Christianity: Friend or foe to science?

[bilby]

Experiments have produced amino acids.

From a creationist-

Origin of life: the chirality problem

The chirality of the chemical building blocks of life is a huge problem for origin of life scenarios as only optically pure forms such as left-handed amino acid

creation.com

All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.

But those experiments would make a mixture of both….

I was planning to build a house out of bricks, but unfortunately the local brickworks also manufactures concrete blocks, so I wasn't able to...

It's about a somewhat random process.... either the amino acids (or whatever) came from a pool of left-handed molecules - or they were lucky with a "racemic" mixture.

"Lucky" is a movable feast.

If I toss a fair coin, and it comes up heads, then a billion years from now people might be astonished that in every single one of the millions of reports about my coin toss, it still came up heads.

But it's not even vaguely surprising.

If amino acids in terrestrial life were all the opposite chirality to that which we observe, then you would be here expressing incredulity that that situation could have happened by chance.

It's the lawyers fallacy.

Here we have a defendant charged with cheating on the lottery. The prosecution lawyer has an airtight case - the chances of picking the correct numbers by chance are so tiny that it's obvious the defendant must be guilty.

But the probability of the lottery being won by someone isn't very small at all. And the only reason that this particular defendant is on trial at all is that he won - if someone else had won, he would be in the dock instead.

 

[excreationist]

Experiments have produced amino acids.

From a creationist-

Origin of life: the chirality problem

The chirality of the chemical building blocks of life is a huge problem for origin of life scenarios as only optically pure forms such as left-handed amino acid

creation.com

All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.

But those experiments would make a mixture of both….

I was planning to build a house out of bricks, but unfortunately the local brickworks also manufactures concrete blocks, so I wasn't able to...

It's about a somewhat random process.... either the amino acids (or whatever) came from a pool of left-handed molecules - or they were lucky with a "racemic" mixture.

"Lucky" is a movable feast.

If I toss a fair coin, and it comes up heads, then a billion years from now people might be astonished that in every single one of the millions of reports about my coin toss, it still came up heads.

But it's not even vaguely surprising.

If amino acids in terrestrial life were all the opposite chirality to that which we observe, then you would be here expressing incredulity that that situation could have happened by chance.

It's the lawyers fallacy.

Here we have a defendant charged with cheating on the lottery. The prosecution lawyer has an airtight case - the chances of picking the correct numbers by chance are so tiny that it's obvious the defendant must be guilty.

But the probability of the lottery being won by someone isn't very small at all. And the only reason that this particular defendant is on trial at all is that he won - if someone else had won, he would be in the dock instead.

I still think amino acids forming from a source of purely left-handed molecules is more likely that coming from a mixed "racemic" source. Similar to how it is easier to get pure heads from the double-headed coin than a normal coin.

 

[bilby]

Experiments have produced amino acids.

From a creationist-

Origin of life: the chirality problem

The chirality of the chemical building blocks of life is a huge problem for origin of life scenarios as only optically pure forms such as left-handed amino acid

creation.com

All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.

But those experiments would make a mixture of both….

I was planning to build a house out of bricks, but unfortunately the local brickworks also manufactures concrete blocks, so I wasn't able to...

It's about a somewhat random process.... either the amino acids (or whatever) came from a pool of left-handed molecules - or they were lucky with a "racemic" mixture.

"Lucky" is a movable feast.

If I toss a fair coin, and it comes up heads, then a billion years from now people might be astonished that in every single one of the millions of reports about my coin toss, it still came up heads.

But it's not even vaguely surprising.

If amino acids in terrestrial life were all the opposite chirality to that which we observe, then you would be here expressing incredulity that that situation could have happened by chance.

It's the lawyers fallacy.

Here we have a defendant charged with cheating on the lottery. The prosecution lawyer has an airtight case - the chances of picking the correct numbers by chance are so tiny that it's obvious the defendant must be guilty.

But the probability of the lottery being won by someone isn't very small at all. And the only reason that this particular defendant is on trial at all is that he won - if someone else had won, he would be in the dock instead.

I still think amino acids forming from a source of purely left-handed molecules is more likely that coming from a mixed "racemic" source. Similar to how it is easier to get pure heads from the double-headed coin than a normal coin.

Reality doesn't care what you think.

Enzymes work by having the correct shape to adsorb precursors and then release the resultant products.

The whole thing is dependent upon shape. Enzymes are themselves proteins - chains of amino acids with specific structure.

