Science debunking miracles?

[Sister Terese]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

Assuming your reported scientific investigation to be correct, where can I find a scientific, peer-reviewed account? I will be particularly interested on the controls used to establish that there was a low risk of fraud, and also in the DNA tests of the properly-retained samples which would help establish the identity of the person whose blood and tissue is said to have been found.

I'm sure if you googled it, you can find plenty of scientific evidence to back up what I read. It was a long time ago. If you want to read about a real miracle with plenty of scientifc evidence and controls, read some recent books on the Shroud of Turin.

[Bobby Jim]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

Assuming your reported scientific investigation to be correct, where can I find a scientific, peer-reviewed account? I will be particularly interested on the controls used to establish that there was a low risk of fraud, and also in the DNA tests of the properly-retained samples which would help establish the identity of the person whose blood and tissue is said to have been found.

From PubMed

Quad Sclavo Diagn. 1971 Sep;7(3):661-74.
[Histological, immunological and biochemiccal studies on the flesh and blood of the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano (8th century)].

[Article in Italian]
Linoli O.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4950729

This guy Linoli does appear to be (or was) a real medical doctor or pathologist, with a good number of mundane publications on your typical pathology blah blah blah for what it's worth.

Also as an actual practicing scientist I put less faith in peer review than your post would imply we should. Try reproducing half of the stuff you read in "Science" or "Nature". I wish you luck.

[Sister Terese]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jim

From PubMed

Quad Sclavo Diagn. 1971 Sep;7(3):661-74.
[Histological, immunological and biochemiccal studies on the flesh and blood of the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano (8th century)].

[Article in Italian]
Linoli O.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4950729

This guy Linoli does appear to be (or was) a real medical doctor or pathologist, with a good number of mundane publications on your typical pathology blah blah blah for what it's worth.

Also as an actual practicing scientist I put less faith in peer review than your post would imply we should. Try reproducing half of the stuff you read in "Science" or "Nature". I wish you luck.

Thanks for the backup! After you mentioned Linoli's name, I remembered it. I also agree with you regarding "Science" and "Nature".

[Sister Terese]

Here is the website for the scientific tests done on the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucha.../lanciano.html

[Bobby Jim]

Originally Posted by Sister Terese

Thanks for the backup! After you mentioned Linoli's name, I remembered it. I also agree with you regarding "Science" and "Nature".

Sure, no problem. I think the question of asking for a peer-reviewed scientific paper was more of a "gotcha" tactic - would be like asking me to cite a law review or something, when in fact most non-lawyers wouldn't even have access to a search engine for legal scholarship. As it is if I wanted to read this Linoli article I would probably have to pay like $50 to get an archived copy through some document service, and then pay a couple hundred bucks to get it translated from Italian, only to find that it says pretty much what you came up with in your Google search.

By the way I don't mean to say peer-reviewed scientific journals are bunk. For the most part what you read is basically reliable. But the actual process of writing a scientific paper is pretty far removed from the myth of the dispassionate observer carefully reporting just the facts, with enough information that another researcher in another lab with access to the same samples & equipment could reproduce the same findings. Besides reporting interesting findings, scientific publications (especially in a "high profile" journal like Science or Nature) also serve the dual purpose of "advertisements" for the principal investigator, meant to bolster his/her credentials & credibility, to help keep the research grants rolling in. In other words there is a rather significant monetary element at work, which tends to, shall we say, influence the way observations are reported and interpreted?

And the idea that peer review sorts out the facts from the spin is also rather laughable. I think I'm a fairly careful reviewer myself, and I spend maybe 2 hours when I'm invited to peer-review a manuscript. No way I go into the lab and try to reproduce any of it - first of all where would the money come from to do anything other than the most trivial experiment. Science ain't cheap. When I get reviews back on my own manuscripts, I tend to see one of two things (a) what looks like a hasty read-through where they say "generally looks good, there's a few typos", and then ask for clarification on this or that detail that jumped out on their skim-through, or (b) a busy professor hands the paper off to an eager young graduate student who pores over it in great detail and tries their best to rip it apart, often making overblown claims about peer review and the necessity for independent researchers to reproduce the work.

