I'm a scientist, a chemistry PhD, and have to say that one big difference between the leap of faith necessary for the Adam and Eve story vs 'primordial ooze' is that things like the gene discovery you refer to will force scientists to think about the evidence. Religion isn't subject to revision by new data. It therefore isn't really fair to compare the corresponding leaps of faith, in my opinion (and that's all it is. If science has taught me anything, it's humility). That said, I have never had any problem believing in both God and evolution. Having a backup copy of a gene seems like a good adaptation that the almighty allowed to evolve...

Life is a precious and divine gift. Just ask Terri Schiavo's parents.

Dan Patterson

I smell a Nobel prize for Paul.

Everyone who reads Wizbang by now probably understands that I am a Christian, a Catholic and that my beliefs and my behavior as best as I can manage it are devout according to my beliefs.

About evolution, I've never had much of a problem with the process in biology and can and do recognize the fossil record. The only problem I have in conjunction with evolution is the wierd dogmatism that bestows an irrationality through insistence on dogma that disallows any other life process of creation and/or change within biology in an effort to disallow any explanation other than evolution of species.

God can and appears to my understanding to do whatever He wants and can and we are so meagerly limited to comprehending the mind of God as to be mere microbes by comparison. Microbes revered and loved by God, but microbes still the same if even that by comparison with the Divine and what is possible to and through God by Divine action, thought, perception.

I can't believe that God would not USE processes of change to bring about what He wanted because that's what I understand God does, and I see that each and every day of my lifetime, that change and modulation of conditions is and how God works His will in my life and the lives and conditions of others. Some miracles (God thinking, reasoning, being) take time, some take less time, but it's all time passage when you think about it. It's just a case of how much we as mortals comprehend God's time and measurements to be...and about evolution, it seems that God has brought about a lot of change over our measurement of time that just may be the blink of a thought to Him.

But I don't disallow the Creation nor refute that God Created what we now understand, all that is. It's just a case of what God used and how He used it to accomplish what He accomplished and I've never disallowed His use of what we define to be an evolutionary change process to bring about what He has in mind.

The irrationality about these academics often rests within the dogma of dedicated evolutionists, however, who refuse to consider that there is something out there beyond their scope of study, as in, Creationism.

The smarter science community is today beginning to accept the idea of Creationism and that's a great place to begin to incorporate the already understandable (to us mortals) process of evolution.

I'm in Dave E.'s camp. As an engineer, I understand how hard it is to design something from scratch. If I was omnipotent, I'd just create a system that designs things for me and then wait a few billion years. I've got better things to do than to be drawing stripes on zebra's 24/7.

As far as this backup mechanism though. Who's to say that it's not also subject to mutation. Maybe sometimes it makes "corrections" that aren't normal. In any case, it's an interesting discovery, and does go to show that we really don't know squat about most things.

There is process to biology, and the process and how it came to be...that's where God and Creationism enter into things and so far, "science" has not disproven nor proven the existence of God. If we are limited to believing and accepting only that which we can read is already accepted as being, of possessing accepted definition, there's no margin for anything new, anything imagined, anything believed, anything ventured.

If science stops explorations, science discovery stops. What remains to be explored and understood by our human species seems to be unlimited and that includes scientific discovery itself.

I used to wonder when I was a child, looking at the stars, where we were situated. That is, where in what the Earth was. Where our galaxy was and what the remaining parameters were. If there's no end, no limitation to all that is beyond our known universe, then there is also unlimited discovery possible.

If there is a limit, however, if existence suddenly stops at some edge or boundary, then what? Are we on someone's living room table as a science project? No? Then, what's after the boundary?

Questions such as that are simple, yes, but they are also meaningful to learning and to exploration. Which is, in fact, what the scientific process is, or at least, should be.

Master of None: if you were omnipotent, perhaps you'd just bypass designing a biological human altogher, and just opt to go with the use of aluminum and plastics.

Meaning, I do not believe as humans that it is possible for us to comprehend, without Divine intervention and helps, what and how the omnipotent thinks and reasons.

Could you have ever imagined atoms? Or mammalian cardiovascular system? I mean, invented it in all it's complexities. I think it puts humans in perspective when you take into consideratiion that no known human could or has ever imagined our known universe. Much less everything we do not yet understand or comprehend.

We're still trying to comprehend Einstein and retroviruses. I don't think any human could ever create either from scratch, out of the imagination, all materials involved considered.

I am both a Catholic and someone who subscribes to the theory of evolution. The two things are only incompatible to the small-minded on either side.

