Jump to content

David Paszkiewicz's letter in the Observer


Guest Paul

Recommended Posts

Paul cannot except that some things just cannot be explained and maybe some of those might be in religion.

You have it backwards there. To the rational, the unexplained is simply unexplained. It is the religious who cannot accept that. To them, the unexplained MUST have some kind of answer attached to it, even in the absence of any actual knowledge. And religion provides a way to do that. Since "God" is defined as omnipotent, "God did it" is a universal explanation for everything. It protects the the believer from the discomfort of accepting that they live in a world of unknowns, including some of their deepest questions. The problem is that it merely hides their ignorance, and often only from themselves, but does not reduce it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The origins of life was introduced into this topic in post 46 by so-called “Patriot”:

“Non-believers have no credibility. Anyone that believes we were all hatched in pond scum cannot think clearly.”

A “guest” whose writing is suspiciously like PatRat’s and 2dim’s beat this drum again in post 58:

“Here are the choices: pond scum or Intelligent Design. I'll go with I.D.”

These juvenile and impertinent remarks were cogently and thoroughly refuted in post 62:

“No, the choice is to think according to the evidence and reason so that you can conform your beliefs and your actions to reality; or to decide in advance what you want to believe and refuse to think about anything that doesn’t fit with your choice, so that you can do whatever the hell you want to do and blame someone else if it doesn’t work out.”

Here’s another way of saying the same thing, from post 64:

” Here are the choices: science or a story. Science won't tell me all the answers today, but it gives more answers and is more reliable than any story. If I go with science I'll know more tomorrow than I do today, and if the world goes with science, people will know a lot more 100 years from now than they do today. If we go with the story, we won't know any more 1,000 years from now than we do today. In fact there probably won't be any people because if we keep doing things based on what we wish was true instead of what is true, we're going to destroy ourselves. So I'll go with science.”

A third person made the same point in post 67:

“False dichotomy. Odin creating the earth from the corpse of Ymir is as likely as the Christian god going poof and everything appearing. The real dichotomy is reality vs. a 2000 year old book. We reject ID not becuse it is religious (though it is) but because it has been proven wrong. What with you already being on the internet, perhaps you should do a 5-second Google search for the transcript of the Dover trial where ID was spanked mercilessly. The smug superiority of Creationist idiocy is so funny that I'd almost be sad to see it go.”

Then, in post 71, there was this statement, which is blatantly false (see post 76):

” Did you ever question why science has never uncovered any evidence of the origins of life? (Clue) There isn't any.”

The issue was finally joined in post 73 with this:

“That's false. Science has uncovered many things about the formation of amino acids and proteins, and they are working to understand the formation of the cell. This is the same way that science has made most of its major discoveries, including the development of medicines and medical treatments that have saved your life or the life of someone you care about. If everyone took your attitude, there would be no science and tens of millions of people over the age of 60 would be dead. Did you ever question why none of the supernatural claims of any theology has ever been verified, or why no theology has ever generated any progress in the fund of human knowledge? Of course you haven't, because you made up your mind what you wish to believe and you ignore all the facts.”

And the relevant distinction was pointed out again in post 74:

“Those are the choices if you're a moron. The actual choices are:

”1. Established science that proves its worth by being successfully applied every day (you know how we don't worry about polio anymore? Guess why--vaccines are created as a direct result of our knowledge of evolution)

2. Creationism (the Dover case), which can't be proven and has no application whatsoever to anything in reality. If you disagree, name one testable prediction that creationism makes.

”By the way, "primordial soup" is a metaphor for a variety of chemicals etc., like the US being called a "melting pot" does not literally mean we're all cooking in a cauldron. If you feel stupid for taking the term literally, good; you should, you willfully ignorant fool.”

This was followed immediately by this excellent and pithy comment (post 75):

“What do you think of this saying: 'Science may not have all the answers, but every answer we have, we got from science.'”

After this, the topic really isn’t interesting, except as a study of human stubbornness and wishful thinking. True to form, God’s self-proclaimed chosen ones have closed their eyes and minds to everything except their own conclusions and opinions. No matter how many times you point out the obvious to them, they insist on assuming that human beings have the answers to all questions, even though we do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
Sometime around 250BC, the greek scientist Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth with good precision. But he already knew that it was a sphere. This seems to have been common knowledge among scientists, even 2200+ years ago.

One of the great triumphs in the history of human knowledge. He figured out the size of the world with a stick and a hole in the ground. What is amazing is that if you assume that someone in Egypt was using the Egyptian stade instead of the Greek, he was closer than Columbus to the correct measurement.

Still, it is possible that some scientist at some time might have believed that the earth was flat. It might be hard to prove, since the further back you go, the fewer scientists you're likely to find, much less to find good information about what they believed. But still, it is not implausible. But what is implausible is that such a belief could have been a product of science itself, as evolution is. If any scientists ever did believe that the world was flat, it was more likely just a case of an assumption that they had not thought to test. Sort of like the assumption that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones. In the distant past, many scientists believed that. It seemed intuitively obvious. But when Galileo decided to investigate that idea scientifically, the assumption was revealed false.

