Original Sin?

Quote: Face

As an aside, I heard something spoken by Neil deGrasse Tyson that I think deserves consideration...

"As religion is now practiced and science is now practiced, the is no intersection between the two. That is for certain.

And it's not for want of trying. Over the centuries, many people, theologians as well as scientists, have tried to explore points of intersection. And anytime anyone has declared that harmony has risen up, it is the consequence of religion acquiescing scientific discovery.

In every single case."

Is there anything that can be said to combat that quote?

I may not be completely understanding the use of acquiescing in the above quote, but I don't think religion begrudgingly accepted the idea of the Big Bang or an expanding universe, in fact many see this as proof of the Biblical notion of creation ex nihilio by God. Research done on adult stem cell research, and other humane and ethical ways to obtain stem cells or create them, is supported 100% by most religions I know of. The understanding of the human genome and DNA and that a human being has a complete set of genes at conception is something that religion teaches theologically. I don't believe there can be any real conflict between science and religion without one being wrong because God is the source of the universe. Therefore in my mind and throughout most of history science and religion where not lines where points intersected infrequently, but really constantly intertwined lines like DNA itself.

Quote: Face

Is there any other book of truth that requires all sorts of special interpretations?

I don't know if it counts as a book but the Constitution might be an example of a document that continues to require all kinds of special interpretations and rules and judgments about what it really says by experts, etc. Maybe it is not the content that makes a "book of truth" require so much rigamarole but rather its importance. When something means so much more than auto repair, statistics, etc. it requires or demands a much more careful read. The truths are still accessible but with so much importance attributed to the work and the consequences of its interpretation we may need a guide or help to double check and make sure we got it right.

Quote: FrGamble

The understanding of the human genome and DNA and that a human being has a complete set of genes at conception is something that religion teaches theologically.

Then religion is wrong.

There is such a thing as epigenetics, after all. Not to mention mutation. Both change either gene expression or the genes themselves. So while everything living has a genome, the genome changes in two known ways and probably in unknown ways, too. Mutations were inferred before DNA was even known to exist. Epigenetics was a nasty shock (much like extra-solar planets have been).

It's not that the genome at conception differs from the genome years later. It differs from the genome at birth.

BTW, genetic can be used as a club to bash the idea of a benevolent deity over the head with. There's all sorts of horrifying things hiding in the genome.

Quote:

I don't believe there can be any real conflict between science and religion without one being wrong because God is the source of the universe.

See above.

Speaking of genetics, I'm constantly amazed at the depth of ignorance all too often expressed in connection with genes, inheritance, genom, genetics and biology. I do not mean anything the Good Father said in his post, but rather what most people say in connection with genetics.

Quote: FrGamble

I don't know if it counts as a book but the Constitution might be an example of a document that continues to require all kinds of special interpretations and rules and judgments about what it really says by experts, etc.

The problem is that, awesome as the US Constitution is, it remains largely a compromise between competing interests. Therefore it contians vague parts and contradictory parts. Like, say, all human documents.

It's funny that the bosoters of the Constitution keep insisting on "What the Founders intended," when they intended contradictory objectives. For all that a faction dominated, and it shows, but it would do good for the boosters to read up on history.

But then the US Constitution was written by men. Compromises, vagueness, alck of clarity, and even, the, wrong, use of commas, at times, are to be expected. Had it been written by an all-powerful, all-knwoing deity, then it would have been 100% perfectly clear to all people at all times. As that would be well within the power of an all-powerful deity to acocmplish.

Quote: FrGamble

I may not be completely understanding the use of acquiescing in the above quote, but I don't think religion begrudgingly accepted the idea of the Big Bang or an expanding universe, in fact many see this as proof of the Biblical notion of creation ex nihilio by God.

Oh, religion hasn't. But then again, I don't think science has proven the Big Bang either. They have information, information that supports the idea and makes it plausible indeed, but it is not a truth the way element formation is a truth. Hell, even gravity is just a theory ;)

But I was thinking more of human history rather than Christianity specifically. In the entire existence of religion and science, has there ever been one thing, just one, where religion has been found to be absolutely right and science absolutely wrong? It is my belief that religion is the Washington Generals vs science's Harlem Globetrotters, but I accept that I may be wrong.

Quote: FrGamble

I don't know if it counts as a book but the Constitution might be an example of a document that continues to require all kinds of special interpretations and rules and judgments about what it really says by experts, etc.

Damn and blast. As a gun nut, I'm ashamed I didn't think of that myself ><

But it also makes me giggle. See:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Pretty straightforward. Here's some other excerpts...

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"

Read ~~> gain understanding. This is easy...

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

None of this requires much mental firepower at all. Even the Bill of Rights can be understood using about 1% mental capacity...