That being said, I am skeptical of the experiment. We know that DNA contains the coding for the plant's design, as evidenced by the fact that we can, and do, manipulate these things all the time. My thought is the scientists either have an imperfect understanding of hte plant's genome or there is hidden, in what is now considered to be part of the plant's "junk" DNA, additional information that makes the genome self-healing.

I don't reject the possibility that, like in the famous scene in Pulp Fiction, "god came down and stopped the bullets". Certainly, in a universe with a God, such things are possible. I think it more likely that the scientists in question here either a) are in error, or b) that the process is simply more complicated than previously thought.

That doesn't mean that either
a) evolution is wrong, or
b) that there is no God.

Those who try to derive the big picture from little things often deceive themselves.

>>I've got better things to do than to be drawing stripes on zebra's [sic] 24/7.

Being eternal means having a lot of time on your hands. If you exist outside of time, you have even more (in a sense).

Dave Eaton I don't disagree.

Neal, truth hurts?

For those of you that want to analyze this intelligently, read the full article. It's chock full of explanations of why this doesn't necessarily refute evolution. In fact, only 10% of the offspring "corrected" the mutated gene. Conclusive evidence that evolution is wrong, this is not. Further, the possibility that genetic data is retained in the RNA is also discussed.

This doesn't give Paul license to go into "I told you so" mode. The fact that he thinks it does, shows just how much of a putz he can be sometimes.

While we're talking about it, I just want to simultaneously defend methodological naturalism AND faith in one breath. Scientifically, I never see a time when we should throw up our hands and say "God did it". Even if it's true, things that exist in nature have a rational, predictable aspect. I won't rule out miracles, either, but neither will I appeal to them to understand things.

I think most of us would recognize miracles, if such exist, as an intervention into an otherwise lawful universe. Since such an event presumably would come from a Deity with a mind belonging to Itself that I am not privy to, a miracle can't be an explanation, but rather, a denial that an explanation is possible. So when I want to understand or explain, I don't appeal to miracles. It's a dead end, scientifically, especially if the miracle actually happened. Most things yield to this sort of reductionist program more or less, and it makes sense to play it out as far as it will go.

The faith part- well, I am not as articulate about that, but I can't see that trying to understanding the clickity-clack of the machinery of biochemistry forces one into any faith position. As a human being, I have alway found the fact that there is something rather than nothing to be compelling enough to remain at ease with the belief in God. I don't think it is proven, per se, by my intuitions, but I can't say that I find scientific counterarguments compelling, either.

My brother is a hell and brimstone kinda guy, and even HE REALIZES THE WORLD WAS NOT MADE IN 7 DAYS and that WE ALL CAME FROM ADAM AND EVE.

Does that mean him or me completely go with Evolution? Nah, some of that sounds like crap too, but sure beats a fairy tale.

Can't people just be happy being left in wonder? Why do we have to know EVERYTHIN GODDAMN THING eh?

I don't see how it refutes evolution either. I agree with Colossus. I also think that some time down the road, way down the road, science and religion stand a good chance of merging.

To Rob Hackney-

For me, it's a compulsion. I know I'll never understand everything, which is in itself a more modest goal than knowing everything. But if something needs explaining, I feel compelled to try and figure it out to some extent. I suspect that other people, even people who just think "God did it" or argue for preserving mystery or wonder secretly have a pet theory about how things work, but don't want to subject them to scrutiny. I mean no offense by this, and in any case, I may just be projecting my compulsions onto others.

I'm just lucky enough to live in a time when I can profit from my compulsion rather than being burned at the stake.

duke missed the point completely when he said....

"or those of you that want to analyze this intelligently, read the full article. It's chock full of explanations of why this doesn't necessarily refute evolution. In fact, only 10% of the offspring "corrected" the mutated gene. Conclusive evidence that evolution is wrong, this is not."

DUH! Nobody said it refutes evolution. Can you read?

I said it proves how little we understand about his stuff. And it does!

I may be a putz but I'm a putz can freaking read, you idiot.

Strange...a new method of inheritance is discovered, showing that there may be another pathway for the transmission of favorable traits over the dreaded "mutations almost always kill" argument and this is somehow evidence against evolution?

A friend of mine alway figured that one day science was going to prove that there is a God.
(like looking through a telescope and realizing that you are looking into the eye of God) - this last part is my idea. - sorry

>>"I don't see how it refutes evolution either."

Nobody said it did.

Let's see, the scientists respond to new data with words like "if confirmed," "appears," "raises biological questions," and "if the observation holds up." Doesn't sound as if they accept any facts "etched in stone" Paul, an unfortunate choice of words which perfectly represents the religious view.