One could argue that there was no such thing as a scientist until the Renaissance. There were philosophers who set the groundwork, but it was really during the Enlightenment that experiment and observation began to eclipse revealed truth. Many historians would place the birth of science within the last 300 years. It was the rediscovery of our Classical heritage that led to the rise of the West-Christianity had nothing to do with it. If 2dim had his way we'd still be teaching that the world was made in 6 days a little over 6000 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Good, I'm glad you're curious. I'll explain it to you for the umpteenth time.

The choice you posit is the applicable choice only if you assume that the natural state of affairs is for us to know the answer as between your two options, and if you also assume that either a supreme being created the first cell or the first cell came into existence as a result of an interplay between chemicals and their environment. Both assumptions are false. We don't know the answer as a matter of direct proof, and many people who believe in a very traditional concept of God also accept the current leading scientific theory, as stated in the previous sentence. There is no necessary contradiction, as someone like Kenneth Miller (whom I admire greatly) would tell you. Only if you insist in something like a literal interpretation of biblical creation do you face the choice you suggest. (Yet again you assume that the rest of the world is confined by your limited understanding and fund of knowledge.) That is why I would never say, and have never said that a person who believes in a supreme being is therefore not broadly educated. Such a statement would be demonstrably untrue, I would never make it and have never made it.

The applicable choice here is in how we are most likely to gain knowledge in the future, including knowledge about the origination of cells and all the building blocks of life. That's what matters to me and is important to our lives, and that is the subject I raised. The best guide to a reliable answer comes from how we have gained knowledge in the past. We have learned virtually everything we know about biology, astronomy, physics and every field of knowledge about the physical world and the universe from science, and virtually none at all from theology. Therefore, the most fruitful and reliable way to pursue knowledge about the beginning of life is through science.

Now of course, you can insist that such questions don't interest you or that you've already made up your mind or that you're going to believe in your theology, all the evidence and the science be damned; or all of the above. That is your prerogative, but if you do that, then you are likely to be and remain scientifically illiterate, which is the point I was making and you have proved.

I doubt that you're fooling anyone. You did exactly what I said you would do, as one person noted earlier today and another seems to have suggested. If you were so disinterested in the subject matter, you wouldn't have bothered posting on it again. The fact is, exactly as I stated, that you may never change your mind; but far from being a badge of honor, that is the essence of your bountiful ignorance.

To be clear then, you are not scientifically illiterate and educationally limited because you believe in God, but because you dismiss and disparage science and shut out every bit of knowledge that does not fit with your pre-conceived conclusions. Say it as many times as you like, it has nothing to do with atheism.

To those who think I'm beating a dead horse: I don't think so. Beliefs like these are widespread in this country, and if we do not take a stand against them, we give them a free pass.

Ah, Paul, you don't disappoint, for the umpteenth time you've said nothing. Of course we've learned virtually everything we know about biology, astronomy and physics from science, no one is denying that. Where you veer off the road is when you fraudulently try to compare science to God. You of course know it's a bogus comparison, but you think no one will see through you.

This is not a discussion about science, it's a discussion of Intelligent Design vs. serendipity/happenstance. It's also not a discussion about evolution, we all understand species evolve. It's only about an atheist's rabid desire to disprove God.

Let's review: The current position of atheists is life most likely began from a coming together of Amino acids, some chemicals and an electrical charge (lightning?). From this humble beginning came the millions of life forms that exist today, including Paul. This blind and dumb evolution created all the incredibly complicated organs; eyes, DNA, genes, and on and on. Atheists find all this credible, a reasonable explanation for our existence.

I think there is more to it than acids, chemicals and lightning, mixed in with blind and dumb evolution.

Now, of course, Paul will come back and say I can't prove the existence of God, which I can't. But having to choose between serendipity/happenstance and Intelligent Design, I opt for I.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One could argue that there was no such thing as a scientist until the Renaissance. There were philosophers who set the groundwork, but it was really during the Enlightenment that experiment and observation began to eclipse revealed truth. Many historians would place the birth of science within the last 300 years.

A very good point. But, for the current discussion, I'm fine with using a looser definition of "scientist" that is inclusive of natural philosophers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
One of the great triumphs in the history of human knowledge. He figured out the size of the world with a stick and a hole in the ground. What is amazing is that if you assume that someone in Egypt was using the Egyptian stade instead of the Greek, he was closer than Columbus to the correct measurement.

One could argue that there was no such thing as a scientist until the Renaissance. There were philosophers who set the groundwork, but it was really during the Enlightenment that experiment and observation began to eclipse revealed truth. Many historians would place the birth of science within the last 300 years. It was the rediscovery of our Classical heritage that led to the rise of the West-Christianity had nothing to do with it. If 2dim had his way we'd still be teaching that the world was made in 6 days a little over 6000 years ago.

That's right, and we'd still be burning witches at the stake and leading crusades. I love the way 'nomous pops in occasionally with his snide remarks. He's just a warm and fuzzy kind of guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the great triumphs in the history of human knowledge. He figured out the size of the world with a stick and a hole in the ground. What is amazing is that if you assume that someone in Egypt was using the Egyptian stade instead of the Greek, he was closer than Columbus to the correct measurement.

One could argue that there was no such thing as a scientist until the Renaissance. There were philosophers who set the groundwork, but it was really during the Enlightenment that experiment and observation began to eclipse revealed truth. Many historians would place the birth of science within the last 300 years. It was the rediscovery of our Classical heritage that led to the rise of the West-Christianity had nothing to do with it. If 2dim had his way we'd still be teaching that the world was made in 6 days a little over 6000 years ago.

