The origin of life and creationism

[ribozyme]

sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=B7AABF35-E7F2-99DF-309B8CEF02B5C4D7&pageNumber=4&catID=4

If you want a more rigorous analysis:

crbmb.com/cgi/reprint/39/2/99 (Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World by Leslie Orgel)

and

nautilus.as.arizona.edu/ABMaterial/shapiro-%20rep%20second.pdf (Small Molecule Interactions were Central to the Origin of Life by Robert Shapiro)

So, I suppose some “apologists” were would be happy to point out the flaws in their hypotheses. Does anyone want to try? I have my own opinions on this topic too and I most certainly do not think God was responsible for the origin of life in any way. So anyone want to assert that “God did it?”

I suppose this would be a rather fun topic to discuss.

 

[Della]

Such conclusions tell us nothing about how the universe and all it contains began. It only tells us what we can understand about the processes of the universe. The existence of God is not a question that can be answered by scientific analysis.

 

[Orogeny]

So anyone want to assert that “God did it?”

I suppose this would be a rather fun topic to discuss.

I’ll assert that God did it.

Peace

Tim

 

[ribozyme]

I’ll assert that God did it.

Peace

Tim

That makes a boring discussion. Want to support that assertion with some evidence? (Or at least the lack of scientific evidence for certain origin of life hypotheses).

Come on, I want to discuss the origin of life. I do not like talking about Arthur Jensen, Charles Murray, Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, etc.

 

[Orogeny]

That makes a boring discussion. Want to support that assertion with some evidence? (Or at least the lack of scientific evidence for certain origin of life hypotheses).

Nothing in any scientific experiment has ever shown that God has not been involved in each and every step of creation. My faith holds that He has been. Since I can’t exclude the possiblitiy, I remain true to my faith.

The physical laws that brought the universe into being and the first life to form and evolve are a manifestation of God.

ome on, I want to discuss the origin of life. I do not like talking about Arthur Jensen, Charles Murray, Richard Lynn, etc.

So quit discussing them.

Peace

Tim

 

[Em_in_FL]

Such conclusions tell us nothing about how the universe and all it contains began. It only tells us what we can understand about the processes of the universe. The existence of God is not a question that can be answered by scientific analysis.

Ditto.

The mechanics of HOW it happened doesn’t matter in the least.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m curious what point you’re trying to make here on CAF, ribozyme?

You’re clearly a very bright highschooler… probably taking AP Biology and Chemistry… and you have a huge future of scientific posibilities ahead of you!

But what is your point?
Are you trying to prove a scientific fact?
Are you searching for alternatives?
Why a Catholic forum?.. were you raised Catholic and now can’t reconcile that background with your new knowledge?

I’m just curious, really… not trying to attack you.
What do you gain here?

 

[Nullasalus]

So, I suppose some “apologists” were would be happy to point out the flaws in their hypotheses. Does anyone want to try?

Not really. I accept evolution readily (though the specific transition of ‘non-human’ to ‘modern human’, I find interesting), and a physicalist explanation of the origin of life wouldn’t shake my faith, though it would make me wonder about the possibilities of extraterrestrial life. I’d say that God has created both the system and the materials within the system. If the system does as intended, well, that’s that for me.

I’ve never come across an apologetic work that attacked origin of life models. Though I do find it interesting that Robert Shapiro (The scientist, not the lawyer) dismissed quite a lot of contemporary scientific models as essentially being miracles themselves - and that his preferred hypothesis is also preferred by Freeman Dyson, a self-described Christian.

Though that’s a good question for you. How do you feel about Shapiro arguing that a fairly good chunk of the scientists observing the origin-of-life problem are currently taking a downright unscientific point of view?

 

[WestonGrant]

There have definitely been changes but I’m not a fan of evolution. I think “devolution” would fit the reality better. The original creation was perfect and is degenerating, by and large, ever since. St. Paul seems to hint at it…“the world in its present form is passing away.” (1 Cor 7:31)

And what about things like the Caelocanth and the Alligator that are pretty much EXACTLY like they were millions of years ago? Did the evolution process just bypass them?

