“On page 15, it states: “Now, understand that mutations don’t happen very often – almost never… When mutations do happen, they are almost always lethal.” Again, this is wrong. Mutations happen often, and most of them are neutral. They depend on the environment as well. For example, have two copies of the sickle cell mutation is bad, yes, but having one copy is beneficial—it protects against malaria. ”

So his 3 assertions regarding sickle cell are

1: it is caused by a mutation.
2: two copies of the mutation causes anemia
3: having only one copy confers a protection against malaria

They are all correct assertions.

It is caused by a mutation:

“The gene defect is a known mutation of a single nucleotide (A to T) of the ?-globin gene, which results in glutamic acid to be substituted by valine at position 6. Hemoglobin S with this mutation are referred to as HbS, as opposed to the more normal adult HbA. The genetic disorder is due to the mutation of a single nucleotide, from a GAG to GTG codon mutation.”

Two copies of the mutation (one from each parent) causes sickle-cell anemia:

“The allele responsible for sickle cell anemia is autosomal recessive. A person who receives the defective gene from both father and mother develops the disease; a person who receives one defective and one healthy allele remains healthy, but can pass on the disease and is known as a carrier. ”

Only one copy protects against malaria:

“It is believed that carriers (sickle cell trait) are relatively resistant to malaria. Since the gene is incompletely recessive, carriers have a few sickle red blood cells at all times, not enough to cause symptoms, but enough to give resistance to malaria.”

From wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease

What part do you think he was wrong about and needs to do more reasearch on?

When have I or any atheist here said that Christians are not intelligent?

I happen to know a good many very intelligent Christians.

You say people make very inaccurate statements, but you see no point in discussing them.

Then why bring it up? Are you just coming here to scold people and then leave?

Come and be part of the conversation, Jodi. I especially invite you here to this discussion board where Christians and atheists alike have found very fruitful and respectful dialogue:

http://off-the-map.org/ebayatheist/index.php

I wrote to you a while ago and have not been to the site for some time. I am so disappointed. You seem to be the only, so called, friendly atheist. I find a lot of inaccurate statements on your site, but there seems to be no point in discussing them, because, unfortunately, atheist believe Christians are not intelligent. Sorry to inform, some of us actually have our degrees in science and are Christians, shocking, I know. You made some very incorrect statements about mutation related to sickle cell anemia, I advise that you do more research.

Again, I am sorry that I thought this site was going to be for, respectful, intelligent conversation, and it obviously is not.

Jodi

I’m all for having an open mind, but if pro-ID people want to persuade scientists, they have to play by the rules of science like everyon has done for hundreds of years now. You have to do the tests, provide the observations, and get the feedback from the community. Instead, what we see is the Behes and Johnsons picking apart Evolution (using arguments that were disproven long ago)… even if they were correct, though, they would only have poked holes in Evolution– not create a credible alternative. Also, they choose not to send paper to scientific journals (as far as I know, they’ve never tried to do this, period… it has nothing to do with the journals not accepting their papers). It’s just bad science all around.

Perhaps further insight into DNA, origins of the universe, etc. could lead us to a case for God. However, until we’ve exhausted all natural possibilities (something we are *very* far from ever doing), we cannot look to supernatural explanations.

I do agree with Siamang that if the purpose of the document was to inform your children’s teachers, it was a disservice to have had it on the church website where people like me could have seen it and thought that this is what the church was recommending we teach in public schools.

Since Flew has made no rational arguments that address my specific barriers to faith, my barriers to faith persist.

Very interesting, thanks for the background information Eliza. I had heard about Flew, but didn’t know about his age and possible dementia. It’s a sad thing if he really is suffering from a lessening of his faculties. It almost makes me wonder if he’s being “used” in a sense by people who strongly have an agenda to promote. His name and story are certainly bandied about extensively in creationist and fundamentalist circles.

For anyone who is interested – and for Pastor Tim, who has mentioned Anthony Flew several times as an example of an atheist becoming a theist – there’s a summary of Flew’s positions and statements, with updates periodically from 12/2004 to 5/2006 from Richard Carrier, who actually corresponded with Flew about his change in beliefs and has carefully followed Flew’s public statements and appearances. It’s posted here, on the Secular Web. Hemant provided the link on a prior post.

The bottom line is that Flew, who is now in his 80′s, has been very unclear and contradictory about his position and beliefs – and seems to be heading deeper into confusion. He basically describes a deist position – at his clearest he says he believes in a god who doesn’t interact with people all, but can’t really explain why he believes that. Carrier’s reports of Flew’s behavior, including eyewitness accounts of Flew’s appearance at Biola College (Bible college in LA) to receive an award, at which he appeared to sleep through most of the ceremony then gave a short but rambling speech, describe Flew as a man who is very likely suffering from senile dementia. (I say that based on my medical training and experience; Carrier does not himself make that claim.)

Carrier mentions that an article on Flew titled “One Flew over Biola” by James Underdown of the Center for Inquiry-West should be coming out in late July in the August-September 2006 edition of the magazine “Free Inquiry.” (Underwood was at the Biola ceremony, was one of the eyewitnesses Carrier spoke with, and also interviewed Flew right after the Biola event so his information will be the most up-to-date. But it doesn’t sound, from what Carrier says, that the conclusion will be different.)

So, I must alert you that Anthony Flew is not a convincing example of an atheist-scientist turned theist, especially if his conversion and senile dementia are occurring at the same time. I really would caution against holding him up as an example unless you find more current, reliable information about his “conversion”.

tim said,

July 6, 2006 at 10:49 pm

i’m back.
sorry if you don’t get me. i think i’m funny.
i definately should be more humble thank you Helen, i’m sure you could point out many of my flaws.

*sigh*

In reply to what I was addressed with,

I don’t know how you, Pastor Tim, could have heard only the naturalist “argument” in your life. You went to a Christian college, as did your parents, so I’m kinda confused as to when you were told something along the lines of “We don’t need God to explain the universe.”

Now, I’ll be personal too here and say that I’ve heard, talked with, and read several different opinions on whether the Earth is old, and whether God has any place in science, and whether God is needed to explain the universe. I’ve stood by a poster at a conference about using paleomagnetics to date a rock unit (the Moonstone Formation in Wyoming. It’s Miocene in age BTW) and talked to someone who pretty much believed the opposite of me about how theology and science should mix. He thought that science should only be used if it agrees with theology.

I think that that is a terrible, awful, horrible idea.

Now, that said, I have to admit that science starts with what some take to be a religious filter, eg, that only natural events, objects, and entities can affect the universe.

But quite frankly, isn’t that the best idea?

What if history classes were taught without this naturalistic assumption? People would not be able to agree on what actually happened at events. Our basic objective summaries of real events (Gettysburg occurred on July 1-3rd, 1863) would become subjective (and the Union armies won since God favoured them!). History recounts would become more and more similar to The Illiad and Odyssey and…the Bible.

I think that studying science (or math or history or politics…) with a naturalistic viewpoint is a much better idea than either:

a) trying to accomodate all religious beliefs
b) picking one religious belief and alienating the rest

And if people afterwards want to insert their religious beliefs into the mix, then they can go ahead. Some people think that the Spanish Armada was stopped from attacking England because of Providence. Some people (well apparently many people ) think that humans have souls that were given to us by an Almighty.

They’re beliefs, and they don’t belong in school anymore than soda dispensing machines.