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

[Barbarian]

Hmmm...
There are two big words that are thrown around most seminaries: Exegesis and Isogesis. Exegesis is the investigation of scripture in order to extract its intended meaning. This is vital from both a secular and spiritual perspective. For the bible to have any integrity, you must look into all factors that may have contributed to the writing of the text. Who wrote the text? Who were they writing it to? What was the culture of the day? What was the context of life? What was the language? The genre of writing? And more. The point is that we cannot make the bible say anything, but we must find out what it is saying. From a spiritual perspective, this is key. If indeed you believe that the bible is God’s word, extracting its intended meaning through careful exegesis is vital in receiving biblical guidance for our spiritual journeys.

Isogesis happens when you begin with a thought or idea and then transpose that thought into a piece of scripture. It happens when you assume that the bible was written just for you. This can get pretty dangerous, because at this point you can make the bible say anything you want…like saying that Jesus was rich for example. It’s not a coincidence that the idea that “Jesus was rich” comes from somebody in a culture that is quite wealthy, consumeristic, and materialistic. We cannot, I mean cannot read 21st century, western thought into a biblical text. The two just don’t fit. The bible was not written for you, or for me, but for us -all people living in the world. What I find helpful in scripture is how the bible can give inspiration and guidance to me in regard to who God is and how God interacts with the human story, of which I am only a small part.


Historically speaking, it is most likely that Jesus was not rich, but poor. As the one scholar said in the article, there was no middle class in the ancient Middle East. As a Christian pastor, I grieve over people who handle scripture so lightly. When you read the bible, take heed and look into the details. Read the commentaries, learn the history. And may you be impacted by scripture in a profound and powerful way.
http://itsthequestionthatdrivesus.net/tag/isogesis/

 

[Sparkey]

I've been taught that there is "proper" spelling and "improper" spelling but there is no such thing as incorrect spelling as long as the word used carries the meaning well. There are primary and secondary meanings as well. Shall we look at the root words, perhaps?

iso-, is- (Greek: equal; by extension: same, similar, alike; normally used as a prefix)

So it would seem that the process involves searching for similar meanings. More than "reading into the Scriptures," it would include looking with a preconceived idea to prove oneself right.

 

[Sparkey]

Instead of getting out ye ol' "Back to Topic" sign, I'd just like to retire the ISOgesis vs. EISEgesis debate here with a smile and say, "I like you guys!" ('cause yer strange (peculiar) like me).

~Sparrow

 

[Barbarian]

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

All that Greek and Latin. (Shudder) It's not actually that hard, if you take the time to learn a few dozen prefixes, roots, and suffixes. Mostly, it's pretty reasonable, and it's done because of a need for precision.

There are no common words for a lot of it, and so we make meaningful new ones. It shouldn't be as intimidating as some people make it out to be.

 

[TOG]

All that Greek and Latin. (Shudder) It's not actually that hard, if you take the time to learn a few dozen prefixes, roots, and suffixes. Mostly, it's pretty reasonable, and it's done because of a need for precision.

There are no common words for a lot of it, and so we make meaningful new ones. It shouldn't be as intimidating as some people make it out to be.

It's not the Greek and Latin I was talking about, but the English. Maybe I can explain it with an example from the computer world, since that's my profession. After examining a customers computer and coming to a conclusion about what's wrong, I could say "The RJ-45 jack in incorrectly crimped" or I could say "I need to replace the network cable". Why use terms practically nobody understands (not even all my coworkers know that it's called "RJ-45), when the exact same thing can be said in plain English that's simple for everyone to understand. It seems to me that evolutionsists often use scientific sounding terms to make things sound so complicated that no "lay person" could ever hope to understand it, and therefore couldn't challenge what's being said, when in fact they're saying something quite simple that everyone could understand if they said it in plain English.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

It's not the Greek and Latin I was talking about, but the English. Maybe I can explain it with an example from the computer world, since that's my profession. After examining a customers computer and coming to a conclusion about what's wrong, I could say "The RJ-45 jack in incorrectly crimped" or I could say "I need to replace the network cable".

Except there's no common word for (for example) "allometry." We could say (and I have when discussing it with non-biologists) "relative change in size of body parts as a result of an absolute change in body size." Or for my HS and MS students, "sometimes, as a population of organisms gets bigger or smaller, some feature of those organisms becomes bigger or smaller relative to their body size, like relatively bigger antlers on slightly larger deer, or relatively smaller forelimbs on slightly larger theropods."

You can surely see why, in the literature, this doesn't happen. Sometimes, people forget the audience, and drop into more precise language. If you don't get something, I'd be pleased to explain.

Why use terms practically nobody understands (not even all my coworkers know that it's called "RJ-45), when the exact same thing can be said in plain English that's simple for everyone to understand.

See above. Mostly, the literature is for people who understand the terminology. However, if I have to read something in genetics (which has changed greatly since my training) or molecular biology, I have to look up terms. It's the cost of learning about things you don't know so well.

It seems to me that evolutionsists often use scientific sounding terms to make things sound so complicated that no "lay person" could ever hope to understand it, and therefore couldn't challenge what's being said, when in fact they're saying something quite simple that everyone could understand if they said it in plain English.

Do you know what "allometry" means? It's very plain, once you know what the word is. As far as molecules go, there are IUPAC rules for naming compounds, which gives a chemist a huge amount of information about complicated molecules, but probably sounds like gibberish to the average person. For the rest of us, they often adopt informal, shorter names. But notice that a simple word like "allometry" is incomprehensible if you don't understand what it means.

