Request for Scientific Review

[tonyrey]

Please put “Catholics do not believe God caused the Big Bang and then left things to run by themselves, taking no further interest in the proceedings.” into a positive statement. Catholics believe in what kind of interest? active? sustaining? continuum of creative power? I am not interested in God’s interest as being a “god of the gaps”.

Neither am I! I was dealing with the topic of RNA rather than the extent of God’s intervention in human affairs.

Wouldn’t God’s “further interest” exist objectively whether or not science could explain the phenomenon?

Certainly. Revelation, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Redemption, the history of the Church, the Sacraments, the lives of the Saints, miracles and answers to prayer are all signs of God’s love for us.

I am looking forward to the day when Catholics can figure out that the human person is top priority in the Genesis account of creation.

Which Catholics do not?

 

[grannymh]

You mean God specifically performed miracles in the course of evolution? I don’t see why Catholic theology would require it. God designed the laws of nature, anything that they produce is of God’s design.

---

Well, the main difference between the deist and the theist view isn’t really in whether God miraculously intervened (in addition to creating the world) to create things like RNA.

Apparently, the time has come for me to pay attention to this deist vs. theist thingy.
While I am waiting for a reply to post 19, allow me to offer some observations from my own review of natural science.

In general, there is no “course of evolution” in the general or universal sense. As a theory, it is applied to a wide variety of living organisms through the means of research based on scientific principles, methods and materials. For the most part, it is not concerned with the point of origin of life or abiogenesis. Nonetheless, many have offered theories. Look up primordial soup in Wikipedia.

I apologize if I am wrong. But it seems to me that a few creationists are trying to fit God into a picture which accounts for the past actions in* Genesis* and at the same time accounts for changes or development or adaptations which produced today’s living organisms, including non-human animals and the human species which is different in kind from all other creatures. The idea of miracle intervention does not make sense to me. Thus, I am wondering if it is just a derogatory remark aimed at creationists.

You mentioned “Catholic theology”. The problem is that Catholic theology resides in the realm of faith and morals and not in the scientific realm. Of course, any Catholic, including the Pope, can offer informed opinions about how the world knit itself together. Plus, there are many Catholics gifted with scientific and analytic talents.

As a dreamer, I would offer that the theist turn to Thomistic philosophy as a way of accounting for both Genesis and today. My dream would continue in that Catholics would actually make the effort to understand Church teaching. Before waking, I would delight in the dream that scientists would accept the fact that human nature is spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul/body.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

Neither am I! I was dealing with the topic of RNA rather than the extent of God’s intervention in human affairs.

O.K. But I am still looking for a positive statement.

Certainly. Revelation, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Redemption, the history of the Church, the Sacraments, the lives of the Saints, miracles and answers to prayer are all signs of God’s love for us.

My intention was to look at God’s further interest and the Big Bang as part of the natural world which can be explained or at least examined by scientists

Granny often comments: I am looking forward to the day when Catholics can figure out that the human person is top priority in the Genesis account of creation.

Which Catholics do not?

Obviously, according to forum rules, I cannot talk about others.
As my Irish mother would say: “Even the worst of us can serve as a good example.”

Blessings,
granny

The human person is the apple of God’s eye.

 

[flyingfish]

I apologize if I am wrong. But it seems to me that a few creationists are trying to fit God into a picture which accounts for the past actions in* Genesis* and at the same time accounts for changes or development or adaptations which produced today’s living organisms, including non-human animals and the human species which is different in kind from all other creatures. The idea of miracle intervention does not make sense to me. Thus, I am wondering if it is just a derogatory remark aimed at creationists.

If you’re asking if I intended to make a derogatory remark, the answer is no.

Catholics believe that God created the laws of nature, whether that is all he did when it comes to the mechanism of evolution is at question. Does God then intervene in nature (via miracle) or was everything pre-planned?

The poster I was responding to seems to think that God had to have intervened miraculously (like say controlling which mutations happen, or what gets selected for), because he thinks otherwise would be deism.

