Why?

[luke warm]

There are many philosophical issues around theism and atheism. Then there is the issue of what to teach in science class. I favor teaching science there.

this is true... now that we've (actually you) solved the issue of what to teach in science class, the philosophical issues still exist

[PassedOut]

It seems self-evident (to me) that any kind of belief system has to be based on a sound epistemological basis, and I use the criteria that (1) We exist (independently of any feeling/sense), (2) our senses give us real (but imperfect) information about our surroundings. (3) Other people exist and have similar (but not identical) experiences to ourselves.

 

...

 

I think ideas are real, and the purpose of communicating is to help the other person also grasp this abstract entity, and that the words you use are not so important, beyond the difficulties of making oneself understood.

I agree with these statements. None of them, though, depends upon the existence of a god.

 

Thanks for your explanation of why you believe that god performs miracles to buttress all religions, even though conflicts exist between them. I'm not opposed to religious beliefs for those who find value in them, so long as they result in positive actions by the adherents. That's true even though I don't accept the supernatural and theological underpinnings.

 

As you say, we all have somewhat different sets of experiences, and those differences necessarily create variations in what seems plausible to one and not to another. What is not plausible to me, based on my own experiences, is plausible to you. I guess that's the long and short of it.

 

But I do appreciate your willingness to discuss this topic in a straightforward manner.

[kenberg]

this is true... now that we've (actually you) solved the issue of what to teach in science class, the philosophical issues still exist

 

Absolutely, and I even acknowledge there is some point in addressing them. But I am betting we know each other well enough to safely state that neither of us will be changing our religious orientation as a result.

 

A friend is about to undergo a very serious operation. He is religious, I am not. He would not ask me to pray for him, and indeed I think he would be a bit put off if I said that I would. We have each cast out lot with life the way we see it, and we leave it at that. But if I ever missed religion it would be for reasons like this, to have someone beyond the medical profession to express gratitude to if this should all work out. Arguments about the alleged lack atheistic philosophy to deal with conceptual whatevers leave me cold. No one there when I might wish to say thank you, that's a little tough. But it's the way I think it is.

[Winstonm]

Its true that when we hear a creak on the stairs we might associate it with a human. This is natural

 

Phil,

 

With the above words you concur with the argument but then continue on to build a strawman to fight.

 

The issue is simplicity itself: humans assume agents - like you said, it is natural to associate a noise with a human (an agent).

 

The extrapolation is that man also proposes agents for the unexplainable - what happens after death, etc.

 

This agent-cause creation by man seems to me a more plausible explanation of how a god came to be than being announced by a talking burning bush.

[phil_20686]

There are many philosophical issues around theism and atheism. Then there is the issue of what to teach in science class. I favor teaching science there.

 

Returning to the original topic, is that even allowed? :)

 

Well, you could teach science all day every day and still not touch on evolution. There are plenty of things you could teach that would be totally uncontroversial. Normally whoever is deciding what one should learn has both an idealogical stance and an agenda. I'm relatively confident that if you polled my (physics) department for the 5 most important scientific theories, evolution would not be on the list.

 

My personal list would go something like this:

 

1) Electro-Weak-Symmetry-Breaking (due to Glashow et al and completed the std model of particle physics).

2) Maxwell's Unification of electro-Magnetism - the first example of a gauge theory in nature.

3) Field Theory/Re-normalisation

4) General Relativity

5) The Schroedinger wave equation.

 

And if we were to loosen the criteria to `important' scientific discoveries, then you could add any of these:

1) Discovery of the electron.

2) Discovery of the Transistor.

3) Discovery of the Haber Process.

4) Discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background.

5) Discovery of the Hydrogen Absorption Spectrum.

 

If you have a very good education, you might cover milsdens oil drop experiment, the Haber process, and a few trivial consequences of Maxwell's theory, but you probably never covered the rest. All of these discoveries/theories are essential to our modern age, and you could include super conductivity and lasers somewhere on that list. The discovery of DNA. The Laws of thermodynamics.