Enzymes are able only to handle amino acids of one chirality. If you can only pick up bricks, but not concrete blocks, you're going to build a house out of bricks, even if your supplier is also making concrete blocks.

 

[excreationist]

I still think amino acids forming from a source of purely left-handed molecules is more likely that coming from a mixed "racemic" source. Similar to how it is easier to get pure heads from the double-headed coin than a normal coin.

Reality doesn't care what you think.

Enzymes work by having the correct shape to adsorb precursors and then release the resultant products.

The whole thing is dependent upon shape. Enzymes are themselves proteins - chains of amino acids with specific structure.

Enzymes are able only to handle amino acids of one chirality. If you can only pick up bricks, but not concrete blocks, you're going to build a house out of bricks, even if your supplier is also making concrete blocks.

So are you saying that it is equally likely that the first amino acids could have come from a source with one chirality vs mixed source? The only other possibility is that it is more likely that it came from a mixed source rather than from one chirality.

 

[bilby]

So are you saying that it is equally likely that the first amino acids could have come from a source with one chirality vs mixed source? The only other possibility is that it is more likely that it came from a mixed source rather than from one chirality.

So are you saying you didn't read what I posted? The only other possibility is that you didn't understand what I posted.

 

[excreationist]

So are you saying that it is equally likely that the first amino acids could have come from a source with one chirality vs mixed source? The only other possibility is that it is more likely that it came from a mixed source rather than from one chirality.

So are you saying you didn't read what I posted? The only other possibility is that you didn't understand what I posted.

I said

"I still think amino acids forming from a source of purely left-handed molecules is more likely that coming from a mixed "racemic" source"

If you disagree with that then the only other possibilities are that it is equally likely or less likely. I probably don't understand what you said so I'm just concentrating on what I said in that quote.
Also about a million coin tosses coming up heads.... it is more likely to happen if the coin has heads on both sides but of course it is still possible to happen if it is a normal coin. I assume you see the connection between handedness and two sides of a coin.

 

[bilby]

I probably don't understand what you said

I agree.

It's good when people agree.

 

[hyzer]

Christianity represents special creation. Science has found no evidence for special creation. There is a conflict between special creation and natural evolution.

In physics, and all that's associated through 'theories', - we have as much evidence (or the lack of..), by the 'same inability' to produce realtime tests, like for example : not being able to "reproduce" abiogenesis from dead matter in the lab etc..

This is nonsense. Anyone who puts the word theories in scare quotes has no idea of the meaning of the word in science. Furthermore, you have no idea how science works because you think that scientists have to recreate something in order to understand it. Seriously consider never saying anything like this again. You have been lied to. Get an education.

 

[Learner]

Christianity represents special creation. Science has found no evidence for special creation. There is a conflict between special creation and natural evolution.

In physics, and all that's associated through 'theories', - we have as much evidence (or the lack of..), by the 'same inability' to produce realtime tests, like for example : not being able to "reproduce" abiogenesis from dead matter in the lab etc..

This is nonsense. Anyone who puts the word theories in scare quotes has no idea of the meaning of the word in science.

That's false... and I truly doubt you can make that assertion, the "having no idea" from a single word in a sentence.

Furthermore, you have no idea how science works because you think that scientists have to recreate something in order to understand it.

Who says anything about 'understanding' the universe, would require trying to recreate the Big Bang?
There's no issue here... I highlighted the word 'theories' that way, for a different reason, not as you're asserting, as"scare quotes" ( I haven't fully sussed the editing functions using my phone actually).

Seriously consider never saying anything like this again. You have been lied to. Get an education.

Lied to? Oh dear.
I think you are set in your ways. Don't be like 'professor Dave' of YouTube - who's wrong again' trying to challenge Dr. James Tour, a real professor, who explains why he finds issues with the natural occurrence of abiogenesis...he's also a real professor. I don't think he's lying to me, I hope not.

 

[DBT]

Faith and science are opposites. One is believing without evidence, the other is building an understanding of the world based on evidence.

 

[SIB]

To me its simple, compare the claim(s) to what we see and experience. Cross check with others. See what claims line up the best. List them in a relative reliability order. Look closely at reasons weights are assigned as they are. I mean, we have to approach Arachpobias claims with some commonsense. As much as we understand and empathize the event that caused the hatred. Believing we are part of a larger more complex system (something more) is more rational than the reverse.