Don't forget that he would also be teaching that the world was flat as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
That's right, and we'd still be burning witches at the stake and leading crusades. I love the way 'nomous pops in occasionally with his snide remarks. He's just a warm and fuzzy kind of guy.

:wub: :wub: :lol:

Have you ever made a post that wasn't a snide remark? Feel free to show us one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
Ah, Paul, you don't disappoint, for the umpteenth time you've said nothing. Of course we've learned virtually everything we know about biology, astronomy and physics from science, no one is denying that. Where you veer off the road is when you fraudulently try to compare science to God. You of course know it's a bogus comparison, but you think no one will see through you.

This is not a discussion about science, it's a discussion of Intelligent Design vs. serendipity/happenstance. It's also not a discussion about evolution, we all understand species evolve. It's only about an atheist's rabid desire to disprove God.

Let's review: The current position of atheists is life most likely began from a coming together of Amino acids, some chemicals and an electrical charge (lightning?). From this humble beginning came the millions of life forms that exist today, including Paul. This blind and dumb evolution created all the incredibly complicated organs; eyes, DNA, genes, and on and on. Atheists find all this credible, a reasonable explanation for our existence.

I think there is more to it than acids, chemicals and lightning, mixed in with blind and dumb evolution.

Now, of course, Paul will come back and say I can't prove the existence of God, which I can't. But having to choose between serendipity/happenstance and Intelligent Design, I opt for I.D.

No, he won't. Because no one needs to. He'll say the same thing we've all been saying. You are making a strawman argument because you can't argue against the science. Self-replicators can be incredibly simple, as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides-which, btw, have rough surfaces and tend to stick together. Once you get self-replication, the stage is set for evolution to occur-we know this because we can see it. Viruses are not technically alive, but they evolve. That's why you need a new flu shot every year. DNA could have evolved from a simpler replicator like RNA (in fact, probably RNA since it can catalyze its own duplication).

That doesn't even go into things like protein cascades. You're behind the times, boyo. The fact is that your argument is a false dichotomy argument from incredulity based on a strawman. Three logical fallacies in one!

Btw-DNA and genes are not organs. Also, they're the same thing. That level of stupid doesn't help your case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
Don't forget that he would also be teaching that the world was flat as well.

Probably not. The flat earth was never a Christian doctrine as far as I can tell. Most educated people were aware before Christianity that the world was probably round, though there was debate as to size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Ah, Paul, you don't disappoint, for the umpteenth time you've said nothing. Of course we've learned virtually everything we know about biology, astronomy and physics from science, no one is denying that. Where you veer off the road is when you fraudulently try to compare science to God. You of course know it's a bogus comparison, but you think no one will see through you.

This is not a discussion about science, it's a discussion of Intelligent Design vs. serendipity/happenstance. It's also not a discussion about evolution, we all understand species evolve. It's only about an atheist's rabid desire to disprove God.

Let's review: The current position of atheists is life most likely began from a coming together of Amino acids, some chemicals and an electrical charge (lightning?). From this humble beginning came the millions of life forms that exist today, including Paul. This blind and dumb evolution created all the incredibly complicated organs; eyes, DNA, genes, and on and on. Atheists find all this credible, a reasonable explanation for our existence.

I think there is more to it than acids, chemicals and lightning, mixed in with blind and dumb evolution.

Now, of course, Paul will come back and say I can't prove the existence of God, which I can't. But having to choose between serendipity/happenstance and Intelligent Design, I opt for I.D.

You're lying again. You can't compare science to something that doesn't exist and there's no need to disprove God. The burden of proof is with you to prove God.

Regarding your so-called review, the current position of scientists (not atheists, jackass) is that the first cell appears to have emerged from an interaction between some already rather complex molecules and some form of energy, within a liquid medium. Interesting how you acknowledge the truth of evolution and then mock its essential process.

For the scientifically inclined, that's all this discussion is about. Any addition to our field of knowledge will come from science, not theology. You choose to insert the cosmic equivalent of the tooth fairy into the discussion. That is your choice, but you make it without any supporting evidence. More to the point, that supposition hasn't increased our fund of knowledge one bit in all the thousands of years people have believed in the Cosmic Tooth Fairy. For the person who cares about whether the human species advances its fund of knowledge, that is what the discussion is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
You're lying again. You can't compare science to something that doesn't exist and there's no need to disprove God. The burden of proof is with you to prove God.

Regarding your so-called review, the current position of scientists (not atheists, jackass) is that the first cell appears to have emerged from an interaction between some already rather complex molecules and some form of energy, within a liquid medium. Interesting how you acknowledge the truth of evolution and then mock its essential process.

For the scientifically inclined, that's all this discussion is about. Any addition to our field of knowledge will come from science, not theology. You choose to insert the cosmic equivalent of the tooth fairy into the discussion. That is your choice, but you make it without any supporting evidence. More to the point, that supposition hasn't increased our fund of knowledge one bit in all the thousands of years people have believed in the Cosmic Tooth Fairy. For the person who cares about whether the human species advances its fund of knowledge, that is what the discussion is about.

