GolfHos

Colbert interviewed a guy last night, Behe, who just authored a book called "The Edge of Evolution" wherein he presumably ran the calculations based upon known mutation frequencies and concluded it is mathematically impossible for anything new or useful to evolve in living systems.

One of his arguments was based upon some HIV number crunching, the virus that causes AIDS.  He concluded that after a several decade period wherein one hundred billion billion HIV souls were born and died, representing "more mutations occurring than in all of life previously"??? that no new useful biochemical "parts" ever evolved within the virus during this epoch.

Had he actually bothered to review the HIV literature, he wouldn't have made such an ass out of himself by proving just how ill-informed he is on matters he uses to make his sweeping generalizations. 

A lowly biomedical technician working in an HIV lab in the midwest, hoping to go to grad school next year, sets him straight:
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/michael-behe-please-allow-me-to.html

It absolutely boggles my mind how guys like Behe go about committing what amounts to intellectual fraud, and his dumb-minded audience laps this crap up like a kitten at a milk bowl.

I don't know......I do this every day.

I guess the book The Edge of Evolution should be classified as a work of fiction.

Intelligent Design's fundamental mistake is its attempt to prove the unprovable.  The existence of a Supreme Being is a matter of faith.  Said Supreme Being isn't likely to leave hard core evidence of his existence laying about - especially if our faith is a key point of his plan.  Either you believe or you don't. 

It's a mistake for faith to try and compete within the context of science.  They're incompatible.  The reverse, of course, is just as true.  Proving God does not exist is an impossible task.

I don't believe you actually meant this about people of faith in general but, just in case, categorizing them as dumb-minded isn't right.  There's an awful lot that goes into the human experience and for many people the comforting thought of a master plan helps them get through the day.  I struggle with it all myself.  I find it hard to believe that we're the one in a billion to the billionth power chance that all this "just happened".  Having said that, the universe is large.  Perhaps we are.  I find it a depressing thought to consider that everything we know plus everything we don't know is completely meaningless.

Either way, to each his own seems like a reasonable attitude.

..

Prove it.

How does the existence of a supreme being make everything we know meaningful?

Whatever. 

I'm not trying to change any minds here at all.  Doesn't matter to me what anyone believes or doesn't believe.  I'm not even sure what I believe.  Perhaps I'm just stupid.  I'm certainly not smart enough to understand why people holding one belief often hold such malevolent contempt for those holding another belief.  That coin has two sides of course.  I'm an equal opportunity opponent of fanaticism.  [sm_disgust]

That was a serious question. I'm not trying to change your mind either. I'm just wondering how the existence of a supreme being makes your own existence meaningful. You said it's depressing to think that life is meaningless if it simply occurred because of chance. If the supreme being created life, and you don't know his/her/its intentions, aren't you back to square one?

If there is a Supreme Being, no matter its intentions, there is meaning to our existence.  Obviously this might be a meaning we cannot fathom.

If there is not, if this is just a phenomenal roll of the dice, there can be no meaning.  In a random collision of chance there is only a random collision of chance.

Faith provides the answers.  I'm not saying I have them.  I'm not saying my faith isn't at preschool levels.  I'm saying that if you have faith you find the answers that work for you.  I envy many of those people to be honest.  My wife is one of them.  She's a very happy person.

Lest this degenerate into pointing out specific foibles of those who do have faith, whether they be Islamic terrorists or fundamentalist Christian bigots or simply flawed individuals of any persuasion, I too share a distaste for their actions - actions made worse by their utilization of their faith as justification.  Doesn't make faith wrong.  Makes those individuals wrong.

But that still only answers the "how" and not the "why" of our existence. Also, what if the intentions of the supreme being are evil? If you don't know his/her/its intentions, you must consider evil intentions as a possibility. How, then, can that be comforting?

Even if a supreme being created life, your personal existence was still due to chance. If a different sperm cell penetrated the ovum in your mother's Fallopian tube, you wouldn't exist here today. Instead of being depressed that life could be meaningless because your existence is due to chance, you can just as well feel happy that luck shined on you however many years ago. You, in fact, got luckier than hitting lotto by your mere existence. So cheer up!

