[_ Old Earth _] How much of Biology do you accept?

[4billonyear]

Hi i'm I an Atheist and want about your views on biology. The entire study. This means cells, animals, plants, bacteria, and evolution. I wonder what parts of the field you accept and what parts you don't. Anything is fine to say one way or another. I just wanna know and discuss.

 

[agua.]

Gday 4bllionyear,

I accept the parts of biology that have been empirically demonstrated but I'm not convinced the current ToE is accurate. I don't dismiss it out of hand though.

 

[TOG]

I think you'll find that Christians generally accept all of science. The place where Christians and some scientists disagree is the theories of origins of the universe and life (the big bang and evolution). Those aren't really science, since you can't apply the scientific method to things that happened billions of years ago, but only to what is happening today. For example, scientific study has shown us what happens when a sperm cell and an egg cell meet. We know the chemical changes in the cell wall of the egg that prevent multiple sperm cells from fertilizing it. We know how the fertilized egg eventually develops into a baby. We also know how pollen fertilizes a flower, how a fruit forms and what happens when a seed from that fruit grows into a tree. What we don't know, and never will be able to prove scientifically, is whether there ever was a time when a tree or a human or any other living organism came into being through some other method than what we see today, such as a special creation. Science can't tell us that.

The TOG

 

[Vaccine]

Welcome @4billionyear, good question. As for me I accept the theory of evolution (ToE), that species change or adapt to their environment. The part I reject is common descent. As far as the rest of biology, I think studying how cells, plants, or bacteria work is accomplished whether one accepts evolution or not. I think observing how stuff works and knowing it's origins are two different things.
If the police find a person hanging from a rope, suicide is one possible explanation, murder is another. To me, common descent is one possible explanation but common design is another. No reason people can't discuss it civilly.

 

[Barbarian]

I think you'll find that Christians generally accept all of science. The place where Christians and some scientists disagree is the theories of origins of the universe and life (the big bang and evolution).

Hard to believe some people still think evolution is about the origin of life. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life. Darwin made no such claims; he merely suggested that God just created the first living things.

Of course, we know a lot more about how life is organized today, and what sort of biological molecules can form in the absence of life. But that's not evolution. Evolution is only about the way living populations change over time.

Scientists accept common descent because the evidence overwhelmingly supports it. Most creationists now accept a modified form of common descent that they limit to "kinds." Unfortunately, no creationist has been able to establish such a thing, and numerous independent lines of evidence show the same nested hierarchy of taxa found only in cases of common descent.

Rock and a hard place, I guess.

 

[TOG]

Hard to believe some people still think evolution is about the origin of life. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life.

You can't finish a process that hasn't started. For evolution to work, life has to start in some way. Evolution and common descent go hand in hand.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Hard to believe some people still think evolution is about the origin of life. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life.

You can't finish a process that hasn't started.

Chemistry isn't about the origin of atoms, either. Theories are limited to the things they actually make claims about. So the origin of matter isn't part of chemistry, and the origin of life isn't part of evolution, which is indifferent to the way the first living things appeared.

For evolution to work, life has to start in some way.

Darwin, for example, suggested that God just created the first living things, but didn't say how he thought that happened. Modern research has increasingly good evidence that life came from the Earth, as God says.

Evolution and common descent go hand in hand.

But neither of those is about the way life began.

 

[TOG]

the origin of life isn't part of evolution, which is indifferent to the way the first living things appeared.

Name me one respected evolutionary biologist who doesn't believe in common descent and that the first form of life didn't come about by natural means.

But neither of those is about the way life began.

Ah... Good ol' semantics... Twisting words and such. In my first post in this thread, I mentioned origins. That means where we came from. Evolution/common descent are about where we came from and how. So is the "birds and bees" talk you had with your children. It just depends on how far back you want to go. Do you want to start with mom and dad or do you want to start with how the first cell was made, or do you want to start somewhere else? When I spoke of origins, I was talking about where both human beings and other life we have today came from. According to the theory of evolution/common descent (which are inseparable) humans descended from non-humans. According to the biblical account, today's humans descended from the first human, who was created and did not descend from any non-human life form. That's where the disagreement is.

The TOG​

 

[Sparkey]

Hey, thanks for coming to the source and asking...

