Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The relevence of Biblical claims to science
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 192 (170260)
12-20-2004 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
12-20-2004 6:39 PM


Great Debate?
Not yet, I would guess that lots of ppl want to discuss it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 12-20-2004 6:39 PM jar has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 17 of 192 (170268)
12-20-2004 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
12-20-2004 6:39 PM


Well, it might make a good subject, but a GD is not in the cards for me at this moment. I have about three more days of playing on the computer, then I'm off-line for at least a week. Hopefully, as Ned mentioned, there'll be other people than Maestro and I who want to get involved in the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 12-20-2004 6:39 PM jar has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 18 of 192 (170277)
12-20-2004 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Maestro232
12-20-2004 4:39 PM


Opening Salvo
I'd like to start out by stipulating to some of your premises for the sake of discussion.
1. God exists. Moreover, this deity is the Christian God.
2. The Christian Bible represents a reasonable facsimile of the Word of God. Close enough so that there are passages within the text that can be used as a guideline for a practical epistemology in regards to the natural world.
3. This deity has in the past intervened in the development of life (you'll have to let me know if you're a progressive or single-event creationist).
4. Scientists - specifically life scientists - collectively and individually have rejected and/or ignored the actions of this deity as they impact the natural world, thus making minor to grievous errors in their interpretations.
To explore the implications of the existence and activity of the [divine; supernatural; insert-word-here], it should be possible to show how real-life questions in the biological sciences have BETTER answers when using recourse to this entity than are available to the "spirit-rejecting" biologist, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, paleobiolgist, ecologist, paleoecologist, paleobotanist, etc. Alternatively, it should be possible to show how the existing answers are incorrect because they failed to account for the actions of the deity.
I am granting you full and unrestricted use of your paradigm to answer any (or preferably all) of the six questions posed in the OP - which should also have the salutory effect of silencing the double-standard complaint. These are practical questions, referring to actual living organisms and the current state of the natural world. Please note: all but one of these questions has been adequately answered under the evolutionary paradigm. The one that has not been adequately answered may, in fact, not have an answer - or at least may be beyond our ability to address at this time. To defend your premises, you MUST show either one of the two possibilities I mentioned: show how your paradigm provides a better answer, or show how the answer derived from evolutionary theory is incorrect or inadequate. Failing this, your contention that Biblical claims are relevant to science stands falsified.
That is the debate. Those are the parameters of the discussion. I eagerly await your reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Maestro232, posted 12-20-2004 4:39 PM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Maestro232, posted 12-21-2004 9:48 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 192 (170373)
12-21-2004 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Quetzal
12-20-2004 8:13 PM


Re: Opening Salvo
Do you think perhaps you are being a bit narrow in only accepting answers to those questions from a spiritual context as convincing that spriritual matters and/or Biblical claims about physical matters are worth your time exploring?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 12-20-2004 8:13 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 12-21-2004 9:55 AM Maestro232 has replied
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 12-21-2004 10:09 AM Maestro232 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 20 of 192 (170375)
12-21-2004 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Maestro232
12-21-2004 9:48 AM


Picking an example
Maestro in his OP writes:
The Bible does not just talk about the spiritual realm. It talks about this physical world, and I am saying that those claims are relevent to the discussion of our physical existence and origin. I am not asking evolutionists to study feelings and demons and angels, I am asking them to study the claims in the Bible about the creation of this physical world. Because, afterall, there is a question of whether or not we were created or evolved.
Maestro writes:
Do you think perhaps you are being a bit narrow in only accepting answers to those questions from a spiritual context as convincing that spriritual matters and/or Biblical claims about physical matters are worth your time exploring?
I had to read this about 3 times to get a meaning out. Do you mean:
Are you being a bit narrow in accepting answers developed from a spiritual perspective to only those questions as a demonstration of the value of this approach?
I don't think that Q was restricting the discussion to those questions. They are just representative examples of the kind of thing that he thinks should be discussed.
You have been asked for you own examples a number of times. If you'd like to supply them that would be interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Maestro232, posted 12-21-2004 9:48 AM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Maestro232, posted 12-21-2004 10:01 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 192 (170378)
12-21-2004 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
12-21-2004 9:55 AM


