Wrong again.

Ossai

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yes, there's is a polarization created by fundamentalists and the media to the effect that Christianity is on one side and evolution is on the other. There are millions of Christians who can't be so pigeon holed.

Jimmy Carter for example. He is a devout evangelical who fully accepts the theory of evolution and strongly supports the separation of church and state.

 

[Foster Zygote]

At least with the those who are not thoroughly convinced that the evidence for evolution is planted by Satan.

Oh come on! Everyone knows that fossils were buried by the Jews in 1926.

 

[Meadmaker]

The simplest thing that we know that reproduces itself is a cell.

Wrong again.

Ossai

I'm all ears. What's simpler?

I know viruses are simpler, but they need a host. The host+virus is more complex. I believe the aforementioned prions need a host as well. DNA and RNA replicate, but only in very elaborate conditions, such as inside cells. Dawkins speaks of replicators, but the Holy Grail of the current search for the origin of life is to find one simple enough that it could have arisen from something other than another replicator. Where did the first replicator come from?

A quick google search revealed papers like this one:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1083737

EMBO Rep. 2000 September 15; 1(3): 217–222.
doi: 10.1093/embo-reports/kvd063.
Copyright © 2000 European Molecular Biology Organization

Composing life
Daniel Segré and Doron Lanceta

Department of Molecular Genetics and The Crown Human Genome Center, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel

Received June 15, 2000; Revised July 28, 2000; Accepted August 4, 2000.

Abstract:

Textbooks often assert that life began with specialized complex molecules, such as RNA, that are capable of making their own copies. This scenario has serious difficulties, but an alternative has remained elusive. Recent research and computer simulations have suggested that the first steps toward life may not have involved biopolymers. Rather, non-covalent protocellular assemblies, generated by catalyzed recruitment of diverse amphiphilic and hydrophobic compounds, could have constituted the first systems capable of information storage, inheritance and selection. A complex chain of evolutionary events, yet to be deciphered, could then have led to the common ancestors of today’s free-living cells, and to the appearance of DNA, RNA and protein enzymes.

As long as that alternative remains elusive, and the complex chain of evolutionary events have yet to be deciphered, I will stand by my assertion that there is no experimental evidence of the original cell formation.

So, sorry Ossai, you made three assertions. I am ignorant. I am a creationist. And we have tons of evidence.

You're still 0 for 3, although the first assertion would be true to some extent for everyone. After all, we are all ignorant to some extent, as I'm sure you would agree. On second thought, I'm not sure you would agree, but it's true nonetheless.


Here's one tip for anyone trying to argue against "The Watchmaker" effectively. Don't overstate your own knowledge, and since the knowledge of the biological community itself is fairly limited, don't claim that scientists know how those "watches" were assembled. They don't know that, and if you say they do, you look foolish.

In the end, anything short of experimental demonstrations will be unconvincing. Instead, you have to focus on the possibility that someday, science will find the answer. In reality, biogenesis is no more than an hypothesis, awaiting experimental confirmation. Even evolution has limits in what you can absolutely claim. Yes, it's a confirmed theory, but be cautious claiming more knowledge than you have. It's an area of study still in its infancy.

ETA: I read the paper I linked. Cool stuff. Check out Polymer Gard and the Lipid World, if you're into the biochemical origins of life, and not afraid of some big words.

 

[Megalodon]

I'm all ears. What's simpler?

Ice cristals...

 

[Meadmaker]

Ice cristals...

I thought about crystals, but in context, I think it was clear that crystals don't fit the bill as self-replicating molecules.

 

[Ossai]

Meadmaker

So, sorry Ossai, you made three assertions. I am ignorant. I am a creationist. And we have tons of evidence.

1. You’re still ignorant.
2. Whether or not you are currently a creationist, you’ve argued that side in the past.
3. I told you where to look, at least a good starting point. Apparently you didn’t even bother. Go have fun in your ignorance.

Ossai

 

[Megalodon]

I thought about crystals, but in context, I think it was clear that crystals don't fit the bill as self-replicating molecules.

The context I replied to was:

The simplest thing that we know that reproduces itself is a cell.

Other than that, there are a number of self-replicating peptides. I will not go deep into their properties, since is far from my field of expertise.

But I should say that I agree that we should not over-stress the knowledge we have from the origins of life, since we're lacking to much of it.

On the other hand, I'm sure you'll agree that even the current incomplete status of science beats the "goddidit" hypothesis...

 

[Meadmaker]

On the other hand, I'm sure you'll agree that even the current incomplete status of science beats the "goddidit" hypothesis...

As a scientific hypothesis, certainly, because of course "godidit" isn't a scientific hypothesis, nor does it claim to be.

ID makes a slightly different claim, and asserts it as a hypothesis. Its claim is "Godhaddadoit". (God had to do it.) It's easy to refute that the hypothesis has been confirmed, but it's much harder to refute the hypothesis itself.

In different terms, the argument for ID is basically:

1. The probability of life arising by natural phenomena is 0. (Or so small that it is effectively 0.)
2. Therefore, supernatural phenomena were involved.

Step 1 is the hypothesis.

You can demonstrate that they haven't proved that the probability is really 0. However, you can't easily demonstrate that the probability is not 0.

 

[Megalodon]

However, you can't easily demonstrate that the probability is not 0.

I disagree with that. From the moment you show that self-replication does not require "life", the probability of "life" arising is different from 0. I would go as far as to say that, given enough time and resources, the probability equals 1.

 

[Tricky]

As a scientific hypothesis, certainly, because of course "godidit" isn't a scientific hypothesis, nor does it claim to be.