Faith may provide answers, but it doesn't guarantee truth.

Isn't this sort of like saying "blame the messenger, not the message?"  ;D

Why do you equate as "meaningless" the embracing of a view of life that is derived through the  study and examination of natural order?

What on earth is meaningless about understanding how things work?  Knowing the complex atmospherics that underly a beautiful Hawaiian sunset doesn't make a quiet moment staring westward over the vast pacific ocean any more meaningless than if one imagines color fairies exist to sprinkle the sky for our pleasure.  If anything, it adds meaning to the grandeur.

The reality is science didn't pick a fight with religion; it has been the fundamentalists, like Behe, who have simply dismissed out of hand vast areas of incredible progress in human understanding.  And the  scientific mimicry that they practice in order to market this collective ignorance is a fraud perpetrated on people who, unfortunately, just don't know any better or would somehow prefer not to.

As you suggest, there is nothing that science can offer with any definitive strength that would be mutually exclusive with religious faith.  But isn't it odd that it is the religious who seem most fearful of scientific discovery?  THEY are the ones who set themselves up for a fall with their god of the gaps arguments by saying "we don't understand how that works, but God sometimes works in mysterious ways."  And then, when the science ultimately derives a natural explanation for that previously mysterious phenomenon,  their God seems further diminished.

I'm like Darwin.  I don't argue against religions.  I argue against the ignorance that (some) religions purposefully foster.

 

Where's prkchop and wj when you need them...  [sm_enguard] [sm_jack] :sleep:

gleek, that's just too much nitpicking over what, for me, is a simple issue.  Sure, the big man upstairs might be evil.  If so, we're all *fudge*ed.  Sure, biologically my existence is like winning the lotto.  Who said the winner of the race wasn't put there by God?  (btw, I'm not depressed, a depressing thought doesn't Kurt Cobain make.)  Sure, faith doesn't guarantee truth.  It does guarantee perceived truth.  It's there for the person holding it.  The other six billion of us don't need to worry about the truthfulness of another's faith.  Only they do and if they believe, voila, there you go.

This is fairly futile and I honestly don't like to get into these discussions with other than a few close friends.  I think I have a decent idea where you stand on things and that's fine.  You're probably more settled into your beliefs (or lack thereof) than I am.  That works for me.  I'm not a philosopher nor am I a theologian nor am I a scientist.

Indeed, the first of my two main points in the original post is that the Intelligent Design supporters are making a mistake fighting their fight within the realm of the scientific method.  They have no chance at all and cannot possible prove the unprovable.  The other was more of a musing on what makes the more strident of the stormtroopers on either side tick.  Why do so many feel they have to shove their beliefs down the throats of others?  Makes me wonder if they're gettin' any at home.   :)

I tend to not care much about how or why anyone thinks we're here. As long as they don't try to make me believe what they do, or live by rules that are exclusively reflective of such, I got no beef.  :angel:

wwpnfd?

(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3214/prokroptypingyv2.gif)

Blader, I think you know my point was given regarding ultimate meaning.  If a higher power exists then obviously that higher power could/should/would be capable of putting together the entire natural order of our universe.  The presence of a Supreme Being does not negate Scientific Truths.  There, I put them on equal footing.

The rest of your post seems to agree with mine other than you suggest all the *bunghole*s are on one side and, ironically, all the saints are on the other.  I see it as a close game likely to be decided by a field goal.

Fumbled punt.

 8)

I thought about typing an awesome post about religion with some stuff I stole from John Galt's speech.  But then I figured ya'll be like.

Oh there they go. There they go, every time I start talkin 'religion', a white man got to pull Ayn Rand out their ass. That's their one, that's their one. Any Rand. John Galt. Let me tell you something once and for all. Ayn Rand was good, but compared to CS Lewis, Ayn Rand ain't *feces*.

No, it will be an Eli Manning-esque INT returned 99 yards for a game-losing TD. ;D

Well, at least you're practicing what you sig. ;)

Yeah it is a new revelation.  Plus my xtian name is James so it is quite apt. 