 

My only point really is that there is a wealth of real science that you could teach without ever straying into controversial territory. Evolution can take its place somewhere in the second tier of scientific achievements, which seems to be roughly where it belongs. It does not have the same clarity of insight and clear predictive power of QED or GR, nor is it part of the fundamental tapestry of modern life like the Haber Process or the transistor. Evolution is on the syllabus for exactly the same idealogical reasons that other people want it off the syllabus. It is a calculated attempt to undermine fundamentalist Christians beliefs, while trying to maintain that that has nothing to do with it.

 

I tend to think that schools are not the appropriate place to have arguments between adults, and that is basically what is happening here. I think its naive if you imagine that a court case brought by the American Humanist Association isn't every bit as much about "converting" children as the court cases brought by evangelical organisations.

[Winstonm]

One of the problems I have with the arguments of theists is that they are not consistent with a single definition of a god figure. The real basis for belief for christians seems to me to resolve to one issue - do you accept that a superntural being can create ex nihilo? Is it possible for something to arise from nothing?

 

I say it cannot. But I admit that at its heart, there is noting but intuition on which I base my decision. But I do think that allowing for only those things which are natural is the more rational approach than hypothesizing an immaterial world where creation ex nihilo can occur.

 

After all, my logical system is like all others, built upon axioms which are noting more than intuitional acceptances of reliability. One of my axioms is that something cannot come from nothing. Nature tends to support that claim. That's as good as we can do as humans - take our best educated guess.

 

Communication depends on whether your goals: trying to persuade or trying to be precise. Precise language requires precise definitions. Persuassion gets away with murder.

 

Once we move out of the arena of the objective, we are using persuassion. The word exist is a terrific example. I can precisely define this word as meaning only those things that have shape plus a location, and when I say exist you know I'm not talking about an idea. But we cannot use such precise language in the metaphysical, or else we have no conversation at all, because we are not dealing with objectivity but subjectivity - or to put it snidely, selling snake oil. ;)

[Winstonm]

Returning to the original topic, is that even allowed? :)

 

Well, you could teach science all day every day and still not touch on evolution. There are plenty of things you could teach that would be totally uncontroversial. Normally whoever is deciding what one should learn has both an idealogical stance and an agenda. I'm relatively confident that if you polled my (physics) department for the 5 most important scientific theories, evolution would not be on the list.

 

My personal list would go something like this:

 

1) Electro-Weak-Symmetry-Breaking (due to Glashow et al and completed the std model of particle physics).

2) Maxwell's Unification of electro-Magnetism - the first example of a gauge theory in nature.

3) Field Theory/Re-normalisation

4) General Relativity

5) The Schroedinger wave equation.

 

And if we were to loosen the criteria to `important' scientific discoveries, then you could add any of these:

1) Discovery of the electron.

2) Discovery of the Transistor.

3) Discovery of the Haber Process.

4) Discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background.

5) Discovery of the Hydrogen Absorption Spectrum.

 

If you have a very good education, you might cover milsdens oil drop experiment, the Haber process, and a few trivial consequences of Maxwell's theory, but you probably never covered the rest. All of these discoveries/theories are essential to our modern age, and you could include super conductivity and lasers somewhere on that list. The discovery of DNA. The Laws of thermodynamics.

 

My only point really is that there is a wealth of real science that you could teach without ever straying into controversial territory. Evolution can take its place somewhere in the second tier of scientific achievements, which seems to be roughly where it belongs. It does not have the same clarity of insight and clear predictive power of QED or GR, nor is it part of the fundamental tapestry of modern life like the Haber Process or the transistor. Evolution is on the syllabus for exactly the same idealogical reasons that other people want it off the syllabus. It is a calculated attempt to undermine fundamentalist Christians beliefs, while trying to maintain that that has nothing to do with it.

 

I tend to think that schools are not the appropriate place to have arguments between adults, and that is basically what is happening here. I think its naive if you imagine that a court case brought by the American Humanist Association isn't every bit as much about "converting" children as the court cases brought by evangelical organisations.

 

I guess you then are ruling out biology and chemistry as unworth to be taught as science?