ID makes a slightly different claim, and asserts it as a hypothesis. Its claim is "Godhaddadoit". (God had to do it.) It's easy to refute that the hypothesis has been confirmed, but it's much harder to refute the hypothesis itself.

Not exactly. In order to make that hypothesis a valid one, a comphrehensive definition and description of "God" is required so that we will know what it is that did it. Since most religious people, including yourself IIRC, say "God is beyond our knowledge", the hypothesis resolves to "some unknown supernatural phenomenon did it".

In different terms, the argument for ID is basically:

1. The probability of life arising by natural phenomena is 0. (Or so small that it is effectively 0.)
2. Therefore, supernatural phenomena were involved.

Step 1 is the hypothesis.

You can demonstrate that they haven't proved that the probability is really 0. However, you can't easily demonstrate that the probability is not 0.

I disagree. Again, since we don't have full universal knowledge, argument 1 must be amended to:

1. The probability of life arising by known natural phenomena is 0. (Or so small that it is effectively 0.)

And you could also say:
The probability of life arising by known supernatural phenomena is also 0. (since zero supernatural phenomena are known at this time).

So once again, we come down to saying that the the question of origins is unknown. Either unknown natural phenomena, or unknown supernatural phenomena.

But of course, more and more natural phenomena are becoming known, so the probabilities of life arising by natural phenomena is constantly increasing. By contrast, the number of supernatural phenomena becoming known is holding steady at zero. So you can see which way the answer is trending. Of course, discovery of a single supernatural phenomenon could change this trend dramatically.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Not exactly. In order to make that hypothesis a valid one, a comphrehensive definition and description of "God" is required so that we will know what it is that did it. Since most religious people, including yourself IIRC, say "God is beyond our knowledge", the hypothesis resolves to "some unknown supernatural phenomenon did it".


I disagree. Again, since we don't have full universal knowledge, argument 1 must be amended to:

1. The probability of life arising by known natural phenomena is 0. (Or so small that it is effectively 0.)

And you could also say:
The probability of life arising by known supernatural phenomena is also 0. (since zero supernatural phenomena are known at this time).

So once again, we come down to saying that the the question of origins is unknown. Either unknown natural phenomena, or unknown supernatural phenomena.

But of course, more and more natural phenomena are becoming known, so the probabilities of life arising by natural phenomena is constantly increasing. By contrast, the number of supernatural phenomena becoming known is holding steady at zero. So you can see which way the answer is trending. Of course, discovery of a single supernatural phenomenon could change this trend dramatically.

Nominated.

I'm sure you aren't the first person ever to make this point but you've stated it so clearly and economically that I must applaud you. I can't wait to use this argument myself.

 

[Tricky]

Nominated.

I'm sure you aren't the first person ever to make this point but you've stated it so clearly and economically that I must applaud you. I can't wait to use this argument myself.

A nomination? (sniff) I don't know what to say. Thank you to all the people who made this possible, especially you, AdoptedEmbryo and you, Meadmaker.

 

[Meadmaker]

A nomination? (sniff) I don't know what to say. Thank you to all the people who made this possible, especially you, AdoptedEmbryo and you, Meadmaker.

Now we have a real fight on our hands. I'm on the nominee list this month, too.


FWIW, your argument is extremely logical, and correct in all its particulars, but is it persuasive? The problem is that it depends on acceptance of one your premises, which is that there are zero known supernatural phenomena.

No known supernatural phenomena? What about the resurrection of Jesus?


(For the slow-witten in the audience, I'm not a Christian and don't actually believe in the resurrection of Jesus. I'm just pointing out that Tricky's argument, as well spoken as it is, asserts that there are no miracles, so it's a non starter for persuading anyone who might be inclined to believe "The Watchmaker".)

 

[Tricky]

Now we have a real fight on our hands. I'm on the nominee list this month, too.

Well, I hope we both make it to the semis. HawkOne is the man to bribe. You are at a disadvantage though because your views are a minority here. Not fair, but hey, that's life.

But frankly, I look at the nominees this month and I'm afraid we're both toast.

FWIW, your argument is extremely logical, and correct in all its particulars, but is it persuasive? The problem is that it depends on acceptance of one your premises, which is that there are zero known supernatural phenomena.

No known supernatural phenomena? What about the resurrection of Jesus?

What about it? Is it known? I have no evidence of it other than a book which pretty much assumes the truth of it. I have equal evidence for the gods in the Iliad.

(For the slow-witten in the audience, I'm not a Christian and don't actually believe in the resurrection of Jesus. I'm just pointing out that Tricky's argument, as well spoken as it is, asserts that there are no miracles, so it's a non starter for persuading anyone who might be inclined to believe "The Watchmaker".)

I think that I asserted that there are no "known" miracles. Lots of "claimed" ones, of course. In every case that I have ever seen where good data on the "miracle" was available, a mundane explanation has been shown to be better than supernatural ones. But I agree that anyone who is inclined to believe "The Watchmaker" is not likely to be convinced by me. Or anyone. Or anything.

 

[Ossai]

Meadmaker

Most of the resistance to evolution comes from the perceived threat to religious belief. If you could get them to realize there isn't really any such threat, the rest would fall into place, at least eventually.

How is evolution (or any knowledge really) not a threat to religious belief? Those chrisitian sects that aren’t threaten have usually declared a god of the gaps and then quit looking at the gaps, or require a needless addition.

To put it another way, god is knowledge growth inhibiter. Once a <any> religion has posited god as an answer, anything that doesn’t agree with it is fought, belittled, or if lucky, ignored.

Ossai

 

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker
How is evolution (or any knowledge really) not a threat to religious belief?

Lots of Christians, including a few ID supporters, believe in evolution. It doesn't seem to be a threat to their belief.