Creationism and life in general

[ricmat]

Another suggestion.

Those of you who don’t understand:

1. Why God creates evil, or
2. Why God allows evil in the world.
3. Why God causes suffering, or
4. Why God allows suffering in the world.

Please, go read some good theology books, and start some new threads. The answer is not to be found in science books, or with the scientific method.

Thank you.

 

[tonyrey]

Moreover he is mistaken that ID is not scientifically testable. ID obviously becomes redundant if it can be demonstrated that everything is scientifically explicable.

A false deduction. Scientific testability does not entail scientific explicability. Science does not recognise the existence of Design but Design is a reality nevertheless.

Scientists can hardly deny the reality of intelligence because science presupposes the use of intelligence.

We’ve been here before bro, and the emergent complexity tee-shirt would still look good on you.

1. Precisely how was intelligence produced by particles which lack intelligence?
2. Is reasoning a purely impersonal, mechanical process with no element of intuition, insight, understanding or creativity?
3. Will scientists succeeded in eliminating themselves?

The universe doesn’t run on blind chance, there are distributions of outcomes - the probability of pink unicorns popping out of thin air, or even of a broken glass spontaneously repairing itself, are extremely low compared to the progressive development of an eye.

1. Is increased complexity necessarily a sign of progress? (A unicellular organism outlasts far more “advanced” organisms.)
2. How do you define “progress”?
3. Precisely how probable is the development of an eye?
4. Was it necessary?
5. Are colour and the recognition of colour essential for survival?
6. Will the mind ever be fully explained by neuroscience?

It is rather odd to reject the validity of ID when scientists have often copied natural mechanisms they would not otherwise have discovered. It amounts to faith in the power of blind Chance to create immensely complex machines which have proved to be beyond the ingenuity of scientists who have transformed the world with their inventions…

The problem here, imho, is you’re ignoring self-organization.

1. What caused self-organization?
2. What is its mechanism?
3. Is it superior to the power of the mind?

 

[StAnastasia]

I have a suggestion. You folks who are throwing the “ID is blasphemy” charge around should stop. I thought such a thing was banned in CAF, but I couldn’t find the sticky post. Regardless, it is not a charitable thing to do. IMHO.

Nor it it charitable for you and Granny and Tonrey constantly to be throwing around charges that people who accept modern science are “not Catholic” or are “not Catholic enough.” Perhaps you yourselves are provoking the “blasphemy” charge. It cuts both ways, you know.
Let’s eliminate all uncharitable language and stick with intellectual discussion.

StAnastasia

 

[ricmat]

Nor it it charitable for you and Granny and Tonrey constantly to be throwing around charges that people who accept modern science are “not Catholic” or are “not Catholic enough.” Perhaps you yourselves are provoking the “blasphemy” charge. It cuts both ways, you know.
Let’s eliminate all uncharitable language and stick with intellectual discussion.

StAnastasia

I’m an engineer, lots of science for years and years. I’m not against it. I’m for it. Neither are tonyrey, granny, or anyone else against “modern science” that I can see. In fact, there are probably areas of “modern science” that you disagree with (embryonic stem cell research? Cloning?). Perhaps you exaggerate above, and rather than saying “modern science”, which is quite a broad area, you meant to say “evolution in which God takes no active role.” Even your request for peace appears to be laced with exaggerations and misrepresentations.

There are degrees of criticism and disagreement, obviously. A charge of blasphemy seems to me to be at the far far end of the spectrum, and the point at which we should not reach here at CAF (or anywhere public).

Rossum and Inocente (and others I don’t remember) are “not Catholic.” (so says their profile).

As for “not Catholic enough”, I’m guilty. But I’m still trying hard.

 

[StAnastasia]

Even your request for peace appears to be laced with exaggerations and misrepresentations…

Just as your communications are consistently laced with snide comments and innuendos about my Catholicism. If you’ll drop those, I’ll agree that we should drop blasphemy charges. Just be charitable in the future.

 

[ricmat]

Just as your communications are consistently laced with snide comments and innuendos about my Catholicism. If you’ll drop those, I’ll agree that we should drop blasphemy charges. Just be charitable in the future.

So, you are “Catholic enough?” You have reached full Catholicism?

And your mis-representations about ID?

 

[edwest2]

To tonyrey -

While there are those who are watching to make certain religious beliefs do not enter the science classroom, there are scientists who are explicitly using science to deny God. That is the issue.

