Just in case you are not aware, according to creationists , this is what is referred to as the 'framework hypothesis'. If you are interested in the counter argument by Christians who take the bible literally, please read this
I can't say what you anecdotal experience is but this is actually the opposite. Most physical scientists accept Evolution and it is primarily among social scientist that there is a debate regarding it primarily around the teaching of Evolution. It sounds like you are dealing with a self-selected group of scientists who identify as Christian which may color your perception. If you are talking about Francis Crick that is actually incorrect. He speculate about panspermia or the idea that complex organic molecules may have been seeded on Earth by highly intelligent beings but later downplayed that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick [rquoter]During the 1960s, Crick became concerned with the origins of the genetic code. In 1966, Crick took the place of Leslie Orgel at a meeting where Orgel was to talk about the origin of life. Crick speculated about possible stages by which an initially simple code with a few amino acid types might have evolved into the more complex code used by existing organisms.[66] At that time, everyone thought of proteins as the only kind of enzymes and ribozymes had not yet been found. Many molecular biologists were puzzled by the problem of the origin of a protein replicating system that is as complex as that which exists in organisms currently inhabiting Earth. In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called "directed panspermia".[67] In a retrospective article,[68] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life.[/rquoter] Anyway the directed panspermia theory doesn't conflict with the theory of Evolution as laid out by Darwin since that theory only applies to the spread of complex self-replicating molecules but not about the process of speciation. Further if you are looking for Crick as an ally regarding Creationism and Intelligent Design. [rquoter]Creationism It has been suggested by some observers that Crick's speculation about panspermia "fits neatly into the intelligent design concept."[78] Crick's name was raised in this context in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial over the teaching of intelligent design. Crick was, however, a firm critic of Young Earth creationism. In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."[79] Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.[80][/rquoter]
To follow on my above post the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design / Creationism has been discussed in other threads and is probably better there. For this thread though I don't see any conflict regarding the theory of Evolution and belief in God except in the most literal and shallow interpretation of each.
You are getting at why I think as rational beings we require both faith and science. We are naturally inquisitive but there are questions that cannot be answered (why are we here? Is there purpose to our life? What happens after we die?) These are questions that cannot be answered empirically and the most science can do is show a train of causality without meaning.
Yeah, thanks. I've read similar arguments and had discussions with Christians who are determined that it is literal history. One thing I'll say about that site is in their examination of the Hebrew words. For instance the word bara which is translated as to create has a literal translation which is to fatten. Later in the bible the same word is used to mean fatten and not create. In 1 Samuel they talk about the sons fattening themselves and they use the word bara. Like I said there are plenty of Christians that firmly against the idea that it's a poem. They want everything to be literal. But I think it's important to understand how the people who read the biblical stories at the time they were written would have read it, as much as is possible.
I have to disagree that it is a requirement that you have to have faith. I agree we are inquisitive but we are also egotistical. We have the tendency to not be able to accept that we don't have an explanation for everything. So what do we do with this, we invent these mythological creatures to somehow explain and link all these things that we currently don't have a logical explanation for. Case in point, we did not know how thunder and lightning and storms comes from - enter Thor. Tsunamis , earthquakes and large waves - Poseidon. Love is suppose to be controlled by Apollo. We don't believe that any of these claims are true anymore because science has provided as with a true explanation of the nature of these things. If we relied on faith, we wouldn't have had the need to study these things because as far as faith is concerned, those questions have already been answered. The "why we are here" and "purpose in life" question are philosophical and is not really required to be answered in order to live a full and happy life. In addition, if we all have a purpose, what about the other 99.99% of creatures living in this earth and other planets or moons (high probability that there is life outside of earth). With regards to death, there has been no evidence that our conscience transcends after life so the default position should be, there is none until proven otherwise. Science has an answer and it says.. none as far the current evidence suggests.
lol...... Ive never heard of that before. Poetry or prose is totally irrelevant whether or not it is true.
I don't buy into intelligent design, but I do wonder if the inherent nature of the Universe leads to life. Life is made up of the simplest of elements - carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen is pretty much all life is. it's been shown that will enough energy, these elements can form proteins and nearly all the amino acids we see today. But what's fascinating about DNA is that it is not unique to the Earth, but it is unique to life. There's no life form that isn't based on DNA/RNA which in turn is based on ribosomes and proteins. It is very strange all the steps that had to take place, not just in terms of evolution, but in the creation of elemental particles itself and the nature of our world, the solar system, and the universe...if you really think about it, the immense complexity and twists, and the fact that it is so very unique - it does give pause to wonder....is the universe really just someone's big ass science experiment and we're just a petri dish / computer program waiting to be awarded first place?
