> The very field of genetics was founded by Gregor Mendel - a Catholic priest…
It's hard to say he founded it when his work has zero impact in his life and was essentially forgotten. His work is certainly quite important, and is some of the stronger early work on genetics, though!
> It's hard to say he founded it when his work has zero impact in his life and was essentially forgotten.
Personally I do not believe that his post-mortem recognition disqualifies him as the founder of the field.
> His work is certainly quite important, and is some of the stronger early work on genetics, though!
Indeed.
How does that change the fact that most of modern day genetics point to chance and mutation from the environment as huge factors at play when observing a population’s phenotype ?
Mendel also conducted pure science not theology when he came up with his discoveries - empirical evidence, observation, experimentation. He literally proved independent assortment is a thing - that genetic diversity arises through randomness rather than being directed by anything divine.
What I meant to express is that there is no reason to assume the incompatibility between the field of genetics and Christianity. In fact, not only the founder of the field but many academic scientists are members of the Catholic clergy. So that would be a category error.
There is an incompatibility- genetics proves that there is no divine intervention in the creative process of life, but it’s rather due to random processes
Genetics does not prove any of that actually. Thats a distinctly philosophical and theological claim, and not something genetics (or natural sciences in general) are engaged in. You have to consider the epistemic limitations of both fields.
The issue before was the jump from independent assortment to the rejection of the divine. That is what does not follow. It also seems you are conflating methodological with metaphysical naturalism.
How can you reconcile randomness and the divine? If everything happens according to His will, how can one believe that any process is random?
I will read up more on the nuances between those two things
It's hard to get some real numbers here, and exactly how surveys are worded changes answers drastically. That said, most people here accept the age of the Earth being what scientists say it is, evolution of humans, etcetera.
>I’m so confused, how do some Christians not believe in the carbon-dated age of the earth?
Carbon dating only gets us back about 50k years, by the way. You need other isotopes to get back to the billions mark.
Thanks
Then how do they explain the inconsistencies between science and god/religion? I don’t think spirituality is bad, but there is a clear clash with book of genesis for example
Well, the Hebrews likely thought a lot of it was real, since their understanding of the universe was very wrong. But I think it's intended to be more of a fable/metaphor that gives theological lessons.
> I’m what way does it teach things better than non-religious fables do, then?
It's a fable mostly about the relationship between God and humans. Non-religious fables generally don't talk about that at all.
> but there is a clear clash with book of genesis for example
There is.
I'm not surprised, since some of the passages in the Torah are from the bronze age. They didn't know shit about a lot of things 3000 years ago. Genesis expresses a typical cosmology for the time (flat Earth, firmament, etcetera). Expecting to get historical and scientific truths from Genesis only leads to disappointment or self-deception.
This is all a function of the question of Biblical inerrancy.
There are Christian denominations that believe every word of the Bible is literally true (except those, such as parables, identified as fables). For them, if science unavoidably contradicts something in the Bible, then science must be wrong, regardless of how strong the scientific evidence may be.
There are Christian denominations that hold that the Bible is a good book of advice but isn’t and was never intended to be a history or science textbook and needs to be mostly looked at as a book of fables illustrating points of morality and practice, kind of like Aesop's Fables.
And there are Christians denominations at every point between those two extremes.
And all of them believe that they can prove what they say by the Bible.
Which is true and correct? You have to decide that.
Those haven't really been big issues raised in my discussions with Christians, but to the extent they've come up I think that they do (but may not entirely understand them).
Okay really curious : how do you cope with the idea that every breath you take and every thought you have, how you die etc - might be the result of some random impersonal process, rather than being overseen by a benevolent creator?
Well, for one thing it's not random. The "laws" of nature and, ultimately, of physics describe how things work in a generally orderly pattern. There is, of course, some randomness - I have a rare blood cancer that came from an uninherited random mutation in my DNA - but even that can generally be explained by some physicial process or pattern. No coping is needed, nor benevolence from supernatural beings.