When people watch TV and they see a scientist use the same evidence to claim God did not do this or that, what is the public to think? It is one thing to say, “God does not exist” but quite another to say, “Science shows this all happened by itself.”

So when I’m watching a science program and a scientist states that if a planet is a certain distance from its Sun, has water and the ‘building blocks of life’ (amino acids), then life will appear there, this is nothing less than spontaneous generation.

From molecules to human beings. No wonder some people are skeptical of the whole idea.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

So when I’m watching a science program and a scientist states that if a planet is a certain distance from its Sun, has water and the ‘building blocks of life’ (amino acids), then life will appear there, this is nothing less than spontaneous generation.
Peace,Ed

(1) Why is it necessarily spontaneous generation?
(2) If it is spontaneous generation, how is that theologically objectionable?
(3) If it is spontaneous generation, how is it different from Genesis 1:24?

 

[tonyrey]

The opponents of ID believe that nature works infallibly towards goals of which it is entirely ignorant!

Precisely! That is the point I’m making. Is nature aware that it has produced rational beings?

No doubt they regard the survival of life on earth in the face of overwhelming odds and narrow escapes from extinction as satisfactorily explained beyond any shadow of doubt by blind physical necessity.

What makes you think the odds were overwhelming?

Stephen Hawking believes that one of the major factors in the possible scarcity of intelligent life in our galaxy is the high probability of an asteroid or comet colliding with inhabited planets. Add to that the number of narrow escapes from the extinction of life on this planet and the six billion years that it took for life to develop into multicellular organisms…

For them the fact that development has occurred means that it had to occur.
No, it doesn’t mean this – you just made that up.

If you believe development has occurred without divine direction it must be due to physical necessity. What else?

 

[ricmat]

(1) Why is it necessarily spontaneous generation?
(2) If it is spontaneous generation, how is that theologically objectionable?
(3) If it is spontaneous generation, how is it different from Genesis 1:24?

I think a related question can be asked as well.

If indeed spontaneous generation can occur elsewhere, why did such spontaneous generation activity stop on Earth? Why is there only 1 biological tree of life, with one common descendant? Why aren’t there multiple trees, with more being spontaneously generated all the time?

 

[edwest2]

It is different from Genesis because God was not involved. If scientists can say this about other planets then life falls into the same category as star formation.

The problem always occurs when scientists don’t limit themselves to what they know. Speculation is fine and that’s what it is when scientists make such guesses about the formation of life on other worlds. They simply don’t know and to affirm their guess has no basis in fact.

It’s wonderful to imagine life on other worlds, but, at this point, we don’t know. And sending probes to Mars to look is great.

Another thing. Sam Harris has compared actually knowing something to science and “pretending to know something” to religion.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

Nor it it charitable for you and Granny and Tonyrey constantly to be throwing around charges that people who accept modern science are “not Catholic” or are “not Catholic enough.” Perhaps you yourselves are provoking the “blasphemy” charge. It cuts both ways, you know.
Let’s eliminate all uncharitable language and stick with intellectual discussion.

StAnastasia

Please cite the posts in which I have stated that people who accept modern science are “not Catholic” or are “not Catholic enough.” Otherwise it would be reasonable and charitable to withdraw your false allegation.

 

[tonyrey]

While there are those who are watching to make certain religious beliefs do not enter the science classroom, there are scientists who are explicitly using science to deny God. That is the issue.

When people watch TV and they see a scientist use the same evidence to claim God did not do this or that, what is the public to think? It is one thing to say, “God does not exist” but quite another to say, “Science shows this all happened by itself.”

So when I’m watching a science program and a scientist states that if a planet is a certain distance from its Sun, has water and the ‘building blocks of life’ (amino acids), then life will appear there, this is nothing less than spontaneous generation.

From molecules to human beings. No wonder some people are skeptical of the whole idea.

Ed, to remain silent in the presence of false claims about the origin and nature of life is undoubtedly a sin of omission. To mislead children in the classroom is abominable.

 

[ricmat]

Ed, to remain silent in the presence of false claims about the origin and nature of life is undoubtedly a sin of omission. To mislead children in the classroom is abominable.

The more I read these threads, and the more I see on the news and in real life, the more I agree with your statement above.

In the name of tolerance, society has mandated removing the Christian God from the curriculum. It has not boded well for us.

Ironically, since the consecration of Russia in 1984(?), communism has fallen, Eastern Europe is free, and Christianity is officially taught in Russian schools.

A number of people (St. Athanasius? Dostoyevsky?) have made the comment “Without God anything is possible.” Indeed it is. “Without God” - the original sin. THAT decision sure opened a lot of doors didn’t it?