Re: Picking an example
Yes, Nosy, I'm actually working on a response right now. As I read Quetzal's posts, it appears that he will only accept answers to those 6 questions. I will not answer those questions, but I will answer his main question "Are scientists missing truth by rejecting the spiritual?" with examples....soon to come.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 12-21-2004 9:55 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 12-21-2004 10:14 AM Maestro232 has not replied
 Message 25 by Quetzal, posted 12-21-2004 10:26 AM Maestro232 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 22 of 192 (170382)
12-21-2004 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Maestro232
12-21-2004 9:48 AM


Please Get Specific
Maestro writes:
Do you think perhaps you are being a bit narrow in only accepting answers to those questions from a spiritual context as convincing that spriritual matters and/or Biblical claims about physical matters are worth your time exploring?
Like Nosy, I'm unable to parse this into a meaningful question. Instead of endless quibbles, I'd like to see an answer to this question from Quetzal's Message 18:
To explore the implications of the existence and activity of the [divine; supernatural; insert-word-here], it should be possible to show how real-life questions in the biological sciences have BETTER answers when using recourse to this entity than are available to the "spirit-rejecting" biologist, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, paleobiolgist, ecologist, paleoecologist, paleobotanist, etc. Alternatively, it should be possible to show how the existing answers are incorrect because they failed to account for the actions of the deity.
Quetzal posed a list of specific issues in the OP, but I think from the point of view of most of us they must be held rhetorically since they're about issues we're unfamiliar with. But the point Quetzal is making is that all but one of these issues have answers in an evolutionary context, and he wants to know how in some way taking the sprirtual into account would improve upon these answers.
Because Quetzal's questions require a bit a study, it doesn't seem necessary to use them as the basis for further discussion. Simply describe for us or provide examples (how many times have we made this request now?) of how the spirtual (or whatever term you want to us) would improve upon the answers provided by science.
So far your answers have been remarkably free of substance. If I told someone about this discussion and they asked me, "So how does Maestro propose including the spirtual in research studies?" I wouldn't be able to answer.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Maestro232, posted 12-21-2004 9:48 AM Maestro232 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 23 of 192 (170385)
12-21-2004 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Maestro232
12-21-2004 10:01 AM


Re: Picking an example
Yes, Nosy, I'm actually working on a response right now. As I read Quetzal's posts, it appears that he will only accept answers to those 6 questions. I will not answer those questions, but I will answer his main question "Are scientists missing truth by rejecting the spiritual?" with examples....soon to come.
Well any examples would be useful and I suppose it isn't necessary to answer those specific questions. Could you comment on whether you think they are good examples of the general type of questions that could be included?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Maestro232, posted 12-21-2004 10:01 AM Maestro232 has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 24 of 192 (170386)
12-21-2004 10:16 AM


Comment on Standard Discussion Board Practices
To EvC Forum Members:
Because this is a discussion board and not a chat room, there is no need or desire for instant answers. It is far better that a post be long delayed and well thought out than instant and poorly written. At EvC Forum the emphasis is on fewer messages of higher quality. Posts to let someone know you're working on a post aren't necessary, unless you expect an extended absence, e.g., "I'm going away for Christmas, I'll provide an answer in a week." And keep in mind that there can be occasions when the best reply is none at all.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 25 of 192 (170387)
12-21-2004 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Maestro232
12-21-2004 10:01 AM