"The burden of proof is with you to prove God." Typical atheist ploy, passing the buck. Science hasn't a clue, but they have a "current position"; blah, blah, blah.

When science comes up with something, anything, then you can talk about burdens. How about the "missing link"? 200 years of digging up bones and it's never been found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, Paul, you don't disappoint, for the umpteenth time you've said nothing. Of course we've learned virtually everything we know about biology, astronomy and physics from science, no one is denying that. Where you veer off the road is when you fraudulently try to compare science to God. You of course know it's a bogus comparison, but you think no one will see through you.

This is not a discussion about science, it's a discussion of Intelligent Design vs. serendipity/happenstance. It's also not a discussion about evolution, we all understand species evolve. It's only about an atheist's rabid desire to disprove God.

Let's review: The current position of atheists is life most likely began from a coming together of Amino acids, some chemicals and an electrical charge (lightning?). From this humble beginning came the millions of life forms that exist today, including Paul. This blind and dumb evolution created all the incredibly complicated organs; eyes, DNA, genes, and on and on. Atheists find all this credible, a reasonable explanation for our existence.

I think there is more to it than acids, chemicals and lightning, mixed in with blind and dumb evolution.

Now, of course, Paul will come back and say I can't prove the existence of God, which I can't. But having to choose between serendipity/happenstance and Intelligent Design, I opt for I.D.

[Those with limited patience may wish to skip to the final six paragraphs of this post, points 5 and 6; those with even less patience to point 6 alone, and those with almost no patience to the final paragraph. This is not to presume that others won’t skip it altogether.]

I am into refuting, line by line, your long-winded dissertations of false accusations and inaccurate remarks, if that is what it takes. What you just wrote is not what the discussion is about. Let’s untangle the mess. Unlike you, I will support what I write.

1. I’m not comparing science to God. That’s just not true. I’m comparing science to theology, which is the study of God. The two are entirely different, except in the eyes of people who think their opinions are the views of God. You don’t seem to appreciate how thoroughly you reveal and discredit yourself with a statement like that.

2. This is a discussion about science. That is exactly what it is about. The very fact that you dismiss science by reducing it to “serendipity/happenstance” is yet more proof of your disrespect and dismissal of science. The work in abiogenesis is real science, which has made real advances in cellular biology. See the references at the bottom of http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/a...ob.html#Globule.

3. My complaint from the beginning has been against the attempt to use a hypothesis of “intelligent design” to disparage science. Disparaging terms like “pond scum” (http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=26333&view=findpost&p=94433 and http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...st&p=94487) are cases in point. Obviously, some people are threatened by the advances toward a scientific understanding of life’s origins. We see this over and over in the way some people react to science out of theological absolutism.

“2smart4u” was conspicuously absent from the discussion at this point, but someone calling himself Patriot was asking the loaded question “why science has never uncovered any evidence of the origins of life” and answering his own question with the false statement that there isn’t any such evidence. (http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=26333&view=findpost&p=94519) In response to that, someone posted a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models. Wikipedia is not the best authority but in this instance its account seems to be generally accurate. The constant battle between theology and science, as played out especially in popular culture, has damaged our science education and our competitiveness in science in the global economy. I’m glad you finally told us that you accept evolution of species and wish that everyone accepted it, as you claim they do; but not everyone does, and most who don’t accept it posit a direct conflict between evolution and their religious beliefs. The person whose letter sparked this topic is one such person, along with tens of millions of other Americans. They are the reason this subject is important. Widespread scientific ignorance is a threat to our country’s future and the future of every American.

I wish that you appreciated the importance of evolution and the methods of science in general. Obviously you’re not a stupid person, but you do tend toward arrogance with your dismissive treatment of science. You may not see it, but it is obvious to anyone who sees these issues through a more scientific lens than you do.

I pitched in to the discussion at http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=94879 with an argument defending the scientific method and criticizing religious zealots (not all theists) who “wiggle, dodge and evade by any means necessary to preserve their belief system.” A post under 2smart4u followed shortly thereafter at http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=94916, wherein you seem to have assumed that I wasn’t being honest in my characterization or definition of zealots. My next post followed yours immediately, and made the point that the only reliable way for us to learn more about the origins of life is through science, not theology. (http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=26333&view=findpost&p=94933) That was my summary of what the discussion was about, and since you seem hell-bent on attacking my argument, you must accept my terms: it’s my argument.

In that post, I wrote: “I can't prove whether there is a god or not, but I can prove that the stories about gods have been made up by humans for thousands of years.” This is not a statement about whether there is a god but about whether anyone can know whether there is a god: how we come to know things and the state of our knowledge, not what the answer is to one of the great unknowns. This is important because people have a long history of making up stories about what they wish to believe, and then misusing those beliefs to shut down science. That was and is my argument. No matter how hard you may try to make it about atheism, it’s not. It’s a defense of science against anti-scientific zealotry.

Apparently frustrated by points you can’t address, you return immediately to your usual snide and demeaning self at http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=94937, mischaracterizing the current state of scientific opinion, demeaning a great newspaper with the label “NY Slimes” and (as if that wasn’t bad enough) taking a jab at my daughter. You then whine about how Christians are supposedly abused within the scientific community (even though they are not) and betray your complete lack of understanding of science by suggesting that “scientists are begining (sic) to question how all this could be credited to mere evolution.” If you understood anything about science, you would appreciate that scientists question everything, all the time, especially emerging theories such as those regarding the origins of life on Earth. Meanwhile, you toss out the term “atheist” at every opportunity, apparently thinking it is a term of disparagement. Obviously, your argument is motivated by your theology. But in your eyes I’m the zealot.