 

[evenifigoalone]

So far as biology goes, the only thing I can think of that I don't "accept" is macro evolution. I don't think there are many Christians who reject accepted science, aside from the obvious if they are creationists.
I mean, I have heard there's some group who still believes the earth is flat, and maybe there are some Christians caught up in that. *shrug* But anyway, that's geology, not biology.

Not posting here to debate, just answering the question. And speaking of biology, I love learning about it.

 

[Barbarian]

So far as biology goes, the only thing I can think of that I don't "accept" is macro evolution.

Directly observed. There are now many documented speciations. Some creationists have redefined the term to mean "evolution so great that no person could live long enough to observe it."

I don't think there are many Christians who reject accepted science, aside from the obvious if they are creationists.

Genetics, physics, geology, astronomy and other sciences are rejected by some, because these violate their interpretation of the Bible.

I mean, I have heard there's some group who still believes the earth is flat, and maybe there are some Christians caught up in that. *shrug*

Not many. In Jesus' time, most people knew the world was round. However, Luther and Calvin assailed heliocentrism, pointing out that a literal reading of the Bible says that the Sun goes around the Earth.

But anyway, that's geology, not biology.

The problem for creationists is that it's all one fabric. Pull a thread anywhere, and it's likely to have consequences in many other sciences.

 

[Sparkey]

Hi, Quest! Thanks for stopping by. I like biology too and like you, don't think it needs to be accompanied by a formal debate class.

 

[Vaccine]

As far as "macro evolution", here's what one chemist said:
"If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.

But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward."
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

 

[Barbarian]

As far as "macro evolution", here's what one chemist said:
"If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.

But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward."

So, either the chemist had the same misconception about evolution and the origin of life, or he's woefully behind the curve on molecular biology. Evolution isn't about how life began. It's about the way living populations change over time. Now, if he'd like to see how a biological molecule evolves over time, I'd be pleased to show him all sorts of observed examples. But first we have to disabuse him of the notion that evolution is about how life started, if that's where his misunderstanding lies.

And yes, we do know, in many cases, precisely how it happened. For example, the nylon oligomerase gene evolved by a frameshift mutation in a plasmid. Would you like to see the details? And of course, there's the experiments of Hall, whose bacteria evolved a new enzyme in a documented series of mutations. How about that? Or the mutation that produced the Milano protein that gives excellent immunity to arterioslerosis. Or the myostatin mutation that gives some people remarkable strength? Or the recent mutation in hemoglobin that provides good immunity to arteriosclerosis. Or the gene duplication that produced a useful new RNAse in a genus of monkeys.

Lots of that. The mutations are in the sex cells of the parents of offspring with these features. The molecules are built by mRNA, tRNA, and ribosomes in the cytoplasm of cells, by mechanisms that are very well-known.

And I think your chemist owes me lunch.

 

[Barbarian]

BTW, even if the chemist wants to know about abiogenesis instead of evolution, there's a lot of evidence showing that biological molecules are formed apart from living things. Amino acids, for example, are observed to form abiotically, and short proteins form in pools on hot volcanic rocks. It's a pretty simple polymerization. And the most striking fact is, the single most important organelle for life as we know it, the one that had to form first, is also the simplest. The cell membrane is a simple, self assembling phospholipids, which can form abiotically.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v266/n5597/abs/266078a0.html

 

[Vaccine]

So, either the chemist had the same misconception about evolution and the origin of life, or he's woefully behind the curve on molecular biology.

I suppose it would be easier to dismiss him if he fit that caricature of him but it that isn't a fair depiction of him. Here is a little more about him:

"Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world
He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents."

But first we have to disabuse him of the notion that evolution is about how life started, if that's where his misunderstanding lies.

What gave you the idea he was asking about origin of life? He's only asking for someone to explain macro-evolution. He said he won't even debate it, he will limit it to just asking questions. I don't think he is who you think: "..he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist.."

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
So, either the chemist had the same misconception about evolution and the origin of life, or he's woefully behind the curve on molecular biology.

I suppose it would be easier to dismiss him if he fit that caricature of him

I'm just pointing out what James said. He's apparently under the impression that evolution is about the origin of life. But if he's not, I just showed you a number of examples where we know precisely how molecules were built. That's not all that evolution is, of course, but there it is.

but it that isn't a fair depiction of him.

It's his own words, Vaccine. If it's unfair, remember, he said it.

Here is a little more about him:

"Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world
He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents."

Tour is honest enough to admit that he's not qualified to make judgements about evolution:

Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation.
James Tour
http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-“theory”-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-“science”/

I, however, have spent a lifetime studying biology, and my degrees are in biology, or related fields like biological systems. A simple review of the literature would show him numerous example of what he's asking for. Would you like me to show you some more of them?

Barbarian suggests:
But first we have to disabuse him of the notion that evolution is about how life started, if that's where his misunderstanding lies.

What gave you the idea he was asking about origin of life?

That "molecules" thing. It's a common question from those who don't know what evolution is.

He's only asking for someone to explain macro-evolution.

Reproductive isolation. We have a good number of directly observed instances. Would you like to see some of those?

He said he won't even debate it

Probably a wise move on his part. He's realistic about his limited knowledge of the subject.

he will limit it to just asking questions. I don't think he is who you think: "..he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist.."

Certainly, he's no biologist, um? As I said, he owes me lunch. Ask him to drop by and I'll show whatever he wants to see.