Personally I don't see problems between the science of Biology and the teachings of Jesus whatsoever. What I do see is misunderstandings. Science, for instance, does not speak of the invisible things that faith is based on.

But scientists are regularly accused of determinism, reductionism, essentialism, positivism, and worst of all, something called “scientism.” And surprisingly, I'm not talking here of religious accusers but instead, of another group, those who have studied the Humanities and those studied in social sciences, anthropology, culture, area studies and the like.

Here is one such quote:

Scientific ideas and discoveries about living nature and man, perfectly welcome and harmless in themselves, are being enlisted to do battle against our traditional religious and moral teachings, and even our self-understanding as creatures with freedom and dignity. A quasi-religious faith has sprung up among us—let me call it "soul-less scientism"—which believes that our new biology, eliminating all mystery, can give a complete account of human life, giving purely scientific explanations of human thought, love, creativity, moral judgment, and even why we believe in God. ... Make no mistake. The stakes in this contest are high: at issue are the moral and spiritual health of our nation, the continued vitality of science, and our own self-understanding as human beings and as children of the West.

-Leon Kass (George W. Bush’s bioethics adviser)

"soul-less scientism" ??? Really? Hey! I didn't say it; don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Claudya]

I refuse those

Name me one respected evolutionary biologist who doesn't believe in common descent and that the first form of life didn't come about by natural means.

There's probably none. Abiogenesis theories are probably accepted by all biologist except those that are creationists. But it's a different theory. It's not part of the Theory of Evolution. ToE only explains how life forms develop from other life forms. But where the first living cells came from is not part of the ToE.

Ah... Good ol' semantics... Twisting words and such. In my first post in this thread, I mentioned origins. That means where we came from. Evolution/common descent are about where we came from and how. So is the "birds and bees" talk you had with your children. It just depends on how far back you want to go. Do you want to start with mom and dad or do you want to start with how the first cell was made, or do you want to start somewhere else? When I spoke of origins, I was talking about where both human beings and other life we have today came from. According to the theory of evolution/common descent (which are inseparable) humans descended from non-humans. According to the biblical account, today's humans descended from the first human, who was created and did not descend from any non-human life form. That's where the disagreement is.

The TOG​

Wellyou used "origins of life" as a synonym for "evolution" in your first post. As if not being able to explain where life came from in the first place was a weakness of the ToE. But since the ToE never aimed to answer that question it's not a weakness of the theory.
If you can't use your bath tub as a sleigh it's not a weakness of the bath tub.

Using that detail that we don't yet fully understand in all details how the first living cells formed as an argumentation against the ToE is a strawman argument that creationists often come up with.

(Edit: fixed messed up quote tags.)

 

[Claudya]

As for the original question of the thread I accept biology like any other branch of science that I have only a bit of knowledge about.
The only part of biology I am unwilling to accept is when some people claim that human behaviour is determined by some biological/ genetical trait like sex, race, and so on, and thus those biological traits should be the basis of unequal treatment or predestined social roles.
However, those kinds of biologism are probably rare among actual scientists and hopefully will be a thing of the past soon.

 

[TOG]

Wellyou used "origins of life" as a synonym for "evolution" in oyur first post. As if not being able to explain where life came from in the first place was a weakness of the ToE. But since the ToE never aimed to answer that question it's not a weakness of the theory.

The original question was "How much of biology do you accept?" My answer was "I think you'll find that Christians generally accept all of science. The place where Christians and some scientists disagree is the theories of origins of the universe and life (the big bang and evolution)." If there was some misunderstanding, I have already explained that I was using the word "origins" to mean where things (life, the universe and everything) came from. Did we come from non-human organisms (you can't deny that evolution claims that) or were we created by God? Everyone, with the possible exception of scientists, should be able to easily understand what I meant.

Sometimes Christians get accused of speaking "Christianese", a special language that only Christians understand. It seems to me that evolutionists are far worse.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life)

Name me one respected evolutionary biologist who doesn't believe in common descent and that the first form of life didn't come about by natural means.

Darwin, for example, suggested that God did it. But of course, he wasn't aware of many things we know now, and it appears from the evidence that God did use nature to produce life, as He says in Genesis.

(Barbarian notes that evolutionary theory and common descent aren't about the origin of life)

Ah... Good ol' semantics...

Perhaps you don't know what "semantics" means. You assumed that evolutionary theory makes some claims about the origin of life. It doesn't. That's a simple misconception, not a semantic error.