I responded at http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=94942, and you have not advanced the argument since then. It’s clear that my beef is with “people with an ideological axe to grind against science” (Id.), not against everyone who believes in a god. I have made that abundantly clear.

You, on the other hand, have continued to equate science with atheism. In your latest post you do it again, sneeringly calling the scientific position the atheist position. You’re trying to confine science in a narrow little corner and define it in theological terms. This is exactly the disparaging treatment of science that I oppose. I can’t stop you from holding a narrow view of science in that manner, but when you do that, the only thing narrow is your mind. You can’t keep science from uncovering more and more about the origins of life, try as you might. You can’t keep the advances of science from being obvious to everyone willing to see them; you can just refuse to see them yourself.

You lost your grip completely at http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=94965, with the statement: “"’Science is advancing, Theology is not'". What ???” You see, that’s your problem. When you don’t understand something, you assume that people who know more about it than you do are off in some loony land. What you should be trying to do is understand more about what they’re telling you. You can’t understand my argument because you see science only in its present static form; you don’t see it as a dynamic enterprise. But that’s what it is: a dynamic enterprise. The essence of science is discovery and change. You can’t understand that because you insist on drawing premature conclusions and looking at science as a static phenomenon.

4. You may not wish to accept this, but I do understand the latest incarnation of your position. You’re arguing that something beyond nature is required to explain the origins of life, specifically an intelligent designer. But that’s not an explanation, because you can’t explain the origins of the postulated designer; so you’re no further ahead at the end of the “explanation” than you were when you started, which renders it non-explanatory. That’s the point I’ve been making and you’ve been ignoring – and continue to ignore. To put it another way, you call a supernaturalistic hypothesis an explanation, ignoring the fact that it suffers from the same problem (unexplainable complexity) that you attribute to the naturalistic explanations you reject (even though they don't have that problem) – not to mention that it’s purely hypothetical. I can’t force you to be consistent in your thinking, but the mere fact that you refuse to acknowledge the inconsistency doesn’t make it go away.

None of this means you can’t believe in God. As a speculation, there would be nothing wrong with hypothesizing that a supreme being might have created all that exists. The problem comes when you settle on speculation as your answer and use it to push science into the background or completely out of sight.

5. Fundamentally, the difference in our thinking is summed up by your use of the word “choose.” You write: “But having to choose between serendipity/happenstance and Intelligent Design, I opt for I.D.” But that’s just it: you don’t have to choose, you can withhold belief. You’re saying: in the absence of evidence, jump to a conclusion. I’m saying: in the absence of evidence don’t form a conclusion, leave the question open because it is open. That would be a truthful and accurate statement about what we know and don’t know. That is what the discussion is about from my perspective.

Underlying that, you see belief as a choice. For me, and for anyone who follows the scientific method (not just in science), belief is not a choice but a product of evidence and reason. When we don’t know the answer, we withhold belief. But for you, apparently, an unanswered question is like a vacuum in nature: you just have to fill it. You are not alone. This is one of the fundamental fallacies of popular thought all over the world. That is the point I have been making. The discussion from my perspective is about what we know and how we know it, not about what the ultimate reality is, which you admit none of us can prove anyway.

In other words, my part in this discussion is and has been about how we can best expand our knowledge. Presuming to answer questions that are far outside our grasp is not useful or productive, but on the contrary is harmful. You want to have the answer without doing the work that is necessary to obtain it, so you blithely assert that you’ve chosen to believe that God did it. We know you believe that. I understand your position. The problem with it is that history is littered with one tragedy after another, which resulted because people believed what they wished to believe instead of what was true.

6. As a result, you focus solely on the final answer (which you admit we don’t have) to the exclusion of the means of getting there. You can’t get to the answer without a reliable method. You don’t have a reliable method for learning anything about the origins of life. By your own admission, you can’t prove the existence of the entity that you “choose to believe” poofed the first cell into existence.

By contrast, science does have a means of getting there. It has made and continues to make substantial progress in a myriad of fields, including abiogenesis. It’s possible that science may not answer that question, just as science may never cure all cancers or cure AIDS, but judging from scientific progress in the past, the effort is well-advised. If we stopped science every time it couldn’t provide a final answer, there wouldn’t be any science.

So here are the key questions, the answers to which summarize this entire discussion: Would you have scientists suspend or abandon their research into abiogenesis? If you were president of a major university with a world-renowned science program, would you favor or oppose research at your university in this field? If you will give the same thoughtful kind of an answer to these questions as is represented in your most recent post, this discussion might yet be productive, on either or both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The burden of proof is with you to prove God." Typical atheist ploy, passing the buck. Science hasn't a clue, but they have a "current position"; blah, blah, blah.

When science comes up with something, anything, then you can talk about burdens. How about the "missing link"? 200 years of digging up bones and it's never been found.

This is profoundly ignorant. Science has a burden of proof, which it meets over and over again. The very fact that you can communicate on this medium is proof of that.

Atheism has nothing to do with it, and those of us who respect science are not the ones passing the buck. I've said before and I say again: religious zealots will do anything to avoid having to take responsibility for what they claim to believe. The ignorant post I'm responding to is just another example.

Now I'm going to do what you don't do, to show you how it's done. I'm going to support my argument.

Science has more than just a clue. If it didn't the world wouldn't look as it does and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Science has a wealth of data, which scientists use to formulate theories. To take just one field of science, since Darwin first published his theory of evolution 150 years ago, literally hundreds of previously missing links have been found. (See Kenneth Miller's excellent lecture at by googling 'Kenneth Miller intelligent design' and finding the youtube video presentation at Case Western.) On every occasion, the new discoveries have confirmed Darwin's essential theory. That is powerful evidence that the theory is true. Think about it. If you predict that x y and z will happen under condition a, and then you see 100 consecutives instances of condition a, all of which result uniquely in x, y and z, you would reasonably believe that your theory was correct. That is exactly what evolutionary theory has produced, and it isn't related only to "bones." (Apparently you don't understand that bones are not the only fossils.) Evolution is now supported to the letter by evidence from molecular biology and experimentation and replication in laboratories all over the world. The proof in support of it is so strong that the entire community of biologists all over the world considers evolution to be the organizing principle for all of biology. In other words, evolution of species is so conclusively proved that it has become the basic building block for the entire field of science. Not only that, it has been applied in the social sciences, transforming them from collections of essays into hard science. If you want to know the truth, then you need to understand evolution; obviously, you don't understand the first thing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
[Those with limited patience may wish to skip to the final six paragraphs of this post, points 5 and 6; those with even less patience to point 6 alone, and those with almost no patience to the final paragraph. This is not to presume that others won’t skip it altogether.]

I am into refuting, line by line, your long-winded dissertations of false accusations and inaccurate remarks, if that is what it takes. What you just wrote is not what the discussion is about. Let’s untangle the mess. Unlike you, I will support what I write.

1. I’m not comparing science to God. That’s just not true. I’m comparing science to theology, which is the study of God. The two are entirely different, except in the eyes of people who think their opinions are the views of God. You don’t seem to appreciate how thoroughly you reveal and discredit yourself with a statement like that.

2. This is a discussion about science. That is exactly what it is about. The very fact that you dismiss science by reducing it to “serendipity/happenstance” is yet more proof of your disrespect and dismissal of science. The work in abiogenesis is real science, which has made real advances in cellular biology. See the references at the bottom of http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/a...ob.html#Globule.

3. My complaint from the beginning has been against the attempt to use a hypothesis of “intelligent design” to disparage science. Disparaging terms like “pond scum” (http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=26333&view=findpost&p=94433 and http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...st&p=94487) are cases in point. Obviously, some people are threatened by the advances toward a scientific understanding of life’s origins. We see this over and over in the way some people react to science out of theological absolutism.

“2smart4u” was conspicuously absent from the discussion at this point, but someone calling himself Patriot was asking the loaded question “why science has never uncovered any evidence of the origins of life” and answering his own question with the false statement that there isn’t any such evidence. (http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=26333&view=findpost&p=94519) In response to that, someone posted a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models. Wikipedia is not the best authority but in this instance its account seems to be generally accurate. The constant battle between theology and science, as played out especially in popular culture, has damaged our science education and our competitiveness in science in the global economy. I’m glad you finally told us that you accept evolution of species and wish that everyone accepted it, as you claim they do; but not everyone does, and most who don’t accept it posit a direct conflict between evolution and their religious beliefs. The person whose letter sparked this topic is one such person, along with tens of millions of other Americans. They are the reason this subject is important. Widespread scientific ignorance is a threat to our country’s future and the future of every American.

I wish that you appreciated the importance of evolution and the methods of science in general. Obviously you’re not a stupid person, but you do tend toward arrogance with your dismissive treatment of science. You may not see it, but it is obvious to anyone who sees these issues through a more scientific lens than you do.

I pitched in to the discussion at http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=94879 with an argument defending the scientific method and criticizing religious zealots (not all theists) who “wiggle, dodge and evade by any means necessary to preserve their belief system.” A post under 2smart4u followed shortly thereafter at http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=94916, wherein you seem to have assumed that I wasn’t being honest in my characterization or definition of zealots. My next post followed yours immediately, and made the point that the only reliable way for us to learn more about the origins of life is through science, not theology. (http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=26333&view=findpost&p=94933) That was my summary of what the discussion was about, and since you seem hell-bent on attacking my argument, you must accept my terms: it’s my argument.

In that post, I wrote: “I can't prove whether there is a god or not, but I can prove that the stories about gods have been made up by humans for thousands of years.” This is not a statement about whether there is a god but about whether anyone can know whether there is a god: how we come to know things and the state of our knowledge, not what the answer is to one of the great unknowns. This is important because people have a long history of making up stories about what they wish to believe, and then misusing those beliefs to shut down science. That was and is my argument. No matter how hard you may try to make it about atheism, it’s not. It’s a defense of science against anti-scientific zealotry.