[phil_20686]

The issue is simplicity itself: humans assume agents - like you said, it is natural to associate a noise with a human (an agent).

 

The extrapolation is that man also proposes agents for the unexplainable - what happens after death, etc.

 

You seemed to have missed the point I was making. Humans do initially[\i] assume human agents for this type of thing. But they are allowed to have a second thought after that. Or a third thought. And we are not required to assume that our first thought is true just because it came first.

 

After that you are back to assuming that God doesnt exist, in which case human-agent causation would be a very plausible way for man to create God. But if God does exist, and fancied a chat, announcing himself in a dramatic fashion hardly seems unlikely.

[phil_20686]

I guess you then are ruling out biology and chemistry as unworth to be taught as science?

 

What are you talking about(!) the Schroedinger equation is *all* of chemistry. Solve that and you know everything about any chemical reaction. Of course, those solutions may not be trivial....

 

Also, the haber process is definitely chemistry. Its the reaction by which you create both fertiliser and explosives, and I did also mention the discovery of DNA. But, mostly I don't think that there are many really good "theories" in biology, just quite a lot of interesting special cases with a few broad rules to which there is always an exception.

[phil_20686]

One of the problems I have with the arguments of theists is that they are not consistent with a single definition of a god figure. The real basis for belief for christians seems to me to resolve to one issue - do you accept that a superntural being can create ex nihilo? Is it possible for something to arise from nothing?

 

I say it cannot. But I admit that at its heart, there is noting but intuition on which I base my decision. But I do think that allowing for only those things which are natural is the more rational approach than hypothesizing an immaterial world where creation ex nihilo can occur.

 

 

As a practising cosmologist, I can tell you with reasonable certainty that most cosmologists believe precisely that the universe was created from nothing, or occasionally, that it had no beginning (minority viewpoint). It seems moderately likely that at some point in the past, our universe was a genuine singularity of zero dimensions, and then the big bang happened (well, not exactly, but I don't want to get all technical), and hence that there exists a time before which there was no time at all.

[phil_20686]

Arguments about the alleged lack atheistic philosophy to deal with conceptual whatevers leave me cold. No one there when I might wish to say thank you, that's a little tough. But it's the way I think it is.

 

Indeed, I have always felt that this expresses a deep truth. People are not persuaded by arguments as a general rule, the best you can hope for is to demonstrate that this or that is plausible, and not inherently contradictory. Or at least to turn their mind towards the various issues. There seems to be a growing trend among my age group to think that Christian thought was all long since debunked, (although this sentiment is expressed in the first paragraph of Brideshead revisited, so maybe its not new). The best I can hope to establish is that Christianity does in fact present a coherent and non-contradictory whole.

 

In fact its been a staple of Christian thought that it pleased God to conceal himself from "the wise" and reveal himself to the simple and the childlike. In my view what this really expresses is that conversion happens in the heart (and soul), rather than in the mind. Mostly deeply religious people will tell you that they have a relationship with God, and that, fundamentally, is why we all continue to believe.

[Winstonm]

Concerning the miraculous, there is a simple solution. Perform a concrete impossibility: move the Matterhorn to Central Park or regrow an amputee's limb. The best explanation why these types of concrete miracles are not performed is not the rationalization about the will of god but the more likely reality that god and his will are both imaginary creations of a hopeful mankind.

 

The bible supports the idea of concrete impossibilities being performed:

 

Matthew 18:19

Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

 

Yet, here we are over 2000 years later and two of you guys haven't yet banned cancer. I'm betting it will never happen.

 

And yet you support the idea of miracles but are offended by the idea of evolution by natural selection being taught in public schools?

 

Edit: I heartily endorse what Mycroft says below and I, too, do not approve of the "religion of science" being taught as truth. In this same way I do not accept natural selection being taught as "truth or proven" but as the best explanational theory so far.

[mycroft]

One thing I notice, Phil, is that everything there is physics (or physical chemistry). No genetics, no biology at all - not even "how does the blood system work?" There is a lot to physics, but saying "we can teach a lot of science without touching evolution" and going on to block out biology in toto is somewhat like saying we can teach a lot of mathematics without touching the calculus, and those "disreputable" infinitesimals, or the non-real numbers, or the so-called transfinites (all of which were, and to some still are, "wrong" or "debatable" constructions). True, but misleading.