Yeah, most atheist get it. Fundy think types are in both camps and they are both dangerous to free thinking. Keep an eye out for special pleading. In my camp its :"I don't have to make a claim." How I wish I didn't have think and just used blind faith to follow that one.

 

[SIB]

Lol. Yeah, we are thinking atheist. Just like Putin. He thinks using common sense is against the law too.

 

[annewimsey]

As an atheist, and someone who is appalled at how the world seems to be spiralling towards the worst form of religion, especially in the USA lately, i greatly fear that religious fundamentalists would stamp out All science if given even a tiny chance to do so....right back to the Dark Ages!
It's fine to say there can be (and oftern is) harmony between the 2, but when one group hates & fears the other, as we see more & more nowadays, IMO this is akin to ignoring the elephant in the room. There is a clear & present danger!
For just one example, the book-banning especially in Florida lately, sanctioned by the state government. I find it truly scary.
Look at the civilizations that rose to greatness in the past...Greek, Roman, Egyptian & etc etc., they existed for long periods of time, yet fell quickly, and how horribly long it took humankind to rise out of the ashes left after they fell, so disheartening!

 

[excreationist]

i greatly fear that religious fundamentalists would stamp out All science if given even a tiny chance to do so....right back to the Dark Ages!

In post #26 I talked about how creationists are ok with the kind of science that leads to technology... e.g. apparently the inventor of MRI was a creationist:

A Renowned Creation Scientist, Inventor of MRI

Creation scientists often have to prove themselves, and secularists accuse them of slowing down technological advances. But what about the inventor of the MRI?

answersingenesis.org

 

[bilby]

i greatly fear that religious fundamentalists would stamp out All science if given even a tiny chance to do so....right back to the Dark Ages!

In post #26 I talked about how creationists are ok with the kind of science that leads to technology... e.g. apparently the inventor of MRI was a creationist:

A Renowned Creation Scientist, Inventor of MRI

Creation scientists often have to prove themselves, and secularists accuse them of slowing down technological advances. But what about the inventor of the MRI?

answersingenesis.org

If you stretch both the definition of "inventor of MRI" and the definition of "creationist" a fair bit to try to make it fit.

The Varian brothers were Theosophists, and had the first US patent for a medical imaging device that used Nuclear Magnetic Resonance to form pictures of human patients; However NMR itself was invented by Isidor Isaac Rabi, a Jewish American Physicist who won the 1944 Nobel Prize for this achievement.

I am prepared to bet sizeable sums that the authors of that AIG article don't consider Theosophists to be Christians, and certainly don't consider their religion to be a valid way to believe, except when it's convenient to lay claim to every possible individual who could even vaguely be described as "creationist", in order to bolster the shaky story that Evangelical Christians have helped to advance science.

Theosophists are Emanationists, and generally derided by and derisive of Christian creationists.

 

[excreationist]

i greatly fear that religious fundamentalists would stamp out All science if given even a tiny chance to do so....right back to the Dark Ages!

In post #26 I talked about how creationists are ok with the kind of science that leads to technology... e.g. apparently the inventor of MRI was a creationist:

A Renowned Creation Scientist, Inventor of MRI

Creation scientists often have to prove themselves, and secularists accuse them of slowing down technological advances. But what about the inventor of the MRI?

answersingenesis.org

If you stretch both the definition of "inventor of MRI" and the definition of "creationist" a fair bit to try to make it fit.

The Varian brothers were Theosophists, and had the first US patent for a medical imaging device that used Nuclear Magnetic Resonance to form pictures of human patients; However NMR itself was invented by Isidor Isaac Rabi, a Jewish American Physicist who won the 1944 Nobel Prize for this achievement.

I am prepared to bet sizeable sums that the authors of that AIG article don't consider Theosophists to be Christians, and certainly don't consider their religion to be a valid way to believe, except when it's convenient to lay claim to every possible individual who could even vaguely be described as "creationist", in order to bolster the shaky story that Evangelical Christians have helped to advance science.

Theosophists are Emanationists, and generally derided by and derisive of Christian creationists.

The link talks about Dr. Raymond Damadian.

Raymond Damadian - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"inventor of an NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) scanning machine"..... "Damadian was a lifelong Christian" "In 2001, the Lemelson-MIT Prize Program bestowed its $100,000 Lifetime Achievement Award on Damadian as "the man who invented the MRI scanner.""

 

[bilby]

i greatly fear that religious fundamentalists would stamp out All science if given even a tiny chance to do so....right back to the Dark Ages!