I agree. But again it's a strange idea that you'd look to prove a poem as not being true. I don't think it was ever intended to be "true". It's a story with a message and that was the intent, not to give a literal history.
I find it disturbing that over 50% of the people voted yes to believing in God but only a handful of people even bothered to say one word supporting their belief! I know that this board will never change the opinion of anyone, on the contrary I think it further cements ones personal beliefs. I myself am a Christian or at least I'm trying to be one! Having declared that statement, I have become ignorant in the eyes of many on this board and that's okay, I am at peace with that. As a Christian all I want to say to my fellow CF members is, I am not your enemy, I hold no ill will towards you because you might not believe in God! I have immediate family members who also don't believe in God and I respect them and love them just the same! The main reason I think people don't believe in God is the word faith. Some of us need proof or evidence to believe that God exists while some of us simply just believe that he is. Blind-faith, stupidity at it's finest some would say! I won't argue with that, no one wants to be taken for a fool especially in this day and age where it seems everyone is trying take advantage of you! I took the leap, and I've seen how my life has changed in all aspects in my life, all for the better I might ad! You'll never know if what I'm saying is real or if I'm just making things up until you let go, I mean really let go! My two cents worth, don't want to argue with anybody!.... ....... ....... .......
Ok...I will just have to call BS on all of this. I guess there is no point in even discussing it any further. Geneticists are social scientists now? lol... And for the record, aliens planting a genetic garden is not a theory. It is something that was pulled from someone's butt.
Irreducible complexity has already been debunked by real science. Right... Are you seriously using this guy as your source? That article is just terrible in every respect. Are you trolling me? That would actually be pretty funny. And it's still not a theory.
I personally believe in time immemorial that people didn't eat as bad as we do nor was the Earth as impure as it is today, making it more believable. That said, I really don't care to defend that and it's irrelevant to me anyways because I too don't see Adam and Eve in the same light as the average person (hardly a fairy tale and something much deeper than I will share on this board in part because it'd probably be over everyone's head).
First, you need to chill out. The hostile tone is not necessary. I just Googled the scientist's name and picked an article that sounded good. You were suggesting that I was making it all up. Why is the article terrible; I thought it was interesting. Anyway, if you don't want to have this discussion, fine. Believe what you want to believe. You don't seem open to other options anyway.
Crick may have had second thoughts, but he did advance the idea of alien intrusion, so I was not incorrect as you claim. The main point is that the complexity of DNA just could not have developed by a mindless random process. The intelligent design problem won't go away just because some dismiss it.
What you said: How does it follow that he "abandoned evolution"? Requoting from the wikipedia entry: [rquoter]In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called "directed panspermia"[/rquoter] Sounds like he's saying life was a exceedingly rare event in the universe, and once it came about (presumably through a natural selection process), it could be spread to various corners of the universe by intelligent beings. It is just speculation on his part, which is fine. I don't interpret this as him disputing the core theory of evolution, as you do.
The most brilliant scientists on the planet are running complex experiments to understand how life happened without intelligence. After a while don't you step back and consider that you are doing the opposite of what you believe... As far as planet earth goes let's go with the alien theories.
If you reject philosophy, and you reject religion....what is left? Nihilism? That is my problem right freaking here, from the idea that there is no difference between man and animals, that you can have "happiness" without faith, without philosophy, without religion, and thus happiness through....what, material consumption? What we have here is an example of science promoting nihilism. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing - like I said, just as science isn't good, it isn't bad. It just says things which are true, like an oracle. But it is up to us, humans, to interpret its visions and NOT to passively accept its decrees. If science says that there is no purpose....then it is up to us to make some and reject the statement that what we do is of no purpose. Belief is important to inspire us. Not to inspire us for more democracy, more masses, more mediocrity, but to inspire us to reach new capacities, new limits on what we can accomplish. As a people, as a nation. That is the purpose of the ideal, to march towards the endless sea - because even if the sea doesn't even exist, the beauty, the sense of purpose towards finding it is what invites the best of us, the greatest of us.