 

We don't have medicine without organic chemistry and biology. We don't have those (OC and B) without scientific process (which frankly, is what should be taught in science, not some random collection of facts and discoveries that are somehow "true". That's the Religion of Science, not science itself (we need to teach the facts, but one should always be able to show how we figured them out/tested them/falsified the invalid theories). With the scientific process, and the data available, and the experiments that have been and can be made, evolution - the process - will be discovered again, even if we don't teach it. From there, it's a probability 1 chance that someone will make the step from there to theorising that all speciation has occurred through the evolutionary process.

 

They will also, with sufficient knowledge of the scientific process, use it on the data supplied by their religion, and determine that there are many things of very low probability (fine, they're called "miracles" and "supernatural intervention" for a reason), or of, at best, dubious scientific value. They will also find the improvability and unfalsifiablity of certain of the religious beliefs. At which point, it's a question of whether, or to what extent, things that can not be tested through the scientific process can be considered "true" or "what happens". Just because science says it can't happen doesn't mean it can't happen - just that we haven't proved either that it *has*, or that what has happened happened miraculously rather than any of the other ways it could have happened.

 

As I repeatedly say, I don't have any problem with Creationism/ID/whatever being taught as true - I may not believe it, but I don't have a problem with it - I have a problem with it being taught as Science (except to show that science will find it "not provably false, but much less likely to be true than other theories", of course, because that will be the conclusion that science will draw, if it's done right).

 

If you don't want to teach science because it will engender these kinds of "false thoughts" and "evil thought processes", well then, don't. Don't care. But in this scienti-primary world we live in, prepare to have your children's future belong to those who do.

 

Edit: and I see from future posts (from when I started writing) that you are covering much of the same ground.

[PassedOut]

Evolution can take its place somewhere in the second tier of scientific achievements, which seems to be roughly where it belongs.

I'm not aware of any important biologists who take that position, but I could be wrong (of course). Could you point me to one who explains why that is the case? Until evolution, there was no satisfactory explanation of the fossil record, nor of how mankind arose. Seems important.

[Mbodell]

I'm not aware of any important biologists who take that position [that evolution is not a fundamentally important scientific discovery], but I could be wrong (of course). Could you point me to one who explains why that is the case? Until evolution, there was no satisfactory explanation of the fossil record, nor of how mankind arose. Seems important.

 

Yeah, evolution is kind of a fundamental theory of biology, and would be up there in pretty much every biologists "top 5 axioms/theories/discoveries in biology" and quite possibly a majority's number one spot.

 

I know Wikipedia is not authoritative, but to help ground the discussion and move it from a he said/he said to at least a he said/majority said discussion:

 

Among the most important topics are five unifying principles that can be said to be the fundamental axioms of modern biology:

 

1. Cells are the basic unit of life

2. New species and inherited traits are the product of evolution

3. Genes are the basic unit of heredity

4. An organism regulates its internal environment to maintain a stable and constant condition

5. Living organisms consume and transform energy.

 

We, appropriately, studied all of the above in high school biology. And if I were setting the curriculum for a general survey course on all of science, evolution would make my short list of fundamentally important scientific discoveries.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if someone from "further down the stack" looks down on major biology work or thinks that all of the major/important science work is from their discipline. (I.e., to a biologist, sociology and/or psychology and/or anthropology and/or economics are just dressed up subfields of biology; to a chemist, biology is just a dressed up subfield of applied chemistry; to a physicist, chemistry is just a dressed up subfield of applied physics; to a mathematician, physics is just a dressed up subfield of applied math).