Re: Picking an example
I will not answer those questions
Why not? Those are very representative questions of the type that are answered or at least investigated on a daily basis by evolutionary biologists. The particular questions are unimportant in and of themselves. After all, I can come up with ten dozen questions of similar nature. IF your epistemology is valid - IOW, if your assertions concerning the Bible, God, etc provide a better method of understanding nature - then you should be able to use that methodology and show where the scientists are wrong.
If you don't like those, try these:
1. Parasitism by Striga hermonthica causes an estimated 8 billion dollars annually through destroying vital cereal crops in Africa. Biologists, using evolutionary theory, are researching geographic variability of Striga populations in an effort to determine selection effects by variously resistant strains of Sorghum asiatica with an eye toward developing long-term resistance stability. How would adding the supernatural aid or increase the effectiveness of this research?
2. Cassava (Manihot esculenta) is the staple food crop of a large portion of Africa. It's an introduced species - and the introduction brought a parasite with it (the cassava mealy bug Phenacoccus manihoti). The parasite caused upwards of 80% losses in every effected field threatening starvation for millions. How would recourse to the Bible, God or the supernatural address this problem?
3. The European green crab (Carcinus maenas), another introduced species, is threatening the US Pacific coast crab fisheries through predation (among other problems). Explain in detail how a theistic epistemology would address this issue.
I will not accept "generic" philosophical arguments. Metaphysics is unable to solve real-world problems. You have stated that scientists are wrong for leaving God out of the equation. Here's your opportunity to show how including the supernatural would provide better or even equivalent answers to the problems we face today. Anything else is begging the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Maestro232, posted 12-21-2004 10:01 AM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Maestro232, posted 12-21-2004 11:06 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Maestro232
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 192 (170398)
12-21-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Quetzal
12-21-2004 10:26 AM


Re: Picking an example
Quetzal has begun this thread with a fabulous question:
Are scientists missing truth by rejecting the spiritual?
In my post I proposed a slightly different question, namely:
Are scientists missing truth by rejecting what the Bible says about the Physical?
While I might be enlarging the scope too much, perhaps we can address both of these questions as we debate. I have framed my question differently so that it has more parallelism with Quetzal’s question.
So let me begin.
1. Are scientists missing truth by rejecting the Spiritual?
In this context, if I am not mistaken, truth refers to scientific truth. For example, the question asks if we could say, Are scientists missing the truth about our origins by rejecting the spiritual? or as quetzal might propose, Are scientists missing the truth about why are there no predators on Barro Colorado by rejecting the spiritual? Given this framework, let me make my first claim:
1.a. Scientists are missing some scientific truth by rejecting the Spiritual truths of the Bible
I say some because I recognize that such questions as Quetzal proposed in message 1 of this thread do not appear to be significantly, if at all, answered in a spiritual framework. It is possible that spiritual truths might be drawn from the scientific facts Quetzal proposed, but it would simply be using those facts which might be used as illustrations of whatever spiritual truths one person or another might believe in.
Because I say some, though, I am also claiming that the practice of science, when fully divorced from, specifically, Biblical claims of a spiritual nature, some scientific truth as I have defined it will be unattainable.
Specifically, here are some examples of scientific truth that will be unattainable in my humble opinion:
1.a.1. How are miracles possible?
1.a.2. What causes people to act unkindly, aggressively, selfishly, etc to one another?
My claim is that these questions cannot be answered fully without exploring the spiritual claims of the Bible.
1.b. Scientists are missing some scientific truth by rejecting the existence of a spiritual realm.
I make this claim with the following defense:
1.b.1. Scientists reject a spiritual realm.
1.b.2. The spiritual realm affects the physical realm.
1.b.3. Therefore, the physical realm is concerned with the spiritual realm.
1.b.1. Therefore, scientists are missing some physical truth which is related to the spiritual realm.
Hopefully these few claims regarding Quetzal’s main question will draw on some positive conversation and debate here. I have made specific claims regarding what physical truth cannot be found without considering a spiritual component relevant. Therefore, it seems fitting to treat my specific examples.
Now I will move on to the second question.
2. Are scientists missing truth by rejecting what the Bible says about the Physical?
In this context, let us take the same definition of truth as in the first question. My claim then, in regards to this question is:
2.a. Scientists are missing some scientific truth by rejecting the truths of the Bible that concern the physical.
What I mean by this claim is the following: Quetzal’s questions in post 1 started as:
1) why
2) why
3) why
4) explain
5) explain
6) Bonus challenge. Explain
The obvious conclusion is that scientists considers whys as questions which science should be in the scope of answering. For example, the entirety of Quetzal’s first question is:
1) Why are there no predators on Barro Colorado?
It is up to me, then, to propose a similar scientific question or questions where the why cannot be completely answered through purely scientific means. It is then that claim 2.a. will be proven. Let me then propose one such question. As this debate continues, perhaps more can be considered.
1.a.1. Why does a newborn’s Vitamin K levels shoot up on the eight day of birth and then go back down?
This is an important question. There are certain things that scientists can answer about it scientifically. But can they really answer the why? question fully? No! However, the Bible does provide the why that science could never come up with on its own, yet, after hearing the Bible’s why, science can then verify. Here is the Bible’s answer:
God spoke to His people and told them to circumcise their baby boys on the eighth day of their birth. Interestingly enough, it just so happens that babies vitamin K shoots up miraculously on the eighth day only to accommodate this procedure so the wound can close and heal. The non-scientific explanation for this is that God built this in to His design to accommodate His command. None of this really makes any contextual sense in science though, because it would just look at the procedure and say, "This is not useful." So, the why to this question is because God asked His people to circumcise on the 8th day and had to accommodate that command.
So, here is an example of a question about the physical world that the Bible answers the why to fully that science never can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Quetzal, posted 12-21-2004 10:26 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by MrHambre, posted 12-21-2004 11:37 AM Maestro232 has replied
 Message 28 by mikehager, posted 12-21-2004 11:40 AM Maestro232 has replied
 Message 29 by contracycle, posted 12-21-2004 11:47 AM Maestro232 has replied
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2004 11:52 AM Maestro232 has replied
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2004 12:29 PM Maestro232 has not replied
 Message 54 by Quetzal, posted 12-21-2004 1:18 PM Maestro232 has replied
 Message 56 by purpledawn, posted 12-21-2004 3:20 PM Maestro232 has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 27 of 192 (170403)
12-21-2004 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Maestro232
12-21-2004 11:06 AM