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence"

This is all very elementary, no? Everyone can easily understand it, yes? But then we have...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

The First, the Second, and the Fourth. Always in court, always being "translated", always gone over and gone over again in trial. They're just as easily understandable - want to assemble? Go ahead. Want a gun? You're free to do so. Don't want someone going through your things? You are protected. So what's the reason they're always being "re-translated"?

These are the ones in which people try to re-translate to force control and gain power over another.

Quote: Face

Quote: FrGamble

I don't know if it counts as a book but the Constitution might be an example of a document that continues to require all kinds of special interpretations and rules and judgments about what it really says by experts, etc.


Damn and blast. As a gun nut, I'm ashamed I didn't think of that myself ><

But it also makes me giggle. See:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Pretty straightforward. Here's some other excerpts...

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"

Read ~~> gain understanding. This is easy...

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

None of this requires much mental firepower at all. Even the Bill of Rights can be understood using about 1% mental capacity...

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence"

This is all very elementary, no? Everyone can easily understand it, yes? But then we have...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

The First, the Second, and the Fourth. Always in court, always being "translated", always gone over and gone over again in trial. They're just as easily understandable - want to assemble? Go ahead. Want a gun? You're free to do so. Don't want someone going through your things? You are protected. So what's the reason they're always being "re-translated"?

These are the ones in which people try to re-translate to force control and gain power over another.

This bit is too good to leave in this thread. I'm splitting it in the hopes that we might have a constitutional conversation.

Edit: whoops! I'm not an admin here. Gonna do it a different way. Carry on.

Great posts everybody!

I readily admit that I am not so wise in the ways of science, especially when it comes to genetics. I simply like the idea, which I think is true, that we don't receive any further genetic information after conception. The way those genes are expressed, mutate, etc. is still mysterious I take it from Nareed's post, but we don't ingest or take on any more genetic material than we receive when sperm and egg get it on.

I like any and all references to the Harlem Globetrotters and I see the point of your analogy except that I don't think science and religion are really playing on the same level. Science gives us the facts but it is up to philosophy, theology, the humanities, etc. to interpret those facts. With no disrespect at all to science, it is like the minor leagues. Every once and awhile some young theory or idea comes up in Science that is so awesome it is talked about, discussed, and eventually moved up to the big leagues. This is how science makes an real impact and difference in the so called, "higher sciences". So asking when religion has impacted science is like asking who are the nobodies that were demoted and never heard from again: there was once this 'earth-centered universe' playing for religion but then this new all-star came up the ranks called 'heliocentric'. There is also this old guy like Bret Farve that just won't quit even though it is past his time called 'Young Earth', but I think it's time to send him to the farm.

Finally, I look forward to hearing what Face says in the Constitution thread, he makes so much sense. In think he is right on about what makes certain things important. It is their potential to control others or gain power over another. It is at those moments that we have to be super careful about how we interpret something. The Bible can be a liberating story of sacrificial love or misinterpreted to keep people in bondage. We need to make sure that we have safeguards in place so that the simple message of the Scriptures, like "God is Love" (read ==>gain) or John 3:16 is not distorted or manipulated by personal interpretation.

Quote: FrGamble

I simply like the idea, which I think is true, that we don't receive any further genetic information after conception. The way those genes are expressed, mutate, etc. is still mysterious I take it from Nareed's post, but we don't ingest or take on any more genetic material than we receive when sperm and egg get it on.

Strictly speaking, you ingest vast quantities of DNA every day. But I suppose you mean none of it gets incorporated in your genome.

Well, maybe so.

What do you mean by "genome"? Most people think it's the genes making up the chromosomes in, as the old saw has it, "every cell in our bodies." That's aptently false. You've got many thousands of cells with different chromosomes. See, as you were gestated inside a womb, like most people, you took on some cells from your mother, and carry them still. Those cells have related but quite different chromosomes and genes (and your mother wound up with some of your cells). What these cells do is unknown, if they do anything besides be there, but they're there.

But there's more. Inside your chromosomes there exist viral genes. How did they get there? Likely from infenctions by viruses ages ago. But we don't know how. Is it somethign viruses do, or some kinds of them? Or as a consequence of the immune response to it? Or even as a consequence of a viral infection of human symbiotic bacteria?

However it happens, there's no dubt it happens. And very likely it still happens today. Given the amount of epople adn the amount of virusees one will be exposed to in one's life, there's a good chance it happens often.

This, BTW, is that we know. What we don't know is far, far, far more than what we do know.

See, biological systems can best be described in one word: messy.

FrG - I pose this question to you…

If you were raised by parents who were Buddhists/Hindu/agnostic…etc., can you say for 100% you would still have faith in Jesus?