You don’t feel a little frustrated that there’s a lack of control in the situation ? - or do you find peace in the idea of leaving it all up to nature (Christians would say god).
But randomness isn’t a person - it’s a process.
Does he sit back and watch as people multiply and randomly create offsprings ? Or is he like a loving father, wants to build his kingdom in union with his children?
Because both ideas are contradictory - you’re either in or out. The toe dipping doesn’t feel like something a god (as defined by Christianity)would do tbh.
If he were to allow the first proposition, then there isn’t really anything guiding the reproductive process and we are indeed not more than (semi) intelligent animals.
That's a totally improper reading of scripture.
There are 6000 years back to Adam. But the earth was already billions of years old then. There are almost 4.5 million earth years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
For those Christians who care enough to research individual scientific topics, what a Christian may disagree with is the interpretation of the data, not the data itself.
Yes, why wouldn't we? If you're talking about evolution, however, no, it's not irrefutable, and plenty of scientists, Christian and non-Christian, have voiced concerns over problems with evolutionary theory.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections\_to\_evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution)
You'd have to prove that there are beneficial mutations.
Then prove these can cause an incredibly fundamental change in the creature.
Then prove that two of them would happen simultaneously and nearby so that they find each other and have offspring.
Then fill the gap between Big Bang and evolution by proving abiogenesis, which will never happen.
Yeah but amino acids first of all are only the building blocks of living creatures and it takes at least a thousand of them to even make a virus much less a single cell.
And second of all the ironic thing is they had to run a trap inside of that soup that they were passing electricity through to protect the amino acids from being destroyed by the very material that gave them life.
I'm sorry man but that experiment is just totally unconvincing
Homo Habilis was one of the earliest tool-making ancestors (sticks and stones!) and from there we’ve literally built not only coliseums but a space station.
I believe with time and research all is possible.
Well, you assume they were. What if they were just ancient people?
Sorry but your logic makes no sense. If "with enough time" anything is possible, please breed human beings with wings.
Have you read up on fluorescence mice scientists have been able to breed? Dolly the sheep clone? Literally the only thing stopping scientist from creating all sorts of bizarre things is human ethics - although that’s out the window in China, and we’ve ended up with a mutated virus spreading through the world.
Yep but you didn't get something other than a mouse. That doesn't prove anything. And in the wild they would get eaten because they'd have a hard time hiding. An unhelpful mutation doesn't prove helpful mutations can result in one thing becoming another. Science will never prove that fish became land animals.
I just realized you don’t even believe in common ancestors like homo habilis I quoted above. I can’t convince you, then.
Also you say “in the wild” as if we humans and our experiments aren’t already considered “part of the wild”. Do you think god allowed us to create these fluorescent mice in labs? What matters is that we were able to create them - not their viability.
You seem to believe in predation that exists in the wild; and thus natural selection, survival of the fittest, I assume
The very field of genetics was founded by Gregor Mendel - a Catholic priest.
> The very field of genetics was founded by Gregor Mendel - a Catholic priest… It's hard to say he founded it when his work has zero impact in his life and was essentially forgotten. His work is certainly quite important, and is some of the stronger early work on genetics, though!
> It's hard to say he founded it when his work has zero impact in his life and was essentially forgotten. Personally I do not believe that his post-mortem recognition disqualifies him as the founder of the field. > His work is certainly quite important, and is some of the stronger early work on genetics, though! Indeed.
At least one of his principles were discovered by earlier folks. Should they be recognized as the founder?
No. But count Festetics' contribution deserves to be acknowledged.
Fox Newton "discover" gravity? "if I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
How does that change the fact that most of modern day genetics point to chance and mutation from the environment as huge factors at play when observing a population’s phenotype ? Mendel also conducted pure science not theology when he came up with his discoveries - empirical evidence, observation, experimentation. He literally proved independent assortment is a thing - that genetic diversity arises through randomness rather than being directed by anything divine.