Apparently frustrated by points you can’t address, you return immediately to your usual snide and demeaning self at http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=94937, mischaracterizing the current state of scientific opinion, demeaning a great newspaper with the label “NY Slimes” and (as if that wasn’t bad enough) taking a jab at my daughter. You then whine about how Christians are supposedly abused within the scientific community (even though they are not) and betray your complete lack of understanding of science by suggesting that “scientists are begining (sic) to question how all this could be credited to mere evolution.” If you understood anything about science, you would appreciate that scientists question everything, all the time, especially emerging theories such as those regarding the origins of life on Earth. Meanwhile, you toss out the term “atheist” at every opportunity, apparently thinking it is a term of disparagement. Obviously, your argument is motivated by your theology. But in your eyes I’m the zealot.

I responded at http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=94942, and you have not advanced the argument since then. It’s clear that my beef is with “people with an ideological axe to grind against science” (Id.), not against everyone who believes in a god. I have made that abundantly clear.

You, on the other hand, have continued to equate science with atheism. In your latest post you do it again, sneeringly calling the scientific position the atheist position. You’re trying to confine science in a narrow little corner and define it in theological terms. This is exactly the disparaging treatment of science that I oppose. I can’t stop you from holding a narrow view of science in that manner, but when you do that, the only thing narrow is your mind. You can’t keep science from uncovering more and more about the origins of life, try as you might. You can’t keep the advances of science from being obvious to everyone willing to see them; you can just refuse to see them yourself.

You lost your grip completely at http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=94965, with the statement: “"’Science is advancing, Theology is not'". What ???” You see, that’s your problem. When you don’t understand something, you assume that people who know more about it than you do are off in some loony land. What you should be trying to do is understand more about what they’re telling you. You can’t understand my argument because you see science only in its present static form; you don’t see it as a dynamic enterprise. But that’s what it is: a dynamic enterprise. The essence of science is discovery and change. You can’t understand that because you insist on drawing premature conclusions and looking at science as a static phenomenon.

4. You may not wish to accept this, but I do understand the latest incarnation of your position. You’re arguing that something beyond nature is required to explain the origins of life, specifically an intelligent designer. But that’s not an explanation, because you can’t explain the origins of the postulated designer; so you’re no further ahead at the end of the “explanation” than you were when you started, which renders it non-explanatory. That’s the point I’ve been making and you’ve been ignoring – and continue to ignore. To put it another way, you call a supernaturalistic hypothesis an explanation, ignoring the fact that it suffers from the same problem (unexplainable complexity) that you attribute to the naturalistic explanations you reject (even though they don't have that problem) – not to mention that it’s purely hypothetical. I can’t force you to be consistent in your thinking, but the mere fact that you refuse to acknowledge the inconsistency doesn’t make it go away.

None of this means you can’t believe in God. As a speculation, there would be nothing wrong with hypothesizing that a supreme being might have created all that exists. The problem comes when you settle on speculation as your answer and use it to push science into the background or completely out of sight.

5. Fundamentally, the difference in our thinking is summed up by your use of the word “choose.” You write: “But having to choose between serendipity/happenstance and Intelligent Design, I opt for I.D.” But that’s just it: you don’t have to choose, you can withhold belief. You’re saying: in the absence of evidence, jump to a conclusion. I’m saying: in the absence of evidence don’t form a conclusion, leave the question open because it is open. That would be a truthful and accurate statement about what we know and don’t know. That is what the discussion is about from my perspective.

Underlying that, you see belief as a choice. For me, and for anyone who follows the scientific method (not just in science), belief is not a choice but a product of evidence and reason. When we don’t know the answer, we withhold belief. But for you, apparently, an unanswered question is like a vacuum in nature: you just have to fill it. You are not alone. This is one of the fundamental fallacies of popular thought all over the world. That is the point I have been making. The discussion from my perspective is about what we know and how we know it, not about what the ultimate reality is, which you admit none of us can prove anyway.

In other words, my part in this discussion is and has been about how we can best expand our knowledge. Presuming to answer questions that are far outside our grasp is not useful or productive, but on the contrary is harmful. You want to have the answer without doing the work that is necessary to obtain it, so you blithely assert that you’ve chosen to believe that God did it. We know you believe that. I understand your position. The problem with it is that history is littered with one tragedy after another, which resulted because people believed what they wished to believe instead of what was true.

6. As a result, you focus solely on the final answer (which you admit we don’t have) to the exclusion of the means of getting there. You can’t get to the answer without a reliable method. You don’t have a reliable method for learning anything about the origins of life. By your own admission, you can’t prove the existence of the entity that you “choose to believe” poofed the first cell into existence.

By contrast, science does have a means of getting there. It has made and continues to make substantial progress in a myriad of fields, including abiogenesis. It’s possible that science may not answer that question, just as science may never cure all cancers or cure AIDS, but judging from scientific progress in the past, the effort is well-advised. If we stopped science every time it couldn’t provide a final answer, there wouldn’t be any science.

So here are the key questions, the answers to which summarize this entire discussion: Would you have scientists suspend or abandon their research into abiogenesis? If you were president of a major university with a world-renowned science program, would you favor or oppose research at your university in this field? If you will give the same thoughtful kind of an answer to these questions as is represented in your most recent post, this discussion might yet be productive, on either or both sides.

