lew (02/18/83)
In his "reasonism is not a religion" posting Steve Hutchison stated: "Reason" has not only persecuted the devout, but it even persecutes its own. For example, the dogma is still taught in biochemistry that the DNA is the "living" part of the cell, just as the dogma it replaced was that the cell nucleus was the "living" part and the cell wall before that. (endquote) I think this is a misrepresentation of the "central dogma" of molecular biology. This "dogma" is that the DNA acts solely as a read-only memory without being itself affected by the cell metabolism. Perhaps Steve was mingling the dogma idea with the commonly made statement that the DNA code is the "secret of life". I don't think this phrase is in the least hyperbolic. Laugh if you will at the manufacture of a giant mouse by recombinant techniques, but laugh uneasily. Modern molecular biology is no routine succesor to the long line of speculations concerning cell metabolism and heredity. It is the rock bottom truth. In I Corinthians Paul says, "All flesh is not the same flesh: there is flesh of men, flesh of beasts, of birds, and of fishes - all different." This is simply wrong. The universality of the genetic code is a fact. Does a Christian dare to seriously ponder its implications? Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew
emma (02/18/83)
This may be a bit more flip of an answer than you are looking for, but the first thing that comes to my mind is that due to the universality of quarks we are equivalent to rocks, as well. I find it hard to understand just how the universality of the genetic code eliminates the difference between species. -Joe P.
hutch (02/19/83)
Actually, Lew, I was referring to an interesting article which I read back in ?1979? in the CoEvolution Quarterly, and before I get hashed for reading that magazine, I don't subscribe, it belonged ot (to) a friend. The article is very dim in my memory, and perhaps someone can refresh me on it, but the gist of the article was about how one of the "founding fathers" of molecular biology was ostracized politically for the heresy of suggesting that perhaps not all heredity is incorporated in the DNA and nuclear material. You can assert all you like that it is rock bottom truth, but I will reserve final judgement until it is clearly understood exactly what the roles are of intracellular organelles in the replication of DNA and other nuclear material. Do not pretend to know all about how this works lest we demand that you prove it, and if you do, we'll most likely put you up for the Nobel prize for your new discoveries. Actually, what I was trying to say, flamelike, was that dogma is not restricted to religion, and that any time a hierarchy forms, whether one of learning, philosophy, government, whatever, you will find tht (that) people, human beings, egotistical fallible human beings, will establish dogmas. They will fight for these dogmas, just as fiercely as I am being fought for challenging the dogma (actually a wishful self-image for most of us) that scientists are NOT all open-minded and fair about everything. I will further fan the flames by saying that I think that the whole idea of the permanently open mind is a remarkably short-sighted one. The best one can and should strive for is a periodically open mind, so that opinions, assumptions, and knowledge can be checked for false assumptions or poor formation. As for your snipe at Paul, so what if the underlying genetic code of fish, birds, and men is the same. (It is NOT, but I allow you your whimsy for the moment.) You are taking a passage out of context. This is a detestable practice, which I fight as vigorously when I see a Christian doing it as when I see a non-christian doing it. Paul said (in context): " ...But some will say, 'How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?' You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. All flesh is not the same flesh, but ther is one flesh of men, ad another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another... " This seems to obvious inspection not to be a lecture on biology, it looks more like an illustration of a point. The point, in case you want to know, seems to me to be that it is foolish to speculate on what the post-ressurection bodies will be like, that they won't be like anything we are familiar with just as a seed, which "dies" before growing into a plant, is not the same shape as the plant that comes out of it. Incidentally, to disallow your whimsical idea that genetic code is the same "for all flesh", I defy you to go out and get a transfusion of chicken blood. I doubt that if you managed to inseminate a giant lab mouse, that it would bear viable offspring. Obviously if I used the same coding SCHEME for construction of a digital watch, it would not make that watch "the same as" the computer you are reading this from. Actually, I do have a real, non-snide comment about genetic coding. I think that the actual DNA-to-gene-to-chromosome construction process is slightly more varied than the underlying four-and-a-half (I think) part coding than the "simple" DNA allows, and I suspect that this is sufficient to differentiate between one kind of "flesh" and another. Does the inclusion of the "modern scientific dogma" in discussions in net.religion mean that there is an attempt at hand to establish it as a religion?? Steve Hutchison ...decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!hutch