 

[tonyrey]

The more I read these threads, and the more I see on the news and in real life, the more I agree with your statement above.

In the name of tolerance, society has mandated removing the Christian God from the curriculum. It has not boded well for us.

Ironically, since the consecration of Russia in 1984(?), communism has fallen, Eastern Europe is free, and Christianity is officially taught in Russian schools.

A number of people (St. Athanasius? Dostoyevsky?) have made the comment “Without God anything is possible.” Indeed it is. “Without God” - the original sin. THAT decision sure opened a lot of doors didn’t it?

In the UK the secular society is becoming increasingly intolerant of Christian beliefs and values under the pretext of human rights! The pseudo-scientific propaganda of Richard Dawkins gives you a good idea of its pernicious influence on the majority who now regard religion as outdated superstition.

 

[StAnastasia]

I think a related question can be asked as well. If indeed spontaneous generation can occur elsewhere, why did such spontaneous generation activity stop on Earth? Why is there only 1 biological tree of life, with one common descendant? Why aren’t there multiple trees, with more being spontaneously generated all the time?

Ricmat, I asked a couple of our staff scientists (one a biologist and the other a geologist). Their answer:

Imagine opening a big-box retail chain to compete with WalMart in the same town. The answer is that you don’t do that because you CANNOT make that work, you cannot compete with something as dominant as WalMart. It snuffs all competition. Likewise, once our successful form of life (our chirality form) began to take off, it quickly consumed and crowded out all available niches. (“A chiral molecule is a type of molecule that lacks an internal plane of symmetry and thus has a non-superposable mirror image.”) There is nothing to say we had to have a particular orientation–nature makes both forms. But all living things (that we know of) use the same chiral forms.

I asked them: “Does that mean we cannot test for continuing instances of spontaneous generation?”

Their Answer:

“We can indeed test, but it would be a one-in-a-trillion find. I mean, who’s to say that of all the bacteria in the world today there is not one that started from a more recent origin of life? We have no idea even the order of magnitude of how many types of bacteria there are, most having never been studied or named much less sequence.”

 

[StAnastasia]

It is different from Genesis because God was not involved. If scientists can say this about other planets then life falls into the same category as star formation.Peace,Ed

Why do you assume God would not be involved in the spontaneous generation on anther suitable planet?

 

[tonyrey]

It is those who believe Fibrodisplaysia occificans progressiva

I am referring to the view of those who reject Design. How is God related to your scheme of things?

So in your philosophy, is God or the intelligent designer only responsible for the felicitous things, and not the infelicitous ones? Did God design butterflies, eyeballs, mitochondria, and flagellae, but take a vacation when it comes to Lou Gehrig’s Disease or Fibrodisplaysia occificans progressiva? In other words, is there any intellectual consistency at all to your world view, or is it largely haphazard?

I have already pointed out that the existence of dysteleology occurs within the framework of teleology just as the element of chance operates within the framework of Design. I leave you to work out which is preponderant…

God knows the drawbacks of a physical universe but permits them because they are far outweighed by the immense value of life. Do you disagree with Him?

 

[StAnastasia]

Ricmat, I asked a couple of our staff scientists (one a biologist and the other a geologist). Their answer:"

I passed your question around the department, and another answer from one of my scientist colleagues:

“If the person asking were serious, and deserved a serious answer, I’d note that modern life is highly derived, and far more efficient than any protolife would be. Thus, even if conditions conducive to a new origin of life existed on earth, it’d be outcompeted or eaten fairly rapidly by extant life. I’d be surprised if there weren’t multiple early origins of life, but intense competition between them would drive all but one extinct, or result in their merging into a single lineage.”

 

[rossum]

I think a related question can be asked as well.

If indeed spontaneous generation can occur elsewhere, why did such spontaneous generation activity stop on Earth? Why is there only 1 biological tree of life, with one common descendant? Why aren’t there multiple trees, with more being spontaneously generated all the time?

There are two obvious reasons.

First, any new proto life will be recognised by existing life as food. How much chance does a helpless newborn have against a hungry adult tiger? Existing life has evolved many very effective means of predation over time. New life will not have had time to evolve any defences. Mmmm… tasty.

Second, life on Earth developed in a reducing atmosphere. Ever since the Oxygen Catastrophe the Earth has had an oxidising atmosphere. The chemistry of an oxidising atmosphere is not suitable for the kinds of processes that initially produced life.

rossum