OT: Superman and Stemcells

[Tuidjy]

I think that what Gandalf is saying is that one can be spiritual, religious,
or even Christian, and still believe in evolution. While I agree with him,
I must say that Arryn is very much right when she insists on the importance
of using the right terminology. Today, being a Creationist means that you
believe in the Creation account in the Bible. The word should not be used
to mean other things, or you can't have a good argument.

And everyone knows that having good arguments is why the Powers that Be created
the universe. Or at least I believe so. And you can't argue with belief, by
definition. So the Powers that Be do not want you to Believe. So all religious
people are sacriligeous.

And that was an example of how useful logic is in this topic.

[Arryn]

Thanks, Tuidjy. Your summation, and the points you make, are excellent.

[Gandalf Parker]

Tuidjy said:
I think that what Gandalf is saying is that one can be spiritual, religious,
or even Christian, and still believe in evolution.

Thats probably true, but not what I meant.

I must say that Arryn is very much right when she insists on the importance
of using the right terminology. Today, being a Creationist means that you
believe in the Creation account in the Bible.

I have to disagree with that also. Please dont paint the world as being christian/non-christian. There are many Groups, and religions, which believe that the world was created by design without being christian bible Groups. I could generate a fantasically long list but the easiest might be to say that just about every religion other than christian, jewish, and muslim would be using a source other than genesis for their basis of creation. And I guess the ancestral worships can be let off the hook. As far as I know most of the rest do have some sort of creationism belief.

But my initial point of "both" is that some are perfectly willing to accept that the world was created, and evolution was the tool. Thats only a major point of contention with the christian crowd as far as I know.

[Evil Dave]

Gandalf Parker said:

But my initial point of "both" is that some are perfectly willing to accept that the world was created, and evolution was the tool. Thats only a major point of contention with the christian crowd as far as I know.

Gandalf, are you arguing for Newton's blind watchmaker? God wound up the world and set it going according to physical laws?
I'm not trying to argue (yet ), but just trying to understand what you're saying.

[Arryn]

Evil Dave said:
Gandalf, are you arguing for Newton's blind watchmaker? God wound up the world and set it going according to physical laws?
I'm not trying to argue (yet ), but just trying to understand what you're saying.

Since science has done a passable job of explaining the universe from the Big Bang onwards, it pretty much only leaves room for God in the (as-yet) unexplained area of "what happened before the bang"? Some people prefer to see the hand of God in the setting of the physical laws of the universe, and in the "spark" of creation. Yet others can explain even that as random processes in a multiverse of infinite universes and infinite possibilities. (We exist because this universe happens to have the right random conditions for us to exist to ponder the question.)

What really scares some (many) religious believers is the possibility that some (unethical) scientist may someday (in the not-so-distant future) create a human being entirely in a lab from raw DNA, without "conception" at all. No egg. No biological parents. Instant person, just add water. (That's a joke.) If said experiment turns out a breathing, thinking human, where will that leave religion (and what many religions teach about humans)? We can already create viruses from scratch. It's only a matter of time before more complex organisms, and eventually people, can be 'manufactured'.

[Evil Dave]

Arryn,

Right. Newton's blind watchmaker isn't falsifiable. I don't believe that there is such a being, but we can't say that one exists or not. So, sensible people don't worry about it.

Viruses are *way* easier to create that actual living things. They are (to twist an analogy almost to the breaking point) just software, waiting to be acted on by living things. It may be possible to create life "from scratch". I kinda doubt it. The machinery barely works as designed -- our best guess is that about half of all conceptions spontaneously abort, generally in the first few cell divisions. I'm not sure we'll be able to manage "pure" in vitro creation of life, especially since folks who want to make new living things will find it much easier to simply change existing ones. (Ie, very few people will be interested in trying to figure out how.)

[Arryn]

Evil Dave said:
I'm not sure we'll be able to manage "pure" in vitro creation of life, especially since folks who want to make new living things will find it much easier to simply change existing ones. (Ie, very few people will be interested in trying to figure out how.)

Just because it seems impossible to us now doesn't make it so. 200 years ago flying was impossible. Flying faster than sound was thought impossible 60 years ago.

(Yes, I know you didn't use the word "impossible". I use it to illustrate a point.)

It is easier (by far) to modify existing DNA than create DNA from scratch. By analogy, it used to be easier to dig up diamonds than make them in a lab. That's not true anymore. I think you see where I'm going with this.

[Ygorl]

The DNA's not the hard part, is my understanding. It's what you put it into when you're done with it. If you've got a nice little undifferentiated cell into whose nucleus you can stick your DNA, you're pretty much set. I hear the phrase "make a mouse" more than I ever thought I would. If you wanted to make the initial cell "by hand", you'd have to do all kinds of crazy manipulations (assembling the cell membrane from lipid molecules, building mitochondria, etc. etc. etc.) that aren't practical or reasonable or necessary. We already clone things. We already manipulate the DNA used to do what we want. While it would be incredibly far from trivial to make a human with at least certain desired characteristics, I think it's more an issue of being willing and fine-tuning the details of the procedure.
And, while I'm talking about things I've only a limited understanding of, the "6000 years since creation" bit is based on some dodgy translation of the Old Testament. It's possible to have a moderately strict interpretation of the Bible (as long as you pick the right one and have a little imagination) that doesn't conflict with the theory of evolution.
Logic springs from a set of axioms. If you start with a different set, you get different predictions. Those required to make claims about things like morality, religion, politics, drug use, are rather complex and opaque, to the point that even things that should be irrelevant in discussing them (such as the language you're using) make a huge difference. It's possible in somce cases, but always difficult, to say "given these assumptions, these things are good and these things are true and these things are right". That's what philosophy is about. But even the best philosophers (maybe _especially_ the best) don't claim to know what all the right assumptions are.
Finally, just because something is not falsifiable does not mean it is false. It's perfectly valid to not accept something as true that is not falsifiable (well, if there's no evidence for its being true, anyway). It does not make sense, however, to accept it as false.

[johan osterman]

Arryn: I am not shifting the burden of proof. I am not claiming that there is a god or any other positive claim. I am however questioning your assertion that the activities you described warrants the conclusion that the persons engaged in said activities do not 'Subscribe to logic', that assertion on the other hand is a positive claim and the burden of proof comes to rest at your supremely arrogant feet, so if we are to continue this discussion I suggest you shoulder the burden and place it on your equally arrogant shoulders. And even were I to concede the point that theistic belief was irrational, I would not consider that sufficent evidence to label the theist an irrational person or a person not subcribing to logic, only ludicrous sci-fi entities go about their lives without inconsistant beliefs. As a final case in point I'd like to point out that Godel was a theist, and even tried his hand at an ontological proof of God. While this certainly in itself does not make theism rational it throws some very serious doubt on your assertion that theists does not Subscribe to logic.

Logic is a tool, it does not have normative moral implications. You can apply logic to ethical premises and arguably derive a functioning moral. But morally repugnant behaviour is not illogical, although it might be inconsistent with your other moral beliefs or premises.

Tuna: Infalsifiability does not render a theory false by default. It might be reason to consider it bad science or outside the scope of science or uninteresting but certainly not false by default. You might notice that any tautologies you produce are unfalsifiable, but they are certainly not false, if they were boys would not be boys and bachelors would not be unmarried men. I would also like for you to point out where exactly Arryn is making use of 'the scientific method'.

[johan osterman]

Arryn: I see you had some other reason to why wife beating was illogical. Don't be coy now and lest hear it.