[Sister Terese]

Bobby Jim: I used to work for a clinical psychologist who was the director of clinical training (second in command after the Chair of the department) at a university. In addition to taking care of his academic responsibilities, I also took care of his "professional" articles which he submitte to the APA Journal. Every single article that he wrote was bogus. His research, his data, his methodology was all a lie. Yet, he enjoyed a position of prestige, money and admiration. What galled me even more was that he wasn't even American--he was Australian--and he would brag to the peons (anyone who wasn't either a doctoral student or a psychologist/professor) how he didn't have to pay any taxes. He would also periodically loot the office supplies cabinets to supply his private practice. *Sigh*

[Bobby Jim]

Originally Posted by Sister Terese

Bobby Jim: I used to work for a clinical psychologist who was the director of clinical training (second in command after the Chair of the department) at a university. In addition to taking care of his academic responsibilities, I also took care of his "professional" articles which he submitte to the APA Journal. Every single article that he wrote was bogus. His research, his data, his methodology was all a lie. Yet, he enjoyed a position of prestige, money and admiration. What galled me even more was that he wasn't even American--he was Australian--and he would brag to the peons (anyone who wasn't either a doctoral student or a psychologist/professor) how he didn't have to pay any taxes. He would also periodically loot the office supplies cabinets to supply his private practice. *Sigh*

Wow, that's quite blatant. I really do feel like the more prestigious the position, and the more influence the professor has, the greater tendency and motivation for this type of dishonesty.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

So how come all the modern miracles are so unimpressive by comparison?

If the miracles were worked once, to convince people of God's authority over the universe, why would he need to work them over and over. If he has the authority, there is no need to do it again. Ever. Just once is enough.

If I can count to 100, and I do it once, I don't need to keep doing it over and over. I can do it. It's not important.

Just like it's not important to God that he can work these miracles. He can, so there is nothing more to prove. Once he raises someone from the dead, he has shown authority over death.

If he did them every 100 years, you might then be asking, yeah but why doesn't he do them every year and tell me where they are going to happen so I can go see them myself, and even then I don't want to believe them because there is no God.

[Sister Terese]

Originally Posted by Evan

If the miracles were worked once, to convince people of God's authority over the universe, why would he need to work them over and over. If he has the authority, there is no need to do it again. Ever. Just once is enough.

If I can count to 100, and I do it once, I don't need to keep doing it over and over. I can do it. It's not important.

Just like it's not important to God that he can work these miracles. He can, so there is nothing more to prove. Once he raises someone from the dead, he has shown authority over death.

If he did them every 100 years, you might then be asking, yeah but why doesn't he do them every year and tell me where they are going to happen so I can go see them myself, and even then I don't want to believe them because there is no God.

St. John's Gospel specifically centers on the miracles of Jesus to prove His Divine Nature. He is God. "For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe in God, no explanation is possible."

[HisIsTheCrown]

Originally Posted by Sister Terese

St. John's Gospel specifically centers on the miracles of Jesus to prove His Divine Nature. He is God. "For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe in God, no explanation is possible."

Simple things in life are a miracle and we do not see them.
A flower is a miracle or reproduction. The plant dies and seeds bring a new plant, months later, similar to her mother and father.
Sex is a miracle. Animals reproduce (how did they learn that) and the offspring are born from a little celule invisible to the eye and has got all the appearances of their mother and fathers. No engineer can create a robot that reproduces...

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by Sister Terese

Here is the website for the scientific tests done on the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucha.../lanciano.html

I'm sorry but there are no 'scientific tests' reported here. The 'tests' are not described either in methodology of outcome. Only conclusions are presented. The principal 'scientist' is described with many adjectives, but appears to have never published anything, and there is no institution mentioned with his name.