The Unkindest Cut
Maestro asks:
quote:
Why does a newborn’s Vitamin K levels shoot up on the eight day of (sic) birth and then go back down?
This is an important question...Here is the Bible’s answer:
God spoke to His people and told them to circumcise their baby boys on the eighth day of their birth.
Do I understand that you feel the only reason a newborn's vitamin K levels fluctuate is to accomodate the practice of male circumcision as decreed in the Bible? In that case, I have a couple of additional questions:
1) Presumably all societies, even non-Judeo-Christian ones, have newborns whose vitamin K levels fluctuate the way you describe. What use is this fluctuation in the majority of human societies, which do not circumcise their young?
2) Do female newborns have the same fluctuations in vitamin K levels? Why would they, if the Bible says nothing about female circumcision?
3) Wouldn't it make more sense for males to be born without foreskins, thus making it unnecessary to mutilate them in a procedure that a surprisingly large amount of physicians consider unsafe, useless, and barbaric?
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Maestro232, posted 12-21-2004 11:06 AM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Maestro232, posted 12-21-2004 11:52 AM MrHambre has replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 28 of 192 (170404)
12-21-2004 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Maestro232
12-21-2004 11:06 AM


Re: Picking an example
God spoke to His people and told them to circumcise their baby boys on the eighth day of their birth. Interestingly enough, it just so happens that babies vitamin K shoots up miraculously on the eighth day only to accommodate this procedure so the wound can close and heal. The non-scientific explanation for this is that God built this in to His design to accommodate His command. None of this really makes any contextual sense in science though, because it would just look at the procedure and say, "This is not useful." So, the "why" to this question is because God asked His people to circumcise on the 8th day and had to accommodate that command.
This is a fine example of why the theistic mindset is so useless in the sciences. Coming to the question of this vitamin spike, the theist sees an example of the hand of their god (and no other in spite of most people in the world believing in some god other then the christian one) and claims a victory for their faith and the support of good science (good science of course being defined as that science the conclusions of which agree with their preconceptions.)
Now, a real thinker and researcher (one who, if he has faith, is rightly not looking to it for these answers), approaching the same question of the vitamin spike and the day on which circumcisions should be done, might say, "Well, look at that. After a few generations of doing circumcisions the Jews saw that those done on the eighth day after birth turned out better, so they started doing them all on that day. Then, it later got written into their holy books".
You see, no god needed. Why, you may ask, is this any better then one utilizing the bible? Simple, it doesn't utilize the bible. Duh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Maestro232, posted 12-21-2004 11:06 AM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Maestro232, posted 12-21-2004 12:06 PM mikehager has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 192 (170405)
12-21-2004 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Maestro232
12-21-2004 11:06 AM