[phil_20686]

The bible supports the idea of concrete impossibilities being performed:

Yes, it does, but not in Mt 18:19. That is about the power to forgive sins, or not. Also, incidentally, there are 4 or 5 people in the passage, not two, the "two or three witnesses" and the "two disciples". The dangers of quoting out of context. :)

 

You would have done better with Mt 17:20. This makes it clear that the likelihood of God answering your prayers is tied directly to the faith and holiness of the one doing the asking. Indeed, God is not "required" to answer any prayer, but he is much more likely to answer if you are particularly holy. The sad fact of the matter is that many, if not most, of "professed Christians" struggle to have real faith, in much the same way that the disciples struggled to have real faith. But at any rate, the message of scripture here is that one should look for a small number of very holy individuals who perform many miracles. Even the Apostles failed to perform a miracle because they lacked sufficient faith.

 

 

And yet you support the idea of miracles but are offended by the idea of evolution by natural selection being taught in public schools?

 

 

I'm not anti-evolution. I just don't think that one should have an argument between adults by indoctrinating children. That is dangerous ground. I was merely refuting Passed out's statement that teaching "science" in science class means you have to teach evolution, there is more than enough science to go around.

 

Further, evolution is on the second tier of scientific theories for three reasons. (1) It lacks predictive power. (2) Key elements have yet to be tested. (3) It is unlikely to be properly falsifiable in the time-scale of our lives, since the majority of evidence has already happened, and the emergence of a new species is likely to take an experiment lasting at least hundreds of years.

 

Regarding (2), it is clear that the current "dogma" of evolutionists, that mutation causes new genes causes speciation, cannot be true as it stands. Mostly, because it takes too long. Studies with e.coli bacteria have shown that after 20,000 generations, there was not a single new gene. For a higher animal like a human this is a huge problem, as 20 000 generations of ecoli is about a decade, 20000 generations of humans is roughly the entire lifetime of our species. Of course, its not clear that its strictly scalable. The essential problem is that most organisms have incredibly sophisticated ways of repairing damage to the genome. Estimates suggest that fewer than 1 in 1000 mutations will actually be allowed to continue, most being eliminated by enforced cell death. All of the classic examples of evolution, like the butterflies, are only changes in gene expression. That is, there is an allele that already exists that is made more common by selective pressure. To date, science has produced not a single example of a viable mutation. And we have tried quite hard. More troubling still is that evolution does not seem to be the gradual process that is theorised, the fossil record has periods of great stability followed by rapid change. Finally, less than 2% of the human genome actually codes for proteins in the Human body. We don't really understand at all what the other 98% does. Moreover, we are finding out all kind of interesting things about DNA all the time. For example, it is possible for mental states to affect gene expression, particularly in the immune system. Lonely people build more bacterial defences, but fewer viral ones. It seems possible that experience could affect the genes that are expressed in reproduction, and reduce a large fraction of the apparent randomness in evolution. E.g. Perhaps if you are often hungry you express genes for a smaller size in your offspring.

 

In light of these various issues, its naive to imagine that evolution as currently professed in popular science is "correct". It is almost definitely "wrong" in the sense that evolution is definitely not gradual, is probably not as dependent on random mutation as thought, and may indeed depend far more on RNA than DNA.

 

Compared to High energy physics, where our theories compute quantities to ten or more significant figures, and a difference in one part in ten to the fifteen deviation from the theory can be an "anomaly", it really doesn't look that impressive. :). Chemistry is better, but still can seldom predict things to better than 1%. Evolution is still a theory in massive flux, and arguments among biologists about its mechanisms are ongoing. Now, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, because it certainly did, but it seems weird to put it on a pedestal as a supreme scientific achievement when we only understand a tiny bit of how it works.

[hotShot]

Returning to the original topic, is that even allowed? :)

 

Well, you could teach science all day every day and still not touch on evolution. There are plenty of things you could teach that would be totally uncontroversial. Normally whoever is deciding what one should learn has both an idealogical stance and an agenda.

 

It's not my impression, that among biologists evolution is controversial.

[dicklont]

Well, if you teach something other than science in science class, you are not allowed to call it science class. If you call it religion class, then you can teach belief stuff.

 

Personally, I've never gotten religion. It seems that the more I learn about it, the less I understand it.

 

Last year I've read that religion gives an evolutionary advantage.

Paradoxal as that sounds I understand now that no amount of knowlegde and evolution will ever put an end to religion.