It is not for me to tell Catholics how to promote their faith. But my advice if asked would be: wait until you have a miracle capable of convincing someone.

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by Evan

If the miracles were worked once, to convince people of God's authority over the universe, why would he need to work them over and over. If he has the authority, there is no need to do it again. Ever. Just once is enough.

If I can count to 100, and I do it once, I don't need to keep doing it over and over. I can do it. It's not important.

Just like it's not important to God that he can work these miracles. He can, so there is nothing more to prove. Once he raises someone from the dead, he has shown authority over death.

If he did them every 100 years, you might then be asking, yeah but why doesn't he do them every year and tell me where they are going to happen so I can go see them myself, and even then I don't want to believe them because there is no God.

What you say is perfectly logical. What requires explanation is why God would perform good, impressive, obviously miraculous miracles 2000 years ago, and continue to perform miracles today, only unimpressive ones which mimic naturally-occurring events, or are impossible to establish.

[Bobby Jim]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

I'm sorry but there are no 'scientific tests' reported here. The 'tests' are not described either in methodology of outcome. Only conclusions are presented. The principal 'scientist' is described with many adjectives, but appears to have never published anything, and there is no institution mentioned with his name.

It is not for me to tell Catholics how to promote their faith. But my advice if asked would be: wait until you have a miracle capable of convincing someone.

As mentioned above, a PubMed search turns up the following:

Quad Sclavo Diagn. 1971 Sep;7(3):661-74.
[Histological, immunological and biochemiccal studies on the flesh and blood of the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano (8th century)].

[Article in Italian]
Linoli O.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4950729

Using ISI Web of Knowledge, I come up with 41 hits by "Linoli O", all in Italian language journals, between the years of 1950 and 1994. The older cites in the database in particular do not include metadata such as author address, so it is hard to say it is the same person. A quick scan of titles indicates they are primarily of a clinical pathology/histology nature, so it is reasonable to suspect it is the same person. For example, around the same time frame, we have titles (in translation) along the lines of "Evaluation of the Coulter mod. S automatic counter for hematology after 2 years of use" and "Erythrocytic carbonic andhydrase isoenzymes in normal subjects and in patients with blastomas and hemopathies". From which I deduce that this is not some non-existent scientist invented out of whole cloth.

As I also indicated above, one could probably request this Quad Sclavo Diagn paper for about $50 through a document delivery service, and maybe a couple hundred dollars for a technical translator (if you don't happen to be trained in Italian terminology in clinical pathology). I think what you will find is basic serology and microscopy of a tissue & blood sample.

Now if you ask me, all that would show is that what is preserved there is human tissue and blood. Proving a miraculous origin or a connection to Jesus is a much different question...

[Sister Terese]

Originally Posted by HisIsTheCrown

Simple things in life are a miracle and we do not see them.
A flower is a miracle or reproduction. The plant dies and seeds bring a new plant, months later, similar to her mother and father.
Sex is a miracle. Animals reproduce (how did they learn that) and the offspring are born from a little celule invisible to the eye and has got all the appearances of their mother and fathers. No engineer can create a robot that reproduces...

EXACTLY!! There are amazing miracles all around us if we would just be open to see them. Try studying the workings of the eye--that is a real miracle! Study our atmosphere for one! The fact that the earth wobbles on its axis is another miracle for if it did not, part of the earth would burn up and the other part would freeze up. There are many other miracles of science which point directly to an Omnipotent Designer....I call Him God..

[Sister Terese]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

I'm sorry but there are no 'scientific tests' reported here. The 'tests' are not described either in methodology of outcome. Only conclusions are presented. The principal 'scientist' is described with many adjectives, but appears to have never published anything, and there is no institution mentioned with his name.

It is not for me to tell Catholics how to promote their faith. But my advice if asked would be: wait until you have a miracle capable of convincing someone.

Wow...sad.