Reminds me of this guy I saw at a seminar.  He's this christian scientist out of San Diego who insists that a dinosaur with bone marrow still in tact was found somewhere in Idaho recently, and he says dinosaurs were on earth as early as 200 years ago.   [sm_disgust]

I attended Sunday school and church regularly as a kid, but by the age of 18 I was becoming disenchanted with the dogmas and dictates of organized religion.  I find science, with all its flaws and gaps in knowledge, much more coherent and logical.  Religious dogma requires the suspension of rationality and acceptance based on blind faith.  Science is constantly being tested and revised based on real world observations.  I find science both comforting and intellectually stimulating.  Contemplating the universe and our place in it gives me a sense of wonder.  Science isn't cold and sterile as some would suggest.

Still, I respect the religious beliefs of others.  Religion obviously fulfills the psychological needs of many people throughout the world.  I rarely debate religion unless someone is trying to convert me to their faith, or trying to impose some aspect of their belief on the general public (e.g., the teaching of intelligent design in public schools).

You tryin' to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?

Given the miraculous powers attributed to Jesus, I would not doubt his ability to hit a curveball.  But he might need some batting practice to get the hang of it.  A little trial and error with positive and negative feedback.

That's OK. Neither could Jesus Alou.

up your butt jobu.

 ;D

Can I answer these questions for me, from what I believe?  And without anyone feeling like I'm pushing my beliefs on them?  'Cause I don't want to do that.  I really like how civil this discussion has been so far, I hope we can keep it that way.  I do not mean to offend anyone, or start some kind of war here.  If you don't want to hear my answers, which are based on the Bible, then please skip my post.



The existence of a Supreme Being - God - changes things because He's there.  Genesis talks about God creating man in His image.  There it also says that God had fellowship with man, a fellowship that was broken when man sinned.  But from that can be taken that we were created for His pleasure.  Throughout the New Testament it speaks of giving God the glory and His work for His good pleasure.  So His creation is for His pleasure and for His glory as well.  How does that add meaning?  If you believe that you were created to bring pleasure to someone, and that Someone is God Himself, then it adds purpose and meaning.  If you believe in God as the Bible speaks of Him, you know His intentions are to be good and of love, not of evil. 


Ecclesiastes speaks of a purpose for everything.  Everything has not exceptions.  Thus, if you believe the Bible to be true, even your existence, has a purpose - even why you specifically were created.


So right!  But there is truth.  Something among the others has to be right. "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

I believe the Bible to be true.  So often I see debates on why someone believes that science contradicts the Bible or the Bible contradicts science; I hardly ever see where something in the Bible was proven to be true, but there are instances.  The Bible, in the Old Testament, speaks of the world being a sphere, for so long scientists said the world was flat.  Also, there are things that are said to contradict the Bible yet are still a theory. 

I hope my answers have been clear for those who have read my post. 

$.02

(trying to put it in layman's terms)

once you have gone through school (undergrad/grad) and seen the world through the perspective of an engineer (especially one who though particularly trained in chemical engineering, also has a background in mech,ee/cs, and ms...),  it's hard not to see the world as simply a wonderfully (from the human perspective as a component organism with regards to the benfits of our symbiosis) complex (from the perspective of overcoming large kinetic and entropic barriers) object hanging onto a metastable point ( far, far above the true global minimum, thanks to the sun) on its potential energy surface for dear life (think of evolution as the agent driving tempered annealing).

 

In other words, you're just one more blind man describing the elephant.

king kong ain't got *feces* on me

Well said.

My post was actually a little esoteric in nature.  I was watching Major League (one of my favorites) as I was posting, and that line hit, as I was in this thread.  It seemed to fit.

Then Aske hit it out of the park with the second best line of the flick.

I haven't seen the flick so it went over my head.    ;D

Actually, I should amend: you're the guy who put on blue-tinted sunglasses and now describes the world around him; not surprisingly, everything seems to be some shade of blue.

Wierd. Ecclesiastes and blue-tinted sunglasses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKVlOxtlL4A) mentioned in the same thread.