A
adrian1
Guest
Arguments against “primordial soup”
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
Wesrock
Guest
You don’t need to deny a “primordial soup” to be Catholic. But if you still want arguments I’ll leave that for others to give.
R
RKS89
Guest
A scientist comes to God and says “Hey, we’ve done it! We can finally create life, just like you!”
“Interesting,” God says. “Explain the process to me.” So the scientist, rather smugly, divulges the technique using all sorts of jargon. He’s quite pleased with himself. God nods at the explanation and says, “Show me.”
The scientists begins to fill a beaker with dirt, at which point God stops him. “Get your own dirt.”
In other words, who made that soup?
“Interesting,” God says. “Explain the process to me.” So the scientist, rather smugly, divulges the technique using all sorts of jargon. He’s quite pleased with himself. God nods at the explanation and says, “Show me.”
The scientists begins to fill a beaker with dirt, at which point God stops him. “Get your own dirt.”
In other words, who made that soup?
P
PetraG
Guest
This is a pretty good one, but possibly not the one being looked for here:
This is science, not philosophy. Major scientific contributions are not made by shooting down proposals (as indispensible to the scientific method as that is, don’t get me wrong!) but by proposing better and better possible mechanisms by which something could have happened or could be happening. It is in figuring out mechanisms that science gets the understanding of how the natural world works to the point that predictions can be made–and the power to predict is what the activity of science is all about.
It is not atheistic nor arrogant to be a scientist. Rather, in my opinion it takes a lack of faith to be afraid to look at how things happen or afraid to believe that God made the universe intelligible to the race to whom He gave dominion. One must not limit how God chose to bring things about and one must also not grow too fond of past views of how things are. God knows all and we don’t, but God set things up so we could learn the divine laws of nature that govern nature by really looking at God’s creation carefully and with imagination.
Notice the debate about abiogenesis couldn’t go forward unless scientists were willing to question the current working hypothesis. You don’t learn anything new about nature unless you keep an open mind. It is a handicap to be too attached to either proving or disproving some particular hypothesis. You never, however, have to worry that anyone will ever prove that creation was not brought about by the wisdom of God. Science cannot put God to the test and science cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of God, nor limit how the hand of Divine Providence artfully sculpted the rules governing reality itself.
There are no fewer than 7 current hypotheses of abiogenesis (the origin of life) flying around. There are physicists (not philosophers, mind you, but physicists) who believe that the eventual blooming of life somewhere in the universe was inevitably coded ifrom the beginning into the laws fof physics–that is, that life is not mathematically implausible, but (once you understand the physical boundary conditions) mathematically inevitable: a done deal from Day 1. We realize the Author did not have to wait around to find out when and where His commands would lead. No one really understands natural consequences except God.
God obviously chose to infuse the physical world with life. It is an open question whether God chose to leave evidence of just how God chose to do that. Maybe it was a supernatural act that left no physical trace–what we would call a miracle–but perhaps it was one of the acts of Providence that were built into the fabric of creation from the beginning. That doesn’t make it less of a miracle. There is nothing more supernatural than the workings of nature itself.
This is science, not philosophy. Major scientific contributions are not made by shooting down proposals (as indispensible to the scientific method as that is, don’t get me wrong!) but by proposing better and better possible mechanisms by which something could have happened or could be happening. It is in figuring out mechanisms that science gets the understanding of how the natural world works to the point that predictions can be made–and the power to predict is what the activity of science is all about.
It is not atheistic nor arrogant to be a scientist. Rather, in my opinion it takes a lack of faith to be afraid to look at how things happen or afraid to believe that God made the universe intelligible to the race to whom He gave dominion. One must not limit how God chose to bring things about and one must also not grow too fond of past views of how things are. God knows all and we don’t, but God set things up so we could learn the divine laws of nature that govern nature by really looking at God’s creation carefully and with imagination.
Notice the debate about abiogenesis couldn’t go forward unless scientists were willing to question the current working hypothesis. You don’t learn anything new about nature unless you keep an open mind. It is a handicap to be too attached to either proving or disproving some particular hypothesis. You never, however, have to worry that anyone will ever prove that creation was not brought about by the wisdom of God. Science cannot put God to the test and science cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of God, nor limit how the hand of Divine Providence artfully sculpted the rules governing reality itself.
There are no fewer than 7 current hypotheses of abiogenesis (the origin of life) flying around. There are physicists (not philosophers, mind you, but physicists) who believe that the eventual blooming of life somewhere in the universe was inevitably coded ifrom the beginning into the laws fof physics–that is, that life is not mathematically implausible, but (once you understand the physical boundary conditions) mathematically inevitable: a done deal from Day 1. We realize the Author did not have to wait around to find out when and where His commands would lead. No one really understands natural consequences except God.
God obviously chose to infuse the physical world with life. It is an open question whether God chose to leave evidence of just how God chose to do that. Maybe it was a supernatural act that left no physical trace–what we would call a miracle–but perhaps it was one of the acts of Providence that were built into the fabric of creation from the beginning. That doesn’t make it less of a miracle. There is nothing more supernatural than the workings of nature itself.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.