Re: Picking an example
quote:
Because I say some, though, I am also claiming that the practice of science, when fully divorced from, specifically, Biblical claims of a spiritual nature, some scientific truth as I have defined it will be unattainable.
Thats becuase your argument rests almost entirely on semantic manipulation.
quote:
1.a.1. How are miracles possible?
Subject not in evidence - miracles cannot be shown to exist/happen and cannot be tested. Claim rejected.
quote:
1.a.2. What causes people to act unkindly, aggressively, selfishly, etc to one another?
Self-interest and programming. See other threads. Claim rejected.
quote:
My claim is that these questions cannot be answered fully without exploring the spiritual claims of the Bible.
You are mistaken; the only way they will be fully explained is through science. However, the first of your questions is itself a biblical, spiritual claim, and the second is mostly answered to my satisfaction already - whether or not to your satisfaction I neither know nor care.
quote:
1.b.2. The spiritual realm affects the physical realm.
I could have criticised point 1 as well but can;t be bothered - without this assumption your entire argument collapses. So: prove it. You admit that these are your CLAIMS. This claim is ridiculous, and I see no reason to accept it without compelling evidence. Please cite such evidence.
quote:
So, here is an example of a question about the physical world that the Bible answers the why to fully that science never can.
One that is presented in a very dishonest manner - without controls or citations or references. What exactly is our basis for thinking that vitamin K is any way relevant to the handling of pain or bleeding, such that it might be useful in this context? Furthermore, is this universal in all humans, and if so to what degree of variance? After all if menstruation can be imprecise and even move in aggregate I would not expect to find such hard dating. Is there no other conceivable use for vitamain K in 8-day old neonates? Does it happen in girl babies too? Des it happen in other primates? Mammals? Fish, slugs, birds et al?
What you have, rather, is a crude and self-fulfulling coincidence tyo which you are assigning confident claims, undeservedly. This is poor analysis, more like myth than science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Maestro232, posted 12-21-2004 11:06 AM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Maestro232, posted 12-21-2004 12:28 PM contracycle has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 30 of 192 (170407)
12-21-2004 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Maestro232
12-21-2004 11:06 AM


Re: Picking an example
Well on reading this post it seems that the main problem is not that scientists are missing out on definite truths - rather they do not come to the conclusions that you wish them to.
To look further at the examples:
quote:
1.a.1. How are miracles possible?
The assumptions here are:
1) That miracles ARE possible
2) That they are scientifically investigable
3) That scientific investigation will not produce the correct answer
4) That the Bible contains the correct answer
The real killer is that if it cannot be demonstrated that the Bible IS correct on this point there is no assurance that looking at the Bible is any help at all.
quote:
1.a.2. What causes people to act unkindly, aggressively, selfishly, etc to one another?
Well science has a lot to say on this one, too. But how can it be shown that the Biblical answer IS correct ?
quote:
1.b.1. Scientists reject a spiritual realm.
1.b.2. The spiritual realm affects the physical realm.
1.b.3. Therefore, the physical realm is concerned with the spiritual realm.
1.b.1. Therefore, scientists are missing some physical truth which is related to the spiritual realm.

1.b.1 is badly phrased - scientists do not consider the spiritual realm to be part of science. Many in fact beleive in such a realm
1.b.2-4 Suffers from the same problems as 1.a.1
The final point on a newborn's vitamin K levels is also wrong and displays poor reasoning. Even assuming that it is entirely correct so far as the scence goes (which I doubt) it is hard to conclude that the rise on the eight day is FOR the purpose of circumcision. Indeed it would be better to ask why babies are born with low levels of vitamin K if it is desirable to conduct minor surgeries on them in the first few days of life. If this explanation is the sort of thing that science is "missing out on" then it is to the benefit of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Maestro232, posted 12-21-2004 11:06 AM Maestro232 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Maestro232, posted 12-21-2004 12:43 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024