[hrothgar]

 

Further, evolution is on the second tier of scientific theories for three reasons. (1) It lacks predictive power. (2) Key elements have yet to be tested. (3) It is unlikely to be properly falsifiable in the time-scale of our lives, since the majority of evidence has already happened, and the emergence of a new species is likely to take an experiment lasting at least hundreds of years.

 

 

1. Bullshit

2. Bullshit

3. and more Bullshit

 

Predictive Power

 

The examples that I am most familiar with are related to searching for specific types of fossils. Biologists have made specific predictions that transitional forms of type [X,Y,Z] should be found in specific types of strata. They have even launched (successful) expeditions to search for a given type of fossil in a specific type of location based on prediction.

 

Key Elements have yet to be tested

 

How is in any way, shape or form specific to the Theory of Evolution?

 

Falsification

 

First and foremost, we have experimental evidence that shows the emergence of a new species

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

 

Second, part of the reason that it is so difficult to falsify the theory of evolution is that the theory has already withstood 150 years of attack and most of the easy critiques have been dealt with. From my perspective, this strengthens my confidence that the theory is sound. I would once again like to pose the following critique of a naive view of "falsification"

 

 

Assume that there is a "pool" of falsifiable tests for a given theory.

 

1. Each time a test is performed, there is one less test in the pool

2. On occasion, a new insight or discovery will cause a new test to enter the pool

 

Let's assume that I exhaust the entire pool, having met each and every challenge...

If you follow a naive view of falsification, all this testing now decreases your confidence in the model because it can no longer be easily tested...

 

Regardless, at this point in time, discussions about falsification generally focus on either

 

The elusive "pre-cambrian rabbit" or alternatively, something like the following:

 

1. If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.

2. If it could be shown that, although mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.

3. If it could be shown that, although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.

4. If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.

[hrothgar]

What are you talking about(!) the Schroedinger equation is *all* of chemistry. Solve that and you know everything about any chemical reaction. Of course, those solutions may not be trivial....

 

Also, the haber process is definitely chemistry. Its the reaction by which you create both fertiliser and explosives, and I did also mention the discovery of DNA. But, mostly I don't think that there are many really good "theories" in biology, just quite a lot of interesting special cases with a few broad rules to which there is always an exception.

 

I had almost the precise same reaction as Winston.

 

It's certainly possible to tech science while ignoring the theory of evolution; however, in order to do so, you pretty much need to write off Biology which doesn't seem reasonable.

 

Much of my formal study was in the field of economics, which means that concepts like diminishing returns to scale are near and dear to my heart. It's certainly possible to spend a life time drilling deeper and deeper into some highly specialized field. However, when we're looking at general education, I'd argue that its more important to provide indivuduals with a basic competancy in across a fairly broad range of topics.

 

There are plenty of things you could teach that would be totally uncontroversial

 

Doubtful. Many people, myself included, view the controversy over the theory of evolution as the "tip of the spear". Conceed this point and we'll end up repeating the precise same fight in some other discipline. Might as well try to settle things here and now.

 

For what its worth, the best description of this point of view actually comes from the Discovery Institute:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

 

Moreover, I am far from convinced that something needs to be "uncontroversial" in order for it to be taught...

[Gerben42]

Concerning the miraculous, there is a simple solution. Perform a concrete impossibility: move the Matterhorn to Central Park or regrow an amputee's limb

 

And why would these things remain impossible. After all, sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Things that seem quite realistic now like resuscitating someone after his heart has stopped, using a machine to fly, communicate instantly to the other side of the world, put a man on the moon, would have been considered a miracle even 100 years ago.

 

A miracle has to be something that defies the laws of nature. Everything else is just clever.

 

I heartily endorse what Mycroft says below and I, too, do not approve of the "religion of science" being taught as truth. In this same way I do not accept natural selection being taught as "truth or proven" but as the best explanational theory so far.

 

Sounds like a nice goal but how do you explain that?

