I'm curious -- are there any lines of Christian philosophical thought which address the (in my eyes) issue that those Christians who argue evolution using (pseudo)scientific approaches are basically stating to the world "I have no real faith in my God, and I need proof that He exists"? If one truly has faith in their god(s), then why be threatened by what is essentially a different philosophical model (i.e. Empirical thought)?
My two cents... Kaching, kaching... --j On 8/27/07 9:26 AM, "David M. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Two further problems with this thread. > > First -- and this may be my weakest argument -- I think Shipman > overestimates the chances for the four domains of TPA to come together. > Without being sure of the formula she used to get to 30,000^4, but I suspect > there is a fatal flaw in the assumptions. Namely, I'll bet there is an > assumption of starting from scratch for each of the four domains. Evolution > never starts from scratch. It always works on material already available -- > proteins, etc., that have already been filtered through the process of > selection. The range of modifications that can be performed on an existing > work are far more limited than the range of possibilities that can be > produced from a blank slate, so to speak. > > Second -- the lightning argument offered has no merit whatsoever. One > cannot compare what happens at the surface of the Earth today with what > happened more than 4 billion years ago, if for no other reason that the > chemical and physcial characteristics of the surface of the Earth -- > especially that of the atmosphere -- are so dissimilar. The early Earth had > a reducing atmosphere with very little of the oxygen that makes most life > possible today. But as early life evolved, it produced oxygen, driving the > evolution of the atmosphere into the oxygen-rich environment we depend on > today. > > Later, > > Dave > > ------------------------------------------------------ > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > "No trespassing > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carissa Shipman > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:09 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: Christianity survey > > I am a biology student at Temple University and I have > conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order > Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My > question is why is the scientific community so convinced of > evolution? There are very few publications concerning > evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. Most > scientists are baffled at how such molecular systems such > as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step manner. > It looks to me like many of the molecular inter workings all > needed to be there simultaneously for the end product to > function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just as > baffling. How could that have happened in a step by step > fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist has the > answer. So if you can not explain how the most nitty gritty > machines of life "molecules" learned to function in the > intricate ways that they do why are you so certain that > everything evolved? Science is looking at the details. All > science textbooks I have read have relayed very little > evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They just say > it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has published very > few papers concerning molecular evolution it should perish. > Systematics addresses genetic similarities between species, > but it does not address exactly how those genetic > differences and similarities came to be. There maybe fossils > and genes, but you need more than this. I am not convinced > of evolution, but still choose to educate myself in what it > teaches and believes. How do scientists explain how even the > slightest mutation in the human genome is highly detrimental > most of the time? If even the slightest change occurs in our > genome it is oftentimes fatal. Believing that this mechanism > lead to all the species we see today takes a great deal of > faith.For instance if even one step of the blood clotting > process were disturbed the effects would be disastrous. > Also, why does evolution leave out mathematical statistics > of how each mutation arose. TPA a component of blood > clotting has 4 domains. If we attempted to shuffle the genes > for these four domains the odds of getting all four domains > together is 30,000 to the fourth power, and that is just for > TPA! Calculating mutation rates and the odds of getting > certain genes to match up perfectly for the ultimate > function shows us that it takes more faith to believe that > we evolved from primordial slime. The earth has had > thousands of lightning bolts hit it every year and we have > not seen life spawn from molecules. If evolution happened we > would see it reoccuring time and time again from the bottom. > Why have we not seen it, because conditions have not been > perfect? I do not deny adaptation within species, but this > is far different than the assumptions of macro evolution. If > an evolutionist can challenge my arguments I would gladly > like to hear your rebuttal. Publications for molecular > evolution use many words such as "unleashed". How was it > unleashed, what were the step by step mechanisms that you > can say for certain occurred, leaving macro leapages out of > the picture? You see fossils, but you have no detailed > explanations as to how one may have turned into the other at > the molecular level. If you can not explain it at the > molecular level you have nothing to base your assumptions > on. Also all the breeds of dogs are very different from one > another and some of their skeletal structures look > unrelated. The different types of dogs that you see arrived > through intelligent interaction, not evolutionary processes. > Change occurs in nature to a limited extent. That is all. > Sincerely, Carissa Shipman -- Jonathan A. Greenberg, PhD Postdoctoral Scholar Center for Spatial Technologies and Remote Sensing (CSTARS) University of California, Davis One Shields Avenue The Barn, Room 250N Davis, CA 95616 Cell: 415-794-5043 AIM: jgrn307 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