I don’t agree. God doesn’t have to miraculously intervene in every little thing for you not to be a deist, it’s sufficient that God intervenes in some but not all things.

ng. Before waking, I would delight in the dream that scientists would accept the fact that human nature is spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul/body.

I think you would have trouble convincing scientist that we have a dual nature.

 

[grannymh]

If you’re asking if I intended to make a derogatory remark, the answer is no.

I knew that was not your remark. Frankly, I never paid much attention to the “god of the gap” thing until something I read pointed out its bad points.

Catholics believe that God created the laws of nature, whether that is all he did when it comes to the mechanism of evolution is at question. Does God then intervene in nature (via miracle) or was everything pre-planned?

The poster I was responding to seems to think that God had to have intervened miraculously (like say controlling which mutations happen, or what gets selected for), because he thinks otherwise would be deism.

I don’t agree. God doesn’t have to miraculously intervene in every little thing for you not to be a deist, it’s sufficient that God intervenes in some but not all things.

Dang! I still feel that something is missing. Like the Third Ingredient. My hunch is that there is a missing descriptive term which should replace “intervene”. Where or where is the old-time Thomistic philosopher?

I think you would have trouble convincing scientist that we have a dual nature.

The scientific philosophy, that reality is material, is unable to address the total reality of human nature. Consequently, all living species would appear to follow the general principle of descent from the first material forms of life. Instead of expanding the general view to include both the material and non-material reality of humanity, the spiritual uniqueness of the human species was eliminated.

By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent. Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of spiritual existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

In my humble opinion, one can present a very strong case for the immaterial/spiritual aspect of the one unified nature of a person. One doesn’t have to beat materialism to the ground. One should respect its place in natural science and then go freely beyond the material to the immaterial.

Actually, my approach would be to request a scientific review of all methods and materials used in research – similar to the OP.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[flyingfish]

Dang! I still feel that something is missing. Like the Third Ingredient. My hunch is that there is a missing descriptive term which should replace “intervene”. Where or where is the old-time Thomistic philosopher?

Sustains, maybe?

The scientific philosophy, that reality is material, is unable to address the total reality of human nature. Consequently, all living species would appear to follow the general principle of descent from the first material forms of life. Instead of expanding the general view to include both the material and non-material reality of humanity, the spiritual uniqueness of the human species was eliminated.

Well, if the immaterial interacts with the material then it should be indirectly observable (such as if my coffee cup suddenly floated up, in apparent defiance of the law of gravity, or if natural physical direction of brain processes were altered by the soul). If it doesn’t interact, then it might well not be there.

 

[grannymh]

Gentlemen (or Ladies!)

I greatly appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, and understood all of it. It seems that the article might have too many logical flaws to be really useful. I will have to cogitate on this idea some more.

Would it somehow change things if we found that life in the universe is common? If it’s common, then you have many “unrealistic” probabilities occurring, instead of just the one ad-hoc probablility (Earth) that has been observed.

By the way, DysonSphere, I had the great pleasure of actually having dinner with Freeman Dyson back in the late 1980s. He and my father (an astrophysicist) had some mutual interests for a while.

God Bless,

In my humble opinion, what would change things is if the starting point for considering probabilities and logical flaws were transferred to the origin of the human species. The ultimate complexity is human nature. Adam and Eve are the prime example of new life [immaterial/spiritual] coming out of nowhere. Recognizing the spiritual in our own nature brings us back to the question of our personal abiogenesis and the original argument of probability.

Because I believe that Adam and Eve’s human nature should be the starting point for the non-life/life issue, would it be possible to say that an argument of probabilities for polygenism cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of two sole parents of the entire human species, i.e., monogenism? Or would the logical flaw be the misapplication of the induction method? As you can tell, I am struggling with this because my gut instinct is that there is some kind of flaw in the methods and materials of current research. However, I am very concerned that threads and posts facing some of the particular issues head-on would come under the temporary ban http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/sticky.gif Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads

My two threads which were in place before the ban were closed when the ban went into effect. Nonetheless, I continue to defend the reality of Adam and Eve based on Catholic teaching.
I would like to add mathematics.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

Sustains, maybe?