Evolution is an excellent way to describe how the universe works. It will only be disproved in the way that Newton's Laws were disproved: They are wrong but for most uses, they are fine. If you want to build a car, don't worry about general relativity. If you want to explain the different species on the planet, evolution will also do just fine. Perhaps there is a deeper mechanism that we don't know about.

 

But classical mechanics and evolutionary theory have a lot in common: They describe the way of the universe from an observer's point of view, and the theory was based on that. Just as Newton didn't know about the four basic forces in the universe, Darwin didn't know about DNA. Yet both theories continue to help us in our lives and have stood the test of time for practical use.

[luke warm]

First and foremost, we have experimental evidence that shows the emergence of a new species

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

question richard (and it's just a question, for my own understanding)... is the author's "... a rare chromosome inversion..." the same as the formation of a new genome?

[Winstonm]

And why would these things remain impossible. After all, sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Things that seem quite realistic now like resuscitating someone after his heart has stopped, using a machine to fly, communicate instantly to the other side of the world, put a man on the moon, would have been considered a miracle even 100 years ago.

 

A miracle has to be something that defies the laws of nature. Everything else is just clever.

 

 

 

Sounds like a nice goal but how do you explain that?

Evolution is an excellent way to describe how the universe works. It will only be disproved in the way that Newton's Laws were disproved: They are wrong but for most uses, they are fine. If you want to build a car, don't worry about general relativity. If you want to explain the different species on the planet, evolution will also do just fine. Perhaps there is a deeper mechanism that we don't know about.

 

But classical mechanics and evolutionary theory have a lot in common: They describe the way of the universe from an observer's point of view, and the theory was based on that. Just as Newton didn't know about the four basic forces in the universe, Darwin didn't know about DNA. Yet both theories continue to help us in our lives and have stood the test of time for practical use.

 

I doubt we are thinking the same items when considering the "religion of science". I am still of the opinion that a 0D particle is impossible and when 0D particles are discussed as reality it is more like a religious discussion than science. The problem with mathematical science is that it describes but it cannot explain, and it reifies abstract concepts into objects, a la a 0D particle. Reification is the realm of religion and philosophy, where "love" is discussed as a "thing" that "exists" using the same words as when discussing how a "chair" exists. But the concrete object and the abstract idea do no exist in the same fashion - which is why a precise definition is needed for precise understanding.

 

If we use a strict definition of the word exist as a physical presence, that which has shape and occupies location, then we automatically place abstract concepts into what I believe to be their proper category, i.e., mental images of sentient beings. Therefore, when asked where does love come from, the answer is simple: from the minds of sentient beings. It must be so by definition, as love does not have shape or loction.

[Winstonm]

But at any rate, the message of scripture here is that one should look for a small number of very holy individuals who perform many miracles. Even the Apostles failed to perform a miracle because they lacked sufficient faith.

 

Phil, don't look now but you are rationalizing your belief. You are simply explaining why and how an entire lost tribe of Israel lived in the Northeastern U.S. but left no trace of its civilization, and why it is reasonable to have a flying horse and stenographic angels.

 

If god wanted us to know he was real, he would have moved a mountain or regrown a missing limb. It is like the old question of why does god allow bad things to happen to good people? Why? Bad things happen to everyone in the same proportion - that is because there is no universal score keeper to say who is good and who is bad.

 

Now, you can rationalize about free will and bad things and good people, but Occam's razor points to the simple answer: no god.

[hrothgar]

question richard (and it's just a question, for my own understanding)... is the author's "... a rare chromosome inversion..." the same as the formation of a new genome?

 

Hard to say...

 

I recently assumed product marketing responsibility for The MathWorks computational biology line.

(So, in addition to being the technical expert at Stats, I now get to try to figure out Bioinformatics and Systems Biology)

 

As such, I've been spending a lot of time reading up on gene sequencing and other fun stuff.

I don't think that there is any hard and fast rules about what constitutes "new genome".

 

Its unclear whether the expression "new genome" should be based on genotype, phenotype, or what.

 

In this specific case, you are postulating a very significant change to the genotype (a complete inversion of a chromosome) that is also visible in the phenotype.

It seems reasonable that this might be considered a "new" genome. However, this is pure speculation...