Misguided scientists

[mikeinsarasota]

Are these scientists misguided? Should they stop what they're doing and study something else?

Article

If it has a bill and webbed feet like a duck, lays eggs like a bird or a reptile but also produces milk and has a coat of fur like a mammal, what could the genetics of the duck-billed platypus possibly be like? Well, just as peculiar: an amalgam of genes reflecting significant branching and transitions in evolution.

An international scientific team, which announced the first decoding of the platypus genome on Wednesday, said the findings provided

[ollkiller]

Can I ask your point. Do you think they are wasting their time?

[mikeinsarasota]

I've heard it said by members of this board that most research scientists, specifically those in the fields related to evolutionary biology, are misguided. They study God's creation using man's logic, thereby eliminating all possibilities of ever reaching any meaningful conclusions (so the argument goes). My point of posting the question was to see what people's answers would be.

[Joshua-777]

mike

They study God's creation using man's logic, thereby eliminating all possibilities of ever reaching any meaningful conclusions

Logic is the basis of all rational thought, conscious and otherwise. To question it in such a way is the silliest form of argument I've ever heard. It undermines its own logic by undermining logic itself. (btw mike, I'm aware you weren't explicitly professing this particular argument yourself, so relax)

How so, when logic and rational thought has many factors overlooked? Logic and rational thought has a base of knowledge, wisdom, personal experience and belief. So if these factors, lead mikeinsarasota to that conclusion, You also are undermining it's own logic by undermining logic it's self.

[mikeinsarasota]

I've heard it said by members of this board that most research scientists, specifically those in the fields related to evolutionary biology, are misguided. They study God's creation using man's logic, thereby eliminating all possibilities of ever reaching any meaningful conclusions (so the argument goes). My point of posting the question was to see what people's answers would be.

As a Christian (and a Pastor), I am also a Research Scientist with many degrees, primarily focused in Molecular Biology and Neuropharmacology. And I can tell you that *all* scientists study God's creation using man's logic. Your assertion that this precludes any meaningful conclusion is invalid. History proves that.

Truthful tenants:

1) It

IS

possible to understand

creation

by reason.

2) It is

NOT

possible to understand

God

by reason.

He can only be understood by revelation.

shalom -- shlomo

How many degrees, if you don't mind me humbly asking? And it's not my conclusion, but that of many members here who have made their opinions of the subject known.

Edited May 15, 2008 by mikeinsarasota

[mikeinsarasota]

I've heard it said by members of this board that most research scientists, specifically those in the fields related to evolutionary biology, are misguided. They study God's creation using man's logic, thereby eliminating all possibilities of ever reaching any meaningful conclusions (so the argument goes). My point of posting the question was to see what people's answers would be.

As a Christian (and a Pastor), I am also a Research Scientist with many degrees, primarily focused in Molecular Biology and Neuropharmacology. And I can tell you that *all* scientists study God's creation using man's logic. Your assertion that this precludes any meaningful conclusion is invalid. History proves that.

Truthful tenants:

1) It

IS

possible to understand

creation

by reason.

2) It is

NOT

possible to understand

God

by reason.

He can only be understood by revelation.

shalom -- shlomo

How many degrees, if you don't mind me humbly asking? And it's not my conclusion, but that of many members here who have made their opinions of the subject known.

Grace to you Mike --

"Humbly," I would be uncomfortable just listing them - it would be like tooting my own horn. But if you are truly interested from what background and experience I speak, here is a short summary of my life of learning and teaching.

I was on a physics scholarship to University of Houston in the 70s. So I took a lot of high-level math and physics courses. In the middle of that time, I began working for the UT Medical School, department of Reproductive Medicine, on an androgen grant studying some of the then more cutting edge fertility methods such as IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) and GIFT (Gamete Intra-Fallopian Transfer). I enjoyed the research and everyone at the medical school told me that I needed an MD to do any real (clinical) research, so I dropped the Physics program and entered into pre-med. But I was more interested in bench research than clinical, so I combined the coursework for a double major BS in Biophysics and Chemistry.

In the early 80s I transferred to the UT Mental Sciences Institute, working for the department called Neurobiology of Aging. There I did mostly neuropsychopharmacology research looking at differential affects of neuroleptics by age (NIA grant). I felt that I needed more pharmacology academics so I completed a Master's program at UTGSBS (UT Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences) in Pharmacology (coursework was really pharmacokinetics). During that time I transferred to the department called Biological Psychiatry and spent several years investigating animal role models for drug-induced psychosis. You can still find most of my publications from this time online and in journals such as the Journal of Neuroscience.

In the late 80s, rapid advances were being made in the area of oncogene research and I had an exciting opportunity to do some cutting edge research in the genetics of cancer at UT M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. I was already very experienced in standard biological and chemical assay techniques (HPLC, TLC, GCMS, Binding and Update scintillation processes, etc), but was doing much more of my own data analysis.