Twisting words and such. In my first post in this thread, I mentioned origins. That means where we came from. Evolution/common descent are about where we came from and how.

No. It's about how living populations change over time. Nothing about he origin of life. If you doubt this, look up the four principles of Darwin's theory and show us. Or, show us how the Modern Synthesis made claims about the origin of life. It's just not there. Mostly, because it doesn't matter how the first organisms came about. Darwin's suggestion that God just did it works as well as abiogenesis.

So is the "birds and bees" talk you had with your children. It just depends on how far back you want to go.

No. It depends on what the theory is about. That's how it works.

Do you want to start with mom and dad or do you want to start with how the first cell was made, or do you want to start somewhere else?

That's not evolutionary theory. It's important for you to understand what the theory is about, if you want to refute it.

When I spoke of origins, I was talking about where both human beings and other life we have today came from. According to the theory of evolution/common descent (which are inseparable) humans descended from non-humans.

That's not about the origin of life, either.

According to the biblical account, today's humans descended from the first human, who was created and did not descend from any non-human life form.

But Genesis doesn't say that, does it? You've added that to scripture, which is never a good idea.

That's where the disagreement is.

Yep.

 

[Barbarian]

"soul-less scientism" ??? Really? Hey! I didn't say it; don't shoot the messenger.

I'm wondering why Leon didn't bother to give any actual examples of this "new religion" among scientists. I think I know why.

 

[Rick W]

Try to be a civil or I'll have to lock the thread.

 

[Sparkey]

Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it” (see also Deuteronomy 12:32). The reason God is so adamant on this is because “The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalms 119:160).

"Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" Proverbs 30:6.

The word of God does not prohibit exegesis. We are told how to discover what God's word means. What we are told not to do is to try to change the intent of the author. There are many who try to twist the words to mean something other than what God has said. False teachers use portions of the word and "wrestle scripture" in order to conform it to what they want it to mean (isogesis).

There is an informative article (blog)

Hermeneutics, Exegesis, and Isogesis

The blog is off-topic as it addresses critics of Christian rock music but one of the author's statements is, "The only valid way to study God's word is through EXEGESIS. ISOGESIS inevitably leads to heresy."

The term "adding to the word" suggests heresy in a not-too-subtle way. Our discussion about Biology has digressed into an off-topic area. When Rick W asks us to be civil this also means, let's not suggest such things of one another. Although there is a certain amount of tolerance that one brother has for another regarding what may be seen as alternative interpretations of the book of Genesis, the line about how we relate to one another is clearly drawn in the Terms of Service (and more importantly, the Bible); we are to remain respectful.

This thread is not the place for Members to debate each other about the literal meanings of the word of God as stated in the book of Genesis. It is certainly not the place to suggest heresy even when there are others who oppose.

Per the Christianity and Science Forum Agreement:

6- For the believers: To not give a seeker or unbeliever an honest answer, or an honest attempt at an answer, is to not respect them as persons, as persons created in the image of God.

7- For those who may not be believers: To not respect our beliefs is to not respect us as persons, as persons created in the image of God.

~Moderator

 

[Free]

Isogesis? There is no such word. The correct word is eisegesis. Just saying.

 

[Barbarian]

The fact remains, that we should not attribute anything to scripture that is not in scripture. Heresy is, BTW, not the same thing as error. We all commit errors from time to time, but I doubt if any of us are heretics.

Religious errors are not necessarily opposed to faith or God. Heresies are knowing corruptions of faith.

I always thought "isogesis" meant starting with a subject and looking up what Scripture had to say about it. Rather different than "eisegesis."

 

[Sparkey]

Isogesis? There is no such word. The correct word is eisegesis. Just saying.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/isogenesis

It depends on what dictionary you use. If we are speaking of the merriam-webster dictionary, you're correct in that the word does not appear in the FREE edition. By the way, Free, that's the one I'd expect you to consult.

Opps! In an effort to try to prove myself correct, I made a spelling mistake (there's some apt irony in there but it's not worth mentioning). Funny how that happens, isn't it? I'm fairly certain that if you took the time to prove me to be correct you could do a better job than I did though.

 

[TOG]

The site Sparrohawk quotes defines isogesis as "reading into the Scriptures". The correct spelling is eisegesis.

The TOG​