Re: The Old Testament and its relationship to the origin of life

I had two audiences in mind - those who believe in the absolute,
unquestioning literal interpretation of the Bible (which is easily
falsified), and those who believe that since the Bible is not literal
truth, it can have no truth in it at all (which is also easily
falsified).

I guess three - there's also the group who reject all of the religion
but who believe that the history is unquestionably accurate. That, too,
can be falsified.

The problem with something like the Bible is that it's very hard to
pick out the truth from the speculation from the outright lies. It is
also dangerously tempting to pick out selections and use them to prove
a point, when in fact they do nothing of the sort.

To summarise this post and the original one in this thread:

1) Those who believe in Creationism because the Bible "says so" are
doing both themselves and their religion a disservice. Not everything
in the Bible is true and uncritical, blinkered thinking won't make it
any more true.

2) Those who reject everything in the Bible (including the historically
verifiable) because there are some things in the Bible that are untrue
are also doing themselves and their faith a disservice. They're being
just as uncritical and just as blinkered in their thinking.

3) Force-fitting things in the Bible to actual, verifiable historical
fact is wishful thinking to a dangerous degree. It can lead people into
wrong conclusions and down blind alleys. The Bible's history can be
used safely to fill in the blanks and make educated guesses on what to
look for next, as you can test those theories. If it can't be tested,
it probably isn't a safe avenue. Proceed with caution.

I tend not to shotgun approaches - I find howitzering them to be more
effective, if I feel the approach used is a Bad Thing*.

*Blame "1066 and All That" for Bad Thing/Good Thing comments. :)

I am unquestionably a Darwinist and I have no problems with accepting
Darwin's explanation as being essentially complete - the mechanisms
required for mutations/adaptations being covered in our current
understanding of microbiology and genetics. There is absolutely no need
for any kind of Intelligent Anything.

This does NOT (as I noted in an earlier post) rule out some external
agency stacking the odds in favour of life evolving. Such an agency is
not, however, required and therefore (by Occam's Infamous Razor) can be
safely omitted from the explanation.

I do, however, differ with scientists on almost every other point:

1) I believe Darwin's theory of the origin of species to be falsifiable
(a requirement for a good theory), along with most other aspects of
evolution as it now stands.

2) I believe it possible to demonstrate (not just speculate on) the
divergence of one species into multiple species.

3) I also believe it would be possible to devise a laboratory
experiment to produce complex chains of organic molecules, not merely
the amino acids producable with a spark and a mix of gasses.

4) Mutations are random and can therefore produce niche
specializations, where "survival of the fittest" applies only on a
local scale, not necessarily on the scale of the environment the
organism thrived in previously. Indeed, the adaptation may be such that
there is no meaningful overlap in territory.

5) I regard the dispute between "micro evolution" (many very small
changes) and "macro evolution" (fewer, relatively large leaps) as being
proably illusary. Many chaotic systems exhibit both behaviours. As
such, you would tend to expect both behaviours in evolution, not one or
the other.

6) I also regard the dispute between Lovelock's "Gaia" hypothesis,
Chaos Theory and more traditional sciences as illusary. Even the most
cursary analysis shows all three to be different projections of
identical phenomena, telling me that the dispute has more to do with
the disputees than the subjects they are disputing.

Hey, I've done MORE than my fair share of irrational, over-emotive
flames in the past. I've grown a little old for that, now. Well, for
the most part. :) What I would prefer to see, though, is deeper
thoughts on life, origins and all that. There is room enough for the
deep, meaningful discussions alongside the flammage. And, IMHO at
least, there's so much to discuss! And it's barely getting a toe-hold.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Old Testament and its relationship to the origin of life
    ... > unquestioning literal interpretation of the Bible (which is easily ... > but who believe that the history is unquestionably accurate. ... > 6) I also regard the dispute between Lovelock's "Gaia" hypothesis, ... What it does is to waste curriculum time with Anti-scientific speculation ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Beyond the Savanna Mentality
    ... >>> No, Jim, I could and did dispute your claim. ... discovering the situational factors of early hominid evolution. ... I'm the one with a hypothesis that you cannot dispute. ... > population genetics change, you have not demonstrated that your ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Beyond the Savanna Mentality
    ... >> Jim McGinn wrote: ... >> No, Jim, I could and did dispute your claim. ... That is the definition of organic evolution that biologists today use. ... >> exceptionally difficult to reconcile with group selection models). ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Impeccable
    ... >> Jim McGinn wrote: ... >> not the genius that you claim to be. ... > up my solution to human evolution as evidence that supports this ... It would seem, then, that the best way to dispute my, to use ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Is Evolution a Law like the Laws of physics?
    ... | The dispute involving evolution and creationism can be reduced to its ... Most religions now say that there is no ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading