One thing about human nature we tend to become entrenched in certain dogmas or theories that can limit the exploration of new truth. Science currently faces this problem as research funding and livelihood’s are at stake for scientists who want to challenge existing paradigms. This video raise’s many questions about evolution and science in general. I am not fully comprehending Nobles evolutionary argument here. Please feel free to summarise and clarify .
thanks everyone
Actually scientists are eager to challenge existing theories. That’s where it’s at. Research funding and livelihoods are usually at stake only when the “researchers” and their “research” are bogus.
Thank you troy, i found this video fascinating. I as stunned when i listened to the section in the video where it is shown that polygenic risk score is not a predictor for a given disease. I took it for granted that this would correlate highly when in fact the study shows it does not. I havent yet got past this part of the video, however, i am wondering if that then suggests that indicators are lifestyle based rather than genetic, however, if so…how then does one answer the question of generational genetic damage through bad family lifestyle history such as alcoholism etc?
EDIT…ah i think my question is answered in the very next part of the video.
I am very interested in the notion that viruses can only reproduce inside a “living cell”…that if we were to put a virus on a planet where there are no living organisms, the viruses would stay dormant as non living entities for billions of years.
That tells me that clearly the problem of how life arose from non life is still a signficant hurdle for evolution. Its a boom for the notion of God though.
The above drives a question in my mind…
if viruses are non living and they can interract with the coding of DNA, is that suggesting that non living intelligence is at play there. If so, how can something intelligent that is not derived from living organisms “know” and enact change beneficial to itself?
I ask the above question because for a Christian, the bible says the dead know nothing. Surely that would mean that in death (and non-living) there is no knowledge, no intelligence, no capacity to enact beneficial change (or any change for that matter)
Thanks Beagle !
They may be eager but are they able? If the system is based on the survival of the institutions and the institutions are beholden to governments or large corporations is science free to explore anymore?
Denis seems to agree with this sentiment watch 1:05 He could not properly follow his scientific hypothesis because " If that had damaged my reputation to the point of which it would have been difficult for me to get the grant money that would support the salaries of my team. … i couldn’t do that"
So he had to wait until retirement to even write about his hypothesis.
so clearly there is anti scientific motives at play in hampering new hypothesis. This video expresses similar concerns about the current state of affairs.
how can this be remedied?
I like the video as well… the science flies a bit over my head (i need to try a bit harder).
The philosophy of science and the current anti scientific mindset within established paradigms is what strikes me as a real reminder of fallen human influences. Science just like religion can be manipulated and abused.
the interviewer states of neo darwinian theory" Assumptions are taken as evidence ,that’s how this got so entrenched!" 1:11
I also like the part about Lamarck (2:53) giraffe growing his neck for want of food… This is what I suggested as goodness driving change over time, not mutation. I wrote a poem on a thread about that. I do appreciate the serious discussion of “purpose” in biological systems. To know God and enjoy Him forever… the ultimate purpose!
Are all viruses bad ? if so they may have a malevolence in them…curse? dead thing seeking the death of living things!
What is wrong with modern science?
well…
What is wrong with the Bible?
Both are reliable. But both can be misused. People are involved in both of them. And people are flawed, and people lie.
So people will lie… “The Bible says…”
And people will lie… “Science says…”
That much is the same.
You can also check up on these things. You can read the Bible for yourself. You can see for yourself if the Bible really says what they claim. But in the case of science it is not a matter of reading but doing. You can do the science for yourself and see if you really get the same results.
And right there the difference between the two becomes quite obvious. In the case of the Bible, all you are going to find out is what the Bible really says. It doesn’t mean anyone has to agree with it just because the Bible says so. But in the case of science, when you get the same results, then there is no such room for disagreement. The results are what they are.
yes yes…that was an illustration that i hadnt even thought of…and yet its so very obvious i cant believe i only know of this dilemma now. I got the feeling there was a bit of “chicken and egg” argument going on at that stage of the video though.
Even though i am YEC, for me this video was so interesting because it opens the bigger question to atheism…is there a God because we seem to be finding scientific evidence now that says there simply must be?
this argument is problematic for me…i can get other individuals to read passages from the bible and, unless they knew the implications for the natural reading of the text, that it goes against naturalism, they would concur the text be interpreted in exactly the same way it reads!
(according to Google Ai, about 40% of the population believe God made man as described in the Bible… it sourced this information from a 2019 Gallop poll. About 18% believe the earth is not more than 10,000 years old… sourced from the National Center for Science Education)
It is only when the scientific dilemma is presented that biblical theology becomes a problem for individuals like yourself. You state, oh but that passage cannot be read that way because it goes against science!