Following that, I moved to the Clinical Trauma Research Team for Hermann Hospital (Orthopaedic Surgery). Was doing really cool Biomedical Engineering stuff like modeling MRI scans in 3D to design custom implants for total hip and total knee replacements. The data were shipped to Dow Corning to actually cut the titanium. Also investigated the area of materials strength testing for various cements between the titanium implant and the femoral head bone material (using cadavers). Becuase the 3D modeling required a lot of math and computer programming (finite element analysis, etc), I enrolled in another graduate program at UH for an MS in Information Technology (CIS was the actual degree field). Those were also fun years, even though I did not publish very much.

But in the mid 90's I got my "call to ministry" after being saved 15 years. I then enrolled at the largest Houston-based Protestant Seminary, the Houston Graduate School of Theology, and completed a Masters of Theology (an MA *not* the more difficult MDiv). Since then I have continued to "tent-make" in the science and engineering fields, while teaching and pastoring within the Church.

Anybody who loves to learn like I do usually loves to teach as well (we enjoy sharing knowledge) and I have taught in may places: Some of the most memorable include Computer Operating Systems at the University of New Mexico at Carlsbad, Lunar and Planetary Geology at Rice University (I had a minor in geology on my first BS), and I still teach Theology and NT Greek in an accredited Bible College (not Seminary) in southeast Houston.

Now, if you took the time to read all of that, my level of respect for you has increased.

shlomo

toot, toot.

And what does all of this qualify you for?

[MorningGlory]

Anybody who loves to learn like I do usually loves to teach as well (we enjoy sharing knowledge) and I have taught in may places: Some of the most memorable include Computer Operating Systems at the University of New Mexico at Carlsbad, Lunar and Planetary Geology at Rice University (I had a minor in geology on my first BS), and I still teach Theology and NT Greek in an accredited Bible College (not Seminary) in southeast Houston.

Now, if you took the time to read all of that, my level of respect for you has increased.

shlomo

Wow, Shlomo, I'm impressed. Most of us find our niche and kind of do that but it seems you've got a lot of knowledge about a lot of things. I'd say you're qualified to speak on science and theology both. So...what is your take on scientists and whether they're misguided? I don't think you have ever posted that; correct me if I'm wrong.

[Observer of dreams]

There isn't any problems with logic and rationality except that humans use it to rationalize things to fit their individual view of the world. Believers do it all the time, and so do atheist scientists and protective mothers. I think the real problem is that humans are studying the world which we find ourselves in and using the results to point the finger either at God, or away from him. Evidence for God will always be inconclusive. The bible itself expressly states that human kind will never be able to explain God with their own logic.

Now I know all sorts of things started spinning in your mind right now but reserve coming to a conclusion until I am done and allow me to explain with proper concision.

"Evidence for God will always be inconclusive. The bible itself expressly states that human kind will never be able to explain God with their own logic."

Imagine I give an atheist and a believer something, say an object. Now this object Actually came from God himself (stay with me). Now I look to believer bob and say God gave this to me to give to you as proof of his existence. Believer Bob will either have to take my word on it, or decide I am lying. The same goes for atheist Gary.

So this is the problem. Both may decide I am lying because there are too many questions. "Why wouldn't God just give it to me himself?" "Why would he even want to give me anything. Or the closed minded response "there is no God so this couldn't have come from him." LOGICALLY it would seem I am trying to pull something, or I am so diluted that I am now imagining God talking to me.

Neither the atheist or believer can properly explain God or account for what he does. The atheist finds him illogical, and since his opinion is his own it must stay that way no matter what. The believer has to take on faith that there is an ultimate authority that knows what it is doing. So regardless of whether or not God exists he can not be explained either way. Even if he could the vastness of the universe vs how much we have explored is implicative of our knowledge.

Which brings me to the point at hand which was the opening remark made that scientists are misguided. They are not. There are always things that can and will be studied. The scientists are only misguided to the party in which they will inflict the most damage to their beliefs. Even though damage can be inflicted it will always be brushed off by people who do not like to learn. Here is an example.

Observe these two statements.

"Scientists and archaeologists have finally made the discovery of a lifetime. Ancient documents older then the bible indicate that the whole story was made up by Fred Bob who lived in Israel and wanted a way to control a massive population with little or no resistance. The transcripts explain how he was to engineer several buildings and put stories to them and use natural disasters as godly displays of power."

Now this one

"Astronomers today have found heaven. They have several pictures of heaven taken by the Hubble space telescope which, in clear detail show heaven exactly as it is described in biblical text, and another fact is that it was discovered precisely on the date that the bible designates."

Were the documents forged? Are the astronomers liars with doctored photographs? is the archaeologist a government employee?

This is why logic can be a problem. There is way to much dissonance in the face of just being flat wrong.