I like your emphasis on “hopefully”! Unfortunately, although I can see the progression you present in points 1-4, I’m still not understanding the jump to step 5. The posts within this thread regarding EES are centered on whether it should be considered fundamentally different from the existing paradigm, not on any theological ramifications. I don’t follow the line of reasoning that leads to your objections regarding an EES vs ToE debate and its theological significance when none was claimed in the first place. There are already enough science/theology issues in the forum without artificially generating them.
On a side note, I agree with @T_aquaticus, this thread really isn’t about EES. Not sure if there is enough interest to split…
I see where the confusion lies - my comment is on the need for questions and doubt. EES is, to my mind, an example of some questions and effort that seems to be motivated by a need for a better paradigm. That is why I emphasise a debate should continue amongst the biologists, and this would follow the progress made by other sciences. Some comments seem to either dismiss some aspects of EES or perhaps argue against them - again, my point is this is for biologists.
On my point 5, I (as a non-biological scientist) have considered the basis for physics and chemistry and have worked to develop my own view of science at it may have relevance to my orthodox theological outlook. My conclusion is there is no conflict, so that is that.
As I have indicated elsewhere, I am not sufficiently familiar with the long history of the “culture” wars between TE/ID/YEC/OEC and another stripe (if others are there), so I confine my remarks to orthodox matters, or broad scientific matters.
On my view that the current paradigm of ToE is inadequate - you and others may just have to accept that as my point of view - I do not intend to indulge in aggressive exchanges for the simple fact that ToE does not figure large in my outlook. This is not meant to insult anyone, but a simple statement of fact.
I work from the theoretical basis of science, and strive to develop an outlook that either (a) affirms that God is the Creator, or (b) may show otherwise. Thus I have started from the intelligibility of nature to human intellect, considered what Orthodox theology has to say on the rational and spiritual aspects of human personhood, and progress from there to certainty in science (constants), general examination of what a law of science is (or means), and then try to see if science provides insights on the foundational notions of nature. The conflict by then would be between materialism vs spiritual/rational/intellectual, and how we as human beings treat these subjects.
I won’t bore you or anyone else with a lengthy post - my comment gives you a flavor of my outlook. Within this, even though I have put some effort to try and understand ToE, I still end up seeing a semantic notion of variation and natural selection as its basis, and I continue to see the arguments put forward ffor these notions as inadequate in my scheme of things - ie. it has little if any theological interest/significance.
I would agree with everything GJDS says… except when he tries to treat the ToE as somehow different from the natural laws behind rain and rain clouds!
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
378
On my side of science, evidence rules.[quote=“GJDS, post:364, topic:35756”]
Where is your scientific data and calculations that rebut Shapiro?
[/quote]
All of the work ever done on transposons demonstrating that they insert randomly into genomes, with respect to fitness. What Shapiro does is ignore all of the detrimental and neutral mutations produced by transposons, and only focuses on the beneficial transposon mutations.
2 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
379
What evidence do you have to back this assertion?[quote=“GJDS, post:367, topic:35756”]
I have found some comments on directed development interesting, but this seems to upset other biologist, so I prefer they sort each other amongst themselves.
[/quote]
Discussions of “directed development” don’t bother me at all. The only people who seemed bothered are those who don’t like directed development to be challenged.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
380
At least in my view, the EES is an attempt to create the false impression that the current paradigm is lacking in a fundamental way. When you boil EES down to the basic mechanisms of how species look different from one another, those mechanisms are the standard mechanisms found in the current paradigm (e.g. random mutations, natural selection, neutral drift).[quote=“GJDS, post:375, topic:35756”]
On my view that the current paradigm of ToE is inadequate - you and others may just have to accept that as my point of view - I do not intend to indulge in aggressive exchanges for the simple fact that ToE does not figure large in my outlook. This is not meant to insult anyone, but a simple statement of fact.
[/quote]
Just keep in mind that scientists are a very argumentative bunch who really like to argue, but we strive to focus on the argument and not the arguer.
[quote=“GJDS, post:364, topic:35756”]
Where is your scientific data and calculations that rebut Shapiro?[/quote]
Where are Shapiro’s data that support his hypothesis? George, the man hasn’t published anything empirical since 1999, based on the cv he puts on the web.
Why don’t you ask about Shapiro’s data?
In my world of science, data always trump 18 years of rhetoric.[quote] Perhaps you have published experimental data that shows Shapiro (for this argument) is wrong and you have made a clear and unambiguous correlation between random mutations, fitness and selection.
[/quote]Or perhaps, as Taq noted, Shapiro’s rhetoric ignores vast amounts of data.
Regardless, we can agree that Shapiro’s rhetoric has not inspired Shapiro to test his own hypothesis, correct?
For heaven’s sake, there ain’t no theistic chemistry that is expounded as a theological teaching - son you may start an argument on what is meant by meaning!.
No, he can’t find any evidence to prove his claims. He never can.
Indeed. By the way, after the “Are you a biologist?” question, he usually follows up with “If you aren’t a biologist how can you know the facts on this issue?”, and if you cite the scholarly consensus you get “If you’re not a biologist and actively involved in this field how can you even know the scholarly consensus, or trust that your judgment of the scholarly consensus is accurate?”. Anything to avoid actually discussing the facts.
No. As usual you are attempting to avoid providing evidence for your unsubstantiated claims, by trying to change the subject.
Chemistry is Chemistry. And Evolution is Evolution. And Evolution and Chemistry are extremely integrated into a ‘whole’ that defies Creationist attempts to split hairs.
Both realms of natural process are completely available to God to use as He wills. Your attempt to theologize against Evolution is not only a waste of everyone’s time, it tends to suggest that t of your other quasi-spiritual gyrations about ‘Science v God’ are irrelevant as well.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
387
If young earth creationism is true then chemistry has to be just as wrong as YEC’s claim evolution is. Chemistry poses just as much a problem for a literal reading of Genesis (i.e. YEC) that evolution does.
My apologies. I will avoid linking you to the YEC position with the understanding that you can explain how your position differs from the YEC stance.
I’m all eyes and ears … how would you describe your view?
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
391
I never implied that you did accept YEC. The conversation was about the theological implications of chemistry and evolution. I was merely mentioning the fact that chemistry has as many theological implications for YEC that evolution has.
If you are serious, outline the theological implications to established Christian teachings.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
396
I will outline the implications to established YEC teachings, since that is what I said.
One example is zircon formation. When zircons form they include Uranium isotopes while excluding Lead isotopes. This is basic chemistry. This poses a problem for YEC teachings because zircons can contain substantial amounts of Lead due to the decay of Uranium isotopes, and those amounts equate to billions of years of Uranium decay in some zircons. YEC’s know this is a problem so they try to cast doubt by claiming that perhaps chemistry was different in the past. This is just one small example.