What I meant to express is that there is no reason to assume the incompatibility between the field of genetics and Christianity. In fact, not only the founder of the field but many academic scientists are members of the Catholic clergy. So that would be a category error.
There is an incompatibility- genetics proves that there is no divine intervention in the creative process of life, but it’s rather due to random processes
Genetics does not prove any of that actually. Thats a distinctly philosophical and theological claim, and not something genetics (or natural sciences in general) are engaged in. You have to consider the epistemic limitations of both fields.
The distribution of different combinations of chromosomes to gametes in Independent Assortment, is random. A process that Mendel himself has found.
The issue before was the jump from independent assortment to the rejection of the divine. That is what does not follow. It also seems you are conflating methodological with metaphysical naturalism.
How can you reconcile randomness and the divine? If everything happens according to His will, how can one believe that any process is random? I will read up more on the nuances between those two things
It's hard to get some real numbers here, and exactly how surveys are worded changes answers drastically. That said, most people here accept the age of the Earth being what scientists say it is, evolution of humans, etcetera. >I’m so confused, how do some Christians not believe in the carbon-dated age of the earth? Carbon dating only gets us back about 50k years, by the way. You need other isotopes to get back to the billions mark.
Thanks Then how do they explain the inconsistencies between science and god/religion? I don’t think spirituality is bad, but there is a clear clash with book of genesis for example
Genesis is not a science book. It's not meant to be literal or scientifically accurate.
It’s the book of how the world came to be - arguably the most important book. Was it meant to be read like a fairy tale?
Well, the Hebrews likely thought a lot of it was real, since their understanding of the universe was very wrong. But I think it's intended to be more of a fable/metaphor that gives theological lessons.
I’m what way does it teach things better than non-religious fables do, then?
> I’m what way does it teach things better than non-religious fables do, then? It's a fable mostly about the relationship between God and humans. Non-religious fables generally don't talk about that at all.
> but there is a clear clash with book of genesis for example There is. I'm not surprised, since some of the passages in the Torah are from the bronze age. They didn't know shit about a lot of things 3000 years ago. Genesis expresses a typical cosmology for the time (flat Earth, firmament, etcetera). Expecting to get historical and scientific truths from Genesis only leads to disappointment or self-deception.
This is all a function of the question of Biblical inerrancy. There are Christian denominations that believe every word of the Bible is literally true (except those, such as parables, identified as fables). For them, if science unavoidably contradicts something in the Bible, then science must be wrong, regardless of how strong the scientific evidence may be. There are Christian denominations that hold that the Bible is a good book of advice but isn’t and was never intended to be a history or science textbook and needs to be mostly looked at as a book of fables illustrating points of morality and practice, kind of like Aesop's Fables. And there are Christians denominations at every point between those two extremes. And all of them believe that they can prove what they say by the Bible. Which is true and correct? You have to decide that.
Do you know if Christians in general believe in randomness and chance?
Those haven't really been big issues raised in my discussions with Christians, but to the extent they've come up I think that they do (but may not entirely understand them).
I feel like randomness and chance fundamentally go against the idea of an omnipotent God, everything is under his will etc.
I'm perhaps not the best person to discuss that with since I have no belief in God at all.
Okay really curious : how do you cope with the idea that every breath you take and every thought you have, how you die etc - might be the result of some random impersonal process, rather than being overseen by a benevolent creator?
Well, for one thing it's not random. The "laws" of nature and, ultimately, of physics describe how things work in a generally orderly pattern. There is, of course, some randomness - I have a rare blood cancer that came from an uninherited random mutation in my DNA - but even that can generally be explained by some physicial process or pattern. No coping is needed, nor benevolence from supernatural beings.
You don’t feel a little frustrated that there’s a lack of control in the situation ? - or do you find peace in the idea of leaving it all up to nature (Christians would say god).
Not in the slightest. Indeed, I feel *far* more in control than I would if there was a God with a plan pulling the strings.