These are for you. :flowers:
I checked the dictionary and that is the word. “To keep in existence; maintain.” In my mind, that sounds like the best word to replace intervene. The consistency of sustains is soothing. I shall write it on a post-it note and stick it to my forehead.

Well, if the immaterial interacts with the material then it should be indirectly observable (such as if my coffee cup suddenly floated up, in apparent defiance of the law of gravity, or if natural physical direction of brain processes were altered by the soul). If it doesn’t interact, then it might well not be there.

Discussing indirectly observable immaterial interactions can be great fun especially with an atheist who has a good sense of humor. However, such a discussion would be off topic on this thread. Also, I would be worried that some of my examples would not be in compliance with the ban at the top of this forum.
Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[rossum]

If you’re asking if I intended to make a derogatory remark, the answer is no.

Catholics believe that God created the laws of nature, whether that is all he did when it comes to the mechanism of evolution is at question. Does God then intervene in nature (via miracle) or was everything pre-planned?

The poster I was responding to seems to think that God had to have intervened miraculously (like say controlling which mutations happen, or what gets selected for), because he thinks otherwise would be deism.

I don’t agree. God doesn’t have to miraculously intervene in every little thing for you not to be a deist, it’s sufficient that God intervenes in some but not all things.

I sometimes use the simile of two pool players. The first player strikes the cue ball but has to intervene part-way through the shot to nudge the cue ball back onto the correct line in order to get the required result. The second player makes the shot perfectly from the start and so has no need to nudge anything at any stage through the shot. Both players get the required result but the second player is the better player.

The ID God is like the first player, having to nudge things in the right direction. A God who got things perfectly right from the start seems to me to be more like the Christian God. An omnimax God would not make errors that needed correcting later.

$0.02

rossum

 

[grannymh]

I sometimes use the simile of two pool players. The first player strikes the cue ball but has to intervene part-way through the shot to nudge the cue ball back onto the correct line in order to get the required result. The second player makes the shot perfectly from the start and so has no need to nudge anything at any stage through the shot. Both players get the required result but the second player is the better player.

The ID God is like the first player, having to nudge things in the right direction. A God who got things perfectly right from the start seems to me to be more like the Christian God. An omnimax God would not make errors that needed correcting later.

$0.02

rossum

My vote is for the second player. He has the ability to sustain the momentum of the ball in the right direction.

 

[Black_Rose]

nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html

The last part of what I quoted shows that scientists who doubt the RNA hypothesis, hold views about how life originated from basic chemicals that eventually led to RNA. They don’t think God had to personally interfere.

I looked into this for a few hours…

Unfortunately, I do not have access to the Sutherland (2009) paper since it is published in Nature, but I would want to see it for curiosity. I am somewhat interested in the origin life as a leisure interest since it poses profound chemical questions about the nature of our existence. Again, I do not believe that RNA could form on its own too, but I want to see the paper to demonstrate that I am wrong.

The abstract reveals:

Here we show that activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides can be formed in a short sequence that bypasses free ribose and the nucleobases, and instead proceeds through arabinose amino-oxazoline and anhydronucleoside intermediates. The starting materials for the synthesis—cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde and inorganic phosphate—are plausible prebiotic feedstock molecules

And Carl Zimmer posted the series of reactions from Powner and Sutherland (2009) that produces cytidine nucleotides. The synthesis is impressive since it circumvents the need for a pyrimidine nucleobase intermediate and ribose.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/files/2009/05/rna-roadmap600.jpg

Regarding one reagent, cyanoacetylene (7), Shapiro writes in a 1999 review paper about the prebiotic synthesis of cytosine. Shapiro points out that cyanoacetylene undergoes rapid hydrolysis, producing cyanoacetylaldehyde (5), which would provide an obstacle for this reaction series. Furthermore, other prebiotic molecules also react with cyanoacetylene.

