Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?
- Status
W
Wozza
Guest
So you are saying that if we don’t know how a process occured, in a scientific sense (planets, lightning etc) then that process can be describes as supernatural?Wozza:
One speaks to high probability events occurring (given known (name removed by moderator)uts). We know how planets form, given existing cosmic environments. We know what forces cause earthquakes and other phenomena. However, what we don’t know is whether abiogenesis occurs. Extrapolating from an unknown, using vectors from known phenomena, leads to interesting thought experiments… but I’m not sure that I’d say that it produces valid results.
Another way of saying this is that we have no “natural process” of abiogenesis that we can point to, right? We essentially are in the situation of saying “if it works like this, then we should expect to see that result elsewhere.” And, following Fermi… we don’t, do we?
Abject nonsense.
There was a time when we didn’t know how planets formed. So was it supernatural? No. We just didn’t have the evidence available to know the natural causes.
God of the gaps yet again.
W
Wozza
Guest
Ah yes. There must be a good reason. So we should rejoice in evil events because they must lead to the greater good. Otherwise…?STT:
And there is the assumption, that it is for no reason.
We have to justify that claim first before we jump to any conclusions. How could we possibly know that it’s for no good reason?
I
IWantGod
Guest
Good and evil would have no objective meaning otherwise. So if we are going to entertain their existence we have no choice but to assume that God has good reasons for allowing evil to exist. We can’t have it both ways. We cannot say that some actions are truly evil and at the same time say that God is wrong because wrong can only exist if there is really such a thing right, and selfishness can only be an act if there is really such a thing as an act of love.
The rest is simply a matter of faith, which is not a very popular word in our day and age.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
It is not necessarily a deist view point to think that God created things to act and manifest according to the principles intrinsic to it’s form or nature. It is clear that we live in a natural world, so that alone cannot be the driving principle behind the concept of deism. One can argue for deism, but one can equally argue for the theism of Thomism. The OP states a position that is neutral to both concepts.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
We developed an alphabet, not that words would construct themselves, but to enable us to communicate.
I
IWantGod
Guest
We develop it out of necessity, and the fact that letters don’t arrange themselves according to our intention is due to a limitation in our power. Who is to say that God cannot communicate his intentionality or his eternal telos through the natural order?
You are trying to create reasons not to agree, but is there any good reason to?
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
I have not read recent posts, but I’ll just add that IWantGod is not denying God’s ability to intercede in the natural order or that he has done so. I believe he’s only saying that the abiogenesis model does not remove God from the picture, and that there’s nothing theologically contrary to our theology of God (as insufficient of a box as that is) for God to conserve a natural order that “behaves” in this way.
A
Aloysium
Guest
There are no inherent properties in matter that would naturally lead to the formation of the necessary structures found in a cell. There must be an organizing principle for them to do so. Randomness in the arrangement does not cut it.
And that is purely on a material level. Be aware that you are one being, made up of countless molecules, all dedicated to the expression of the human spirit. So too are animals, plants, and bacteria in their own fashion.
The modern creation myth involving evolution, not to mention biogenesis, is wrong, but believe what you will.
And that is purely on a material level. Be aware that you are one being, made up of countless molecules, all dedicated to the expression of the human spirit. So too are animals, plants, and bacteria in their own fashion.
The modern creation myth involving evolution, not to mention biogenesis, is wrong, but believe what you will.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Says who? We only know that matter has the properties to produce…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
…because we discovered it to be so. There is no deductive reason to think that this would necessarily be an effect in nature, but here it is.
You don’t really have any reason at all to think that matter does not have the potentiality to form a cell.
There seems to be a common thread between you Buffalo and Edwest, and that is the belief that if nature can do it then what need is there for God. And so you are desperate to argue otherwise thinking that you do well for Christianity. But you are playing right into the hands atheism.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Crystal formation is not at issue. Humans can digest sugar crystals. The cell’s machinery is highly complex and guided by instructions. The molecular switches that regulate cell function are not just on and off. They must stay on for a given time and shut off when instructed to do so. The instructions did not write themselves.
I
IWantGod
Guest
If there are instructions in the nature of physical existence this would certainly imply the existence of a creator. But that’s a philosophical matter. It does nothing to change the fact that abiogenesis, if it is true, occurred through natural processes. Abiogensis and theism can be both true, there needn’t be a conflict.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
I wish there wasn’t a conflict. My point is: the Biology textbook is not equal to and cannot include Divine Revelation. So, to just accept it as the whole answer is not correct.
J
John10
Guest
The Catholic Church teaches that we are free to pursue the theory which has the most scientific evidence in regard to evolution vs intelligent design and we would not commit sin.
The only condition set is that we understand two things
1.- God created everything out of nothing.
2.- Our souls were directly created by God and are immortal, as they are immaterial, evolution cannot account for them.
Apart from that we are free to follow the theory which science proves us to be the most convincing.
I
IWantGod
Guest
That’s the way it’s suppose to be. In the biology class we learn about natural processes pertaining to biological activity. God is discussed in philosophy or religious education classes.
I
IWantGod
Guest
What are you talking about. Is this your way of saying that intelligent design should be taught in science class rooms?
T
tafan2
Guest
Yes, and the answer to the OP question (“is there any good reason to think that God didn’t allow complex life to form naturally from chemical interactions?” ) is simple. There is no good reason to think God didn’t allow it, but there is a very good reason to think it did not happen: the current state of science indicates it did not happen. Oh, there are lots of scientists who are working to try to show it could have happened, but they are so far away from anything close to abiogenesis occurring in a controlled lab, that it seems highly impossible in nature.
Last edited:
- Status