St Roymond has taken that dilemma with a different angle…he says, nope modern man cant understand the inferences of ancient scripture.
Trouble is, given Christ concured with Moses about the flood and the two men were raised in different regions, different cultural influence, and with a different primary language…which genre do we take as being correct…Moses, Christ, or the Apostle Peter? (oh hang on, they all say exactly the same thing in that the flood statement via natural reading of language is historical!!!)
No, Adam… How many more times must you be told? Referring to a story does not make it real. I can refer to Star Trek (and do) without it having to be real. All I need is for people to know the story. People can refer to the Flood, or Jonah, or Genesis 1 without verifying it as real. All they need is for people to know what they are referring to.
Richard
If the Bible really had only one something to say we would all agree. The Bible says what you want it to say.
Very good point.
But one can in fact test the moral principle’s of the bible. Social studies of adherence to religious forms can be measured, life expectancy/ quality of life ect.
Now what I am suggesting in this thread is that modern science has become very similar to the medieval catholic church (catholics please forgive the analogy) in that Science for the most part is now in the hands of an elite Class with a indecipherable language to the commoner. Can I reproduce the Hadron collider and test science? Can I access lab equipment and reproduce genomic experiments, no. The common man must trust what we are being told from above. And dissention is not allowed, within the science/priest elite.
Science was founded in the enlightenment, freedom of thought and ideas were allowed and science was reproducible (simple experiments/observation). But over time the old tyrannical structures are emerging within science.
The money for grants and what gets tested is tightly controlled.
Ok, so what could help with this problem. How can science and scientist be free to hypothesis in new ways? how can the system be rebalanced?
I would consider that to be an insult to most genuine believers. Yes, you can claim the Bible says many things but usually those claims are shot down in flames. There is a (more than) basic understanding of what the Bible teaches. How far you take it will depend on your view of scripture but some things are generally agreed upon.
If we just dismiss Scripture as unclear and subject to personal understanding, we are basically destroying it as a valid basis for faith. I may be known for having a loose acceptance of all Scripture but that does not mean it holds no value. I still preach from it without hypocrisy The difference being dogmatism or not. There are many (some here) who have a very dogmatic and unyielding view of Scripture. My approach has always been to give as many understandings as i can find. I will explain my views but leave the door open to the individual. As I see it the Bible has many levels of understanding dependant as much on circumstance and usage as historical, cultural or contextual considerations. To claim anything else is both to underestimate and limit its use.
Richard
PS as for science, you can only reproduce things that are demonstrable. Evolution does not fall under that catagory, but science is much more than evolution, not that you would think it from the discussions here.
Which is what I was saying. So how is my statement an insult? I will admit that I was more blunt.
Because your statement implies perversion, that is, it is not the truth at all.
The Bible must have a message that is both understandable, and valid, and honest. Personal opinion and faith cannot be imposed onto the Bible, it must derive from it. I hope you can see the difference.
Richard
Maybe the system isn’t based on the things you mention. Is science free to explore? I think most scientists would say yes. They might initially get opposition, difficulty in procuring funding, and the like, but science is self-correcting. And so Jane Goodall was able to convince us that chimps can use tools, and Irene Pepperberg showed us that parrots can understand complex concepts, even though they have a brain the size of a walnut.
Please ask me why a get a flu shot every year.
How do you derive from the Bible a decision about which books should be included in the Bible?
Which books are considered to be part of the Bible (and in which order) is a matter of faith and opinion - faith and opinion that is imposed on the Bible.
I answered that Here
You don’t
Yes, so what?
The writing was already there, it was not written by the compilers
Yes there is more material than in the Bible, and the precise content is still argued to this day. Some want to remove bits, others include the Apocrypha. I am sure there are those who would like to include modern theologians and / or Preachers. I would love to see a revised version of Genesis 1-11 but the Bible is what it is.
God may not have written every word, or even edited the Bible , but it was not thrown together without thought.
There are many who think the KJV is biased towards Catholicism. which s why others have tried to do tt again, and again, and again, each one slightly differing in emphasis.
You cannot take the individual out of faith.
People believe what they do despite the Bible as much as because of it. That is the human enigma.
Richard
So you are imposing faith and opinion on the Bible.
They are imposing faith and opinion on the Bible.
The various versions were compiled based on the opinions of those who decided which books to include and in what order. Which version people use today is largely determined by their faith.
That is imposition of opinion and faith on the Bible.
I haven’t even mentioned the different translations available, which vary according to the opinions and faiths of the people who produced them.
Personal opinion and faith, can be, has been and is still being imposed onto the Bible.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