Questions arise, however, concerning the availability of the reactants on early Earth. Cyanoacetylene can be produced in a spark discharge in a CH4/N2 mixture as the second most prevalent product (up to a maximum of 8.4% of the principal product, HCN) (23, 24). This mixture, which introduces carbon in reduced form but excludes ammonia and water, is an unlikely candidate for Earth’s atmosphere at the time of the origin of life. That atmosphere was “… probably dominated by CO2 and N2, with traces of CO, H2, and reduced sulfur gases”, unless a volcanic source of methane and ammonia was present (25). By contrast, when ammonia (24) or hydrogen sulfide (26) are included in spark discharge experiments, little cyanoacetylene is produced. The aspartic acid and asparagine that are formed under those conditions arise to some extent from the reaction of cyanoacetylene with HCN and ammonia (27).

An extensive solution chemistry for cyanoacetylene with simple nucleophiles has been recorded. Ammonia (28), amines (29–30), thiols (31), HCN (32), and “the commonly used alkaline buffers” (23), react rapidly at room temperature or lower with cyanoacetylene. In certain cases, e.g., the reaction of cyanoacetylene with phosphate, the product hydrolyzes to afford cyanoacetaldehyde (Fig. 1, IV) (33). But for many reactions of cyanoacetylene, the products appear stable or react further to afford further transformation products. The rates of reaction of cyanoacetylene with simple nucleophiles appear more rapid than its reaction with cyanate, but no direct competition experiments have been reported. In the absence of other nucleophiles, cyanoacetylene is hydrolyzed by water to cyanoacetaldehyde. The half-life at pH 9 and 30°C has been estimated as about 11 days (0.03 yr) (34).

pnas.org/content/96/8/4396.full

In Shapiro (1999), he critiques the plausibility of a reaction that produces cytosine, utilizing cyanoacetylaldehyde and urea (6). Shapiro might also point out that the synthesis might not be plausible since cyanamide (8) undergoes hydrolysis to urea, but this would depend on the half-life of cyanamide in water.

 

[Black_Rose]

The last part of what I quoted shows that scientists who doubt the RNA hypothesis, hold views about how life originated from basic chemicals that eventually led to RNA. They don’t think God had to personally interfere

Shapiro, if I remember correctly, is an agnostic. Shapiro does not use his critiques for the RNA scenario to support any deity much less a “personal god”, instead, he points out what he perceives to be flaws in the RNA world hypothesis and presents an alternative theory based on metabolism not a nucleic acid-based replicator.

Dear Mr. Evans,

I felt that Professor Behe’s book has done a better job of explaining existing science than others of its kind. I agree with him that conventional scientific origin-of-life theory is deeply flawed. I disagreed with him about the idea that one needed to invoke intelligent designer or a supernatural cause to find an answer. I do not support intelligent design theories. I believe that better science will provide the needed answers.

Sincerely yours, Robert Shapiro

pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/robert-shapiro.html

As for me, I posted this earlier, arguing that God’s contemporary identity is linked to his benevolence, not his role as a creator, but as a loving deity:

The success of naturalism meant that if one consigned God to the domain of what cannot be explained through science, then intelligent scientists, driven by their inexorable curiosity, faith in rational and empirical inquiry, and the desire for approval from their peers and reputation, would slowly usurp power from God by progressively explaining away the mysterious, replacing it with scientific comprehension. Some might infer, due to the success of the scientific method, that God is an extraneous, unnecessary hypothesis, vulnerable to excision by Occam’s razor for the sake of parsimony. In this case, religion and science would be competitors struggling to occupy same niche, where only dominance by one party precludes the accommodation of the other.