Jason please take a reading class and get back to us.

I'm a scientist, a chemistry PhD, and have to say that one big difference between the leap of faith necessary for the Adam and Eve story vs 'primordial ooze' is that things like the gene discovery you refer to will force scientists to think about the evidence. Religion isn't subject to revision by new data.

Boy, nothing like starting out the comments with a blatant lie. If religion isn't subject to revision by new data, then why do Christians even exist? Should they all be Jews? And what about the Reformation? And scarecrow's brain? Er, scratch that last one.

My comment about not wanting to draw stripes on zebras was just meant to show that the method of God's creation is not comprehendible by humans. A more important question is WHY did God create the world, not how. Science can't help with that one.

Now, I have a sister-in-law who not only believes in creation, she believes that the world is only about 20,000 years old. You should read some the the literature she gives me about that theory. Yipes!

This only goes to prove one thing, upon which we can all agree.

People from Purdue are smart. ;-)

Go Boilers!

Master:

My brother would disagree with your sister in law. He says the world should technically be only 10 000 YEARS OLD. and that MANY OF HIS BUDS THINK MAN CO_EXISTED alongside the DINOSAURS. heh

Both sides have some crap 'proof' for their stories, but I think the religious one makes for better movies.

Jinx-

Touche' that religion changes, but I'll stick by the assertion, in that there isn't anybody 'fact checking' religion like there is science. And when it changes, say during the protestant reformation, or during the second Vatican council, I'd argue that it isn't new data that leads the charge. The fact that there are still Catholics and Jews suggests that some didn't find the new stories so compelling, and that there probably wasn't data available to decide the case, unlike what usually, eventually happens in science. So I wouldn't characterize the lead off as a lie.

Dave Eaton: your frame of reference seems to suggest that all that you perceive is "rational" while all that is of faith is not.

Meaning, you imply that what you know to be in your visible, explored environment possesses rational development, bespeaks of a plan involved.

While, by the contrary, that then brings into question the miraculous that is, by comparison with your known environment, not logical, not based on a plan, not logical.

I believe that bespeaks of a limited perspective, since all that is know to our human perceptions, even now, is only a gradation, a part, of what is possible to know and perceive. We can't even hear elephants communicating, or smell even one fifth of what canines do, so what else are we as a species missing in our daily ventures?

I'm thinking that the rationality of the observable to humans is, in fact, what the miracle is. That we perceive rationality and the rational, that we can reason and display logic, that's the miracle. Not the norm, but the exception. Which to me, again, indicates the miraculous nature of logic itself, of the thought process.

Rob Hackney: do you know with any certainty or does your brother what a "day" is to God? Meaning, the "seven days" creation information just may mean something else to He who was active in that process than what it means to humans. Even OUR measurement of what "a day" is has changed, as has our perception about time and space and calendar and more.

I mean, to dismiss the CONCEPT and information in Creationism, as it is presented in the Bible, based upon a limited understanding of concepts involved, is to miss the party.

Maybe a day to God is two million years in human understanding. I mean, I don't know, but it's the message that matters in that story. I think the idea of God abiding by a 24-hour cycle to get His work done seems a bit funny.

Master of None: actually, that comment about you having other things to do with your time than draw stripes on zebras is a great example of human perceptions being imposed as limitations of the concept of the Divine. God perhaps brought about zebras by his imagination, as it's written (the Bible, Genesis) that He imagined light.

In which case, that could more easily explain the "seven days" measurement if God simply commanded and imagined and made it so instantaneously and perhaps he did, in fact, get His initial work done in seven days. I just don't know but I'm willing to believe that there is far more to know than we as humans currently do and can. Meaning, we understand our environment through our own limitations. What we don't know, I am almost certain, about everything, far outweighs what we do not, and what is knowable.

Sorry, typo (^^): shoulld have read, "...what we don't know...far outweighs what we do know, and what is knowable."

There is as much empirical proof that a spore flew out of a passing alien's butt and landed on earth as there is for creationism or the primordial ooze theories. All science has to do is create life in a test tube with electrified ooze and the THEORY could be considered "probable". Genetic mutation happens every day via chemical and sunlight stimulus - for example: Cancer. Normally cells "proofread" cellular replication but conditions occasionaly occur where a mutant cell that can replicate gets past the proofreader mechanism. Sometimes it's a good change (evolution), sometimes the cells just die due to bad programing, sometimes it's cancer. Add a few million years to the mix and anything could happen.

There is still a billion mysteries...