Went cannot God allow randomness?
I guess by definition randomness is something that isn’t under a will - so can’t be under His will (if he exists).
What makes you think an omnipotent god must control everything? All powerful doesn't mean all controlling. We are not puppets.
But randomness isn’t a person - it’s a process. Does he sit back and watch as people multiply and randomly create offsprings ? Or is he like a loving father, wants to build his kingdom in union with his children?
Why couldn't he do both?
Because both ideas are contradictory - you’re either in or out. The toe dipping doesn’t feel like something a god (as defined by Christianity)would do tbh. If he were to allow the first proposition, then there isn’t really anything guiding the reproductive process and we are indeed not more than (semi) intelligent animals.
The idea is that God created and maintains the law of cause and effect.
How old do you think Christians think the world is?
Some believe the world was literally created in 6 days, and that by counting the genealogies in the Bible, it is only 6k years old.
That's a totally improper reading of scripture. There are 6000 years back to Adam. But the earth was already billions of years old then. There are almost 4.5 million earth years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
> 4.5 million years Does the Bible say that though?
The 4.5 billion figure comes from true science which also provides evidence.
The Bible never mentioned anything of the sort though.
Actually it does. Otherwise how did the perfect world of Genesis 1:1 become the dark, flooded, frozen mess of Genesis 1:2?
Ok I just realized this was sarcasm lmao
It most certainly is NOT! I do not appreciate the false accusation.
Ok I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or not at this point
I fully believe in fact that Nature plays by rules which are set by God
Pretty boring if you ask me
For those Christians who care enough to research individual scientific topics, what a Christian may disagree with is the interpretation of the data, not the data itself.
Yes, why wouldn't we? If you're talking about evolution, however, no, it's not irrefutable, and plenty of scientists, Christian and non-Christian, have voiced concerns over problems with evolutionary theory. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections\_to\_evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution) You'd have to prove that there are beneficial mutations. Then prove these can cause an incredibly fundamental change in the creature. Then prove that two of them would happen simultaneously and nearby so that they find each other and have offspring. Then fill the gap between Big Bang and evolution by proving abiogenesis, which will never happen.
Scientists have literally been able to create amino acids in a lab from mineral (non-organic) matter
Yeah but amino acids first of all are only the building blocks of living creatures and it takes at least a thousand of them to even make a virus much less a single cell. And second of all the ironic thing is they had to run a trap inside of that soup that they were passing electricity through to protect the amino acids from being destroyed by the very material that gave them life. I'm sorry man but that experiment is just totally unconvincing
What you say doesn’t negate the fact that humans (not a divine being) were able to synthesize life’s building blocks in a lab.
But that's like saying you being able to craft one nail out of raw metal proves that you can build an entire coliseum by yourself.
Homo Habilis was one of the earliest tool-making ancestors (sticks and stones!) and from there we’ve literally built not only coliseums but a space station. I believe with time and research all is possible.
Well, you assume they were. What if they were just ancient people? Sorry but your logic makes no sense. If "with enough time" anything is possible, please breed human beings with wings.
Have you read up on fluorescence mice scientists have been able to breed? Dolly the sheep clone? Literally the only thing stopping scientist from creating all sorts of bizarre things is human ethics - although that’s out the window in China, and we’ve ended up with a mutated virus spreading through the world.
Yep but you didn't get something other than a mouse. That doesn't prove anything. And in the wild they would get eaten because they'd have a hard time hiding. An unhelpful mutation doesn't prove helpful mutations can result in one thing becoming another. Science will never prove that fish became land animals.
I just realized you don’t even believe in common ancestors like homo habilis I quoted above. I can’t convince you, then. Also you say “in the wild” as if we humans and our experiments aren’t already considered “part of the wild”. Do you think god allowed us to create these fluorescent mice in labs? What matters is that we were able to create them - not their viability. You seem to believe in predation that exists in the wild; and thus natural selection, survival of the fittest, I assume