Because of the success of naturalistic/materialistic paradigm in explaining historical events through natural causation, there is no compelling reason for one support the hypothesis of God’s creative role. Thus, God would no longer be identified as an active creator, although his creative activities can still be understood in a laissez-faire context. For instance, God could create the universe through the Big Bang, and allow understood processes of stellar evolution take over…

While God might not play a prominent role in natural history, science does not encroach on God’s role in salvation history. A literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, of course, would be at odds with the orthodox scientific views of human origins, endangering the doctrine of original sin and the subsequent need for a savior. In salvation history, God cannot play a passive laissez-faire role since he must interact with his creation, apprising them of his identity and relationship to his creation and interacting with them spiritually, if not materially to forge a meaningful partnership and fellowship with them. In this context, God’s identity would not be tied to his role as a creator, but with other attributes such as benevolence and mercy. Unlike the definition of God in the Enlightenment’s intellectual culture, the contemporary concept of God is inextricably linked a merciful, benevolent, and personal natural with the definition of God. A negation of these characteristics would then be the negation of the concept of God itself.

A common and simple argument against the existence of a personal God involves the incompatibility of one’s observations of the world and God’s attributes. It would seem that God’s omnibenevolence and omnipotence are incongruent with the ubiquitous, immense suffering prevalent in the human condition. This latter refers to the Epicurean paradox, a deductive argument demonstrating the impossibility of a benevolent and omnipotent deity who permits suffering, because it is assumed that suffering cannot co-exist with a benevolent, omnipotent deity, since its benevolence would compel its omnipotence to ameliorate suffering. The person invoking the “problem of evil” argument could then interpret the existence of evil as the absence of God’s mercy and a contradiction of his benevolent nature.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=451143

I do not know if there could be any empirical evidence that would convince one of God’s existence.

To illustrate this point, let’s just say for the sake of the argument that I have irrefutable evidence against a naturalistic origin of life or that a deity intervened to create this universe. If we assume that premise, what does this tell us about the nature of such a deity? Would such a deity be willing to humbly live with his creation and empathize with their suffering or live detached from them unconcerned with their spiritual or physical welfare? Would such a God contravene any natural laws he set up for the sake of showing mercy to his creation as he did with the Virgin Birth or interact with the world? Does such a God love us or do anything that would be worth our veneration? Remember, that during the Enlightenment that deism was quite popular among intellectuals who prided themselves relying on their senses and intellect to guide their lives, not the stale tradition of the ecclesia and clergy that would trammel on their “freedom”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=442369

 

[tonyrey]

The extent of God’s intervention in human affairs.
O.K. But I am still looking for a positive statement.

Certainly. Revelation, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Redemption, the history of the Church, the Sacraments, the lives of the Saints, miracles and answers to prayer are all signs of God’s love for us.
My intention was to look at God’s further interest and the Big Bang as part of the natural world which can be explained or at least examined by scientists

I’m baffled! Are you asking for evidence of God’s activity related to the Big Bang that can be
explained/examined by scientists? If so the answer is that God’s activity is intangible and scientically unobservable. There is however plenty of evidence of Design related to living organisms and the fittingness of the environment.

I am looking forward to the day when Catholics can figure out that the human person is top priority in the Genesis account of creation.

Which Catholics do not?
Obviously, according to forum rules, I cannot talk about others.

I do not mean specific individuals but which category of Catholics. I assume, for example, that Creationists are not guilty of devaluing persons!

 

[grannymh]

As for me, I posted this earlier, arguing that God’s contemporary identity is linked to his benevolence, not his role as a creator, but as a loving deity.

Regardless of how humans identify God, the foundational issue is God’s existence as a spiritual being or one might say as a supernatural being in that God’s being transcends all nature.

Humans can identify a spiritual existence within their own nature by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. In my humble opinion, the mathematical probabilities, as described and questioned in the OP, can be adapted for use in verifying the spiritual functions of human nature.

A few human functions which are attributed to the existence of the spiritual have received some scientific review. Despite media hype, the underlying observation in the research papers is that the spiritual or immaterial elements as described by Catholicism, not Descartes, cannot be replaced by material anatomy as the sole cause.

In other words, it would be most interesting if the OP transferred the idea of probability to human nature.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

I’m baffled! Are you asking for evidence of God’s activity related to the Big Bang that can be
explained/examined by scientists? If so the answer is that God’s activity is intangible and scientically unobservable. There is however plenty of evidence of Design related to living organisms and the fittingness of the environment.