In post #26 I talked about how creationists are ok with the kind of science that leads to technology... e.g. apparently the inventor of MRI was a creationist:

A Renowned Creation Scientist, Inventor of MRI

Creation scientists often have to prove themselves, and secularists accuse them of slowing down technological advances. But what about the inventor of the MRI?

answersingenesis.org

If you stretch both the definition of "inventor of MRI" and the definition of "creationist" a fair bit to try to make it fit.

The Varian brothers were Theosophists, and had the first US patent for a medical imaging device that used Nuclear Magnetic Resonance to form pictures of human patients; However NMR itself was invented by Isidor Isaac Rabi, a Jewish American Physicist who won the 1944 Nobel Prize for this achievement.

I am prepared to bet sizeable sums that the authors of that AIG article don't consider Theosophists to be Christians, and certainly don't consider their religion to be a valid way to believe, except when it's convenient to lay claim to every possible individual who could even vaguely be described as "creationist", in order to bolster the shaky story that Evangelical Christians have helped to advance science.

Theosophists are Emanationists, and generally derided by and derisive of Christian creationists.

The link talks about Dr. Raymond Damadian.

Raymond Damadian - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"inventor of an NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) scanning machine"..... "Damadian was a lifelong Christian" "In 2001, the Lemelson-MIT Prize Program bestowed its $100,000 Lifetime Achievement Award on Damadian as "the man who invented the MRI scanner.""

He invented the whole body NMR scanner. Which wasn't even the first medical scanner to use NMR.

BTW, the name "MRI" is a subsequent marketing ploy to overcome patients' fears of anything with "nuclear" in the name (even though NMR has nothing to do with radioactivity or nuclear reactions).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is Christianity a friend or foe of science? Some of the greatest minds in science were Christians. Some of the worst obstructionists to science were Christians.

Looks like the answer is "both".

 

[SIB]

IMO, both is it. Its starts and stop with people. rational vs irrational is the problem. Christianity vs science ... if we start there it will never end. "Fundy think" types are at the root of the problem. Then comes the "You can't prove me wrong me types". But at least most of them are well meaning. Then we have "my faith trumps observation". Again, most are well meaning. some are even needy. weather its blind faith in "My god only" or blind faith in "no god or gods of any type", they are same problem and dangerous to freedom of thought.

If we start with a process that helps us check claims, lessen bias, and increase the notion "We both might be right", "we both might be wrong.", and finally "Maybe its me that is wrong." we would have a better chance.

Fundy think type atheist and theist have to silence any of that stuff. But we are so out numbered by emotional needy, abused, and other broken brain types we stand little chance.

 

[bilby]

Is Christianity a friend or foe of science? Some of the greatest minds in science were Christians. Some of the worst obstructionists to science were Christians.

Looks like the answer is "both".

Looks to me like the answer is "the question entails a category error".

Christianity isn't the kind of thing that has friends or foes; And for that matter, science isn't the kind of thing that has them, either.

But that's where the similarities end. People who ask questions such as "Is Christianity a friend or foe of science?", usually have the agenda of wanting to present science as just another way of believing things, similar in kind, if not in conclusion, to Christianity (and Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc., etc.,).

But this misses the critical distinction. It matters to Christianity whether people are friends or foes of Christianity. Religion depends entirely upon believers for its very existence. If nobody's a Christian, then Christianity stops being a thing, and starts being an historical curiosity, like all the other religions that no longer have adherents.

The rules and observances of dead religions are never coming back; If every trace of Christianity were lost in some cataclysm, there could never again be a Christian religion. If we ever make contact with extraterrestrial life, it's a certainty that the aliens won't be Christians, even if (as seems plausible) they have their own religious beliefs. Their religions and ours would be mutually incomprehensible.

The rules and observations of science are universal. If every trace of scientific knowledge were lost, whoever survived the disaster would rapidly rediscover the exact same facts about the universe. Any aliens we encounter would agree completely with us on all of the fundamentals of science; They would understand the Laws of Thermodynamics, the basis of Chemistry in the interaction of electrons around atoms, the relationship between mass and energy and how this determines the speed limit of reality, etc., etc.

This difference stems from the fact that, despite both religion and science being similarly prone to declaring that they have found fundamental truths about reality, in the case of science, it's not a delusion. Science actually works, and as a consequence is utterly indifferent to whether or not epistemologies that don't work are ready, willing, or able to be a friend or a foe.