lew (02/19/83)
I think I do know what Paul means in the passage I quoted (I Corinthians 15:39) He is giving support to his assertion that the spirit can take different forms. The question whether birds are of "a different flesh" than fish is not his central concern. I think the context strengthens rather than weakens my interpretation, which is that Paul is saying that the various life forms are essentially different. I know that he is not placing the burden of proof on this analogy, but is only offering what he regards as a commonplace fact to give plausibility to his more extraordinary claim (the resurrection of the dead.) I'm saying that such support as this analogy might have afforded is removed by our knowledge of the unity of all life on earth, and further that this knowledge is profoundly incompatible with the Christian world view. To this this extent I think the creationists are correct. I agree with them that the modern scientific interpretation of the world is a dire threat to Christian doctrine. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew
arens@UCBKIM (02/19/83)
From: arens@UCBKIM (Yigal Arens) Received: from UCBKIM.ARPA by UCBVAX.ARPA (3.313/3.5) id AA06067; 19 Feb 83 15:02:29 PST (Sat) To: net-religion@BERKELEY.ARPA In-Reply-To: Your message of 18 Feb 1983 1619-PST (Friday) This may be a dumb question, but I'm really confused -- Is Steve Hutchison (...decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!hutch) really claiming that the treatment of scientists who defy "scientific dogma" (even the case of one of the founding fathers of molecular biology he mentions), is in some way comparable to the church's treatment of those who defy religious dogma? Like the inquisition, he means? Yigal
hutch (02/21/83)
>From dadla!tekmdp!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbvax:decvax!harpo!npoiv!npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew Fri Feb 18 17:30:22 1983
Subject: Re: flesh of beasts
Newsgroups: net.religion
Regarding something Lew Mammel said in his defense:
I think I do know what Paul means in the passage I quoted (I Corinthians
15:39) He is giving support to his assertion that the spirit can take
different forms.
Beg pardon, Lew. Which assertion is that? I don't recall reading that into
the context, perhaps you have found an interpretation which is new to me.
I thought that what Paul was supporting was his assertion that it is not known
what the post-ressurection body would be like. I never read anything that he
said that implied that spirit takes any form at all.
I'm saying that such support as this analogy might have afforded is
removed by our knowledge of the unity of all life on earth, and
further that this knowledge is profoundly incompatible with the
Christian world view.
I don't see either point, Lew. Christianity and Judaism have always held a
feeling that there is unity of life on earth, right back to Genesis. The
whole world, not just mankind, was wrecked by Adam's rebellion. This is
made quite clear. The Christian point of view extends this with the view
of the Messiah that says He will re-create the world.
I have never held that unity of life is incompatible with my world view. I
have come to understand that because of my place in this unity, that I am
responsible to preserve and protect this life, as much as I can within the
limits of my understanding.
I have no objection to the knowledge we gain from the genetic code and from
the analysis of the relations between the various types of life on the earth.
I don't see how it can disprove Christianity, or Judaism, or even the vaguest
notion of a Creator, since a world which was created MUST be internally
consistent or it will collapse. If you've ever tried to put together a
small closed ecosystem you will recognize that there can be major problems
if the parts aren't properly balanced. I consider one of the fundamental
requirements for such an ecosystem to be that the components are made of
the same proteins and hydrocarbons, so that they can utilize each other.
Perhaps you will be better understood if you explain to us net-ites more
of what you mean by unity of life. I can't help but feel that you have
not said all you mean.
Steve Hutchison
... decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!hutch