My answers to your last paragraph: 1) No 2) Favor. If science can someday identify the "God gene" as it is called or otherwise prove that life started through a natural and spontaneous means, then I'll have to reconsider my views. Until then I believe in I.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Some people just can't accept the fact that there are questions we can't answer. Apparently "2smart4u" (who can't be all that smart putting up a name like that) is such a person. He keeps assuming that everyone must choose a side on every unanswered question. No matter how many times you tell him, he keeps making the same assumption.

He also can't seem to understand that human knowledge progresses, it doesn't stay the same. So for many people what matters is contributing to more progress, not puffing out our chests and pretending that we know what we don't know.

But what this really comes down to is the third thing he can't understand. God and theology are not the same thing. What he's really telling us is that his beliefs are the Word of God. Where have we heard that before!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
My answers to your last paragraph: 1) No 2) Favor. If science can someday identify the "God gene" as it is called or otherwise prove that life started through a natural and spontaneous means, then I'll have to reconsider my views. Until then I believe in I.D.

You have that right, but why believe in something without evidence? Why not just withhold belief?

Furthermore, why are you ruling out the position taken by most theistic scientists that the first cell formed according to scientific theory but God began the process?

Maybe the problem is how you're writing things. You seem to be disresepctful of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
You have that right, but why believe in something without evidence? Why not just withhold belief?

Furthermore, why are you ruling out the position taken by most theistic scientists that the first cell formed according to scientific theory but God began the process?

Maybe the problem is how you're writing things. You seem to be disresepctful of science.

I believe evolution and I.D. are not mutually exclusive. I believe God provided the first spark that began life and evolution is the tool God used to propagate the earth. I am a Christian and these are my beliefs.

Atheists can believe in serendipity, mother nature or whatever else they can dream up.

End of story, this is beginning to bore me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe evolution and I.D. are not mutually exclusive. I believe God provided the first spark that began life and evolution is the tool God used to propagate the earth. I am a Christian and these are my beliefs.

Atheists can believe in serendipity, mother nature or whatever else they can dream up.

End of story, this is beginning to bore me.

I'm glad to read the first three sentences but you have consistently implied that a supreme being and abiogenesis were mutually exclusive until just now.

I"m not glad to read the fourth sentence, because that's the same dismissive and arrogant maltreatment of science as we've heard from you all along. It's scientists, not atheists, and they aren't dreaming it up.

I suspect everyone will be glad to read the final sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
Atheists can believe in serendipity, mother nature or whatever else they can dream up.

No.

We.

Don't.

Stop lying about what we believe. It makes you look like an idiot. We've been telling you the same thing for several pages. Here's a question-how would you know what atheists believe? You aren't one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I believe evolution and I.D. are not mutually exclusive. I believe God provided the first spark that began life and evolution is the tool God used to propagate the earth. I am a Christian and these are my beliefs.

Atheists can believe in serendipity, mother nature or whatever else they can dream up.

End of story, this is beginning to bore me.

It's dishonest to call the science of abiogenesis a dream made up by atheists.

It's arrogant to think that you know more about this than scientists do.

It's hypocritical to say that scientists are making things up when you believe something just because you're a Christian.

It's laughable to think that you haven't been boring people practically every time you post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
No.

We.

Don't.

Stop lying about what we believe. It makes you look like an idiot. We've been telling you the same thing for several pages. Here's a question-how would you know what atheists believe? You aren't one.

I'm a Christian and I don't care what idiotic atheists believe or don't believe. I think atheists have a fundamental flaw in their brains that prevents them from seeing what every Christian sees, a beautiful world full of amazing life forms that only an intelligent designer could have created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Christian and I don't care what idiotic atheists believe or don't believe. I think atheists have a fundamental flaw in their brains that prevents them from seeing what every Christian sees, a beautiful world full of amazing life forms that only an intelligent designer could have created.

Yes indeed. The very same "flaw" that keeps us from "seeing" that the flat earth rests on the back of an enormous elephant (or turtle, take your pick).

When you see things that someone else does not, it doesn't necessarily mean that you possess superior vision. Sometimes it just means that you're hallucinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Christian and I don't care what idiotic atheists believe or don't believe. I think atheists have a fundamental flaw in their brains that prevents them from seeing what every Christian sees, a beautiful world full of amazing life forms that only an intelligent designer could have created.

That's right. It was surely all designed by a beautiful and amazing intelligent designer that only an even more intelligent designer could have created. I'm not sure which is more compelling. Intelligent design, or "turtles all the way down".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Christian and I don't care what idiotic atheists believe or don't believe. I think atheists have a fundamental flaw in their brains that prevents them from seeing what every Christian sees, a beautiful world full of amazing life forms that only an intelligent designer could have created.

Calling people idiots is a choice. So is presuming that you see more beauty in the world than someone who doesn't agree with you.

I learned many years ago that when someone's ideas struck me as so odd that "they must be crazy," very often I was the one who didn't understand. When I read things like what you just wrote, it's usually a sign that the writer doesn't know as much as he or she thinks. Maybe you're the one who's missing something. You can write ugly things like that if you want to, but is that really the lesson your Christianity teaches you? I'm no longer a Christian, but I think more of it than that. Meanwhile . . .

I see the sun.

I hear the rolling thunder. . . .

just like you do.

Which of us appreciates it the more . . . I'm not interested in keeping score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...