Please forget my original request.

I do not mean specific individuals but which category of Catholics. I assume, for example, that Creationists are not guilty of devaluing persons!

Personally, my goal is to treat posters as individuals and not as belonging to some kind of category.
As for the assumption regarding Creationists – no comment.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16 & 17

 

[flyingfish]

I looked into this for a few hours…

Unfortunately, I do not have access to the Sutherland (2009) paper since it is published in Nature, but I would want to see it for curiosity. I am somewhat interested in the origin life as a leisure interest since it poses profound chemical questions about the nature of our existence. Again, I do not believe that RNA could form on its own too, but I want to see the paper to demonstrate that I am wrong.

Well, I linked you a report of a paper where they formed all the building blocks of RNA and said they can string the nucleotides together once they have formed. Of course any such endeavor is going to have critics, even if they have RNA form from scratch, people could always question whether this was the early earth environment after all.

But to me personally it just doesn’t seem so implausible that RNA should form, after all, RNA did form. What is more likely, that it formed on its own, or that there is a very powerful being that personally stuck the molecules together?

If you’re interested you could probably go to a university library or a big bookstore and read the paper there.

 

[grannymh]

Well, I linked you a report of a paper where they formed all the building blocks of RNA and said they can string the nucleotides together once they have formed. Of course any such endeavor is going to have critics, even if they have RNA form from scratch, people could always question whether this was the early earth environment after all.

But to me personally it just doesn’t seem so implausible that RNA should form, after all, RNA did form. What is more likely, that it formed on its own, or that there is a very powerful being that personally stuck the molecules together?

If you’re interested you could probably go to a university library or a big bookstore and read the paper there.

Once upon a time, I wondered if all these “building blocks” leading to life formed at only one spot on earth or was the same process occurring at a variety of places. If RNA can be formed currently, does that mean that RNA can have formed at any point in the last 60 million years? Should I go back to wondering if it was a process duplicated all over the green earth?

 

[flyingfish]

Once upon a time, I wondered if all these “building blocks” leading to life formed at only one spot on earth or was the same process occurring at a variety of places. If RNA can be formed currently, does that mean that RNA can have formed at any point in the last 60 million years? Should I go back to wondering if it was a process duplicated all over the green earth?

The study was specific to the early earth environment which scientists painstakingly replicated in a lab. In the last 60 million years very different conditions have held. I’m not a chemist or a biologist, but for example living organisms are everywhere now and they might just gobble up any and all unprotected organic matter. There is a lot of oxygen whereas there wasn’t any on the early earth, oxygen reacts readily with organic molecules and so on.

Early on, once anything that could replicate itself using widely available building blocks formed, it would have spread like fire and been subject to natural selection from then on. Even if the process of forming RNA from scratch was going on, at some point it wouldn’t have been able to compete with say RNA in cell walls etc.

 

[grannymh]

The study was specific to the early earth environment which scientists painstakingly replicated in a lab. In the last 60 million years very different conditions have held. I’m not a chemist or a biologist, but for example living organisms are everywhere now and they might just gobble up any and all unprotected organic matter. There is a lot of oxygen whereas there wasn’t any on the early earth, oxygen reacts readily with organic molecules and so on.

Early on, once anything that could replicate itself using widely available building blocks formed, it would have spread like fire and been subject to natural selection from then on. Even if the process of forming RNA from scratch was going on, at some point it wouldn’t have been able to compete with say RNA in cell walls etc.

Thanks for another piece of information. In the short time, I’ve been on CAF, I have learned quite a bit. Fascinating! By the way, I can easily accept evolutionary theories except those in regard to human nature. Not only do I draw the line, I am the line.

 

[flyingfish]

Thanks for another piece of information. In the short time, I’ve been on CAF, I have learned quite a bit. Fascinating! By the way, I can easily accept evolutionary theories except those in regard to human nature. Not only do I draw the line, I am the line.

You don’t even have to draw that line since you believe in the soul. You can say the human body/brain evolved just like everything else, but God especially created our souls.