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Caelocanth

Scientists seem a little weird on this sometimes, like its their religion. Remember the search for extra-terrestrials? They were looking for proof of intelligence, just looking for something that showed a pattern. They found it…a repeating pattern, a simple wump-wump. They got excited and named it LGM-1 (little green man). Problem? It was a pulsar.

But they were sure open to seeing it as a possible sign of intelligence weren’t they?

Now, turn that telescope into a microscope and look at the incredibly complex language of DNA, and suddenly this most amazing pattern is obviously just the product of random chance…no intelligence, sorry folks just move along…

 

[ribozyme]

Not really. I accept evolution readily (though the specific transition of ‘non-human’ to ‘modern human’, I find interesting), and a physicalist explanation of the origin of life wouldn’t shake my faith, though it would make me wonder about the possibilities of extraterrestrial life. I’d say that God has created both the system and the materials within the system. If the system does as intended, well, that’s that for me.

I’ve never come across an apologetic work that attacked origin of life models. Though I do find it interesting that Robert Shapiro (The scientist, not the lawyer) dismissed quite a lot of contemporary scientific models as essentially being miracles themselves - and that his preferred hypothesis is also preferred by Freeman Dyson, a self-described Christian.

Though that’s a good question for you. How do you feel about Shapiro arguing that a fairly good chunk of the scientists observing the origin-of-life problem are currently taking a downright unscientific point of view?

How do I feel about Robert Shapiro’s position? I already knew about his position before I read the Scientific American article. In fact, Professor Shapiro mailed me two reprints (“Prebiotic ribose synthesis” and “The prebiotic role of adenine”) that I requested via an e-mail correspondence. I have those two papers on PDF now; nevertheless, I appreciated it when Shapiro mailed those papers to my house. Regarding Shapiro’s papers on the origin of life, they are extremely detailed technical demolitions of a nucleic acid first scenario.

I was interested in this topic for about year, and an ARN article about the “RNA World” sparked my interest in the topic. I first attempted to debunk that article, but my biology textbook did not provide any detailed information. Long story short (after reviewing many journal articles and autodidactic instruction to augment a rudimentary understanding of chemistry), I did not debunk it, but I acquired skepticism regarding the RNA world hypothesis too.

I think that approach will lead to a good scientific solution although I do not know how one can get a metabolic cycle from his scheme. (See figure 4 in Small Molecule Interactions). Currently, I think it is apt to call it “paper chemistry” as no experiments have been proposed to test that hypothesis, nor the reactants for a “driver reaction” have been specified.

Is Freeman Dyson a Christian? Do you also think Luboš Motl is a Christian?

 

[Neithan]

You’re a bright kid, but I think you have acquired a serious case of “can’t see the forest for the trees.”

Don’t feel bad though, many brilliant scientists become so enamoured of the tiny details in nature that they lose perspective on the whole picture.

 

[Nullasalus]

How do I feel about Robert Shapiro’s position? I already knew about his position before I read the Scientific American article.

Not his position on the origin of life. His position on what he thinks of RNA World and similar origin of life theories held by a sizable chunk of scientists at this point. He says outright that they’re tantamount to miracles, and are relied on in a ‘If there’s even the slightest chance of this occurring, then it obviously did because we’re here’ way. That doesn’t paint a very flattering picture.

Is Freeman Dyson a Christian? Do you also think Luboš Motl is a Christian?

Check the Wikipedia for yourself - unless something has recently changed, Freeman Dyson considers himself a non-dogmatic christian. Lubos Motl considers himself a christian atheist - which, apparently, is an atheist with a respect for christianity, or at least parts of it.

The point of bringing up Freeman Dyson (I think John Polkinghorne also is friendly to Shapiro’s theory) is that Shapiro’s theory on the origin of life isn’t a christianity-killer. This, far in advance of it being rigorously tested.

Actually, why the search for scientific concepts for ‘apologetics’ to fight anyway? I think it’s been amply demonstrated on this forum that, while there are certainly some christians who are very skeptical of some otherwise strong scientific claims, there are also plenty who welcome scientific discoveries, even about our origins and our minds. It seems like you really want christians to fulfill the atheist stereotype of ‘people who are at war with science’. But it’s simply not the universal case. In fact, some of us think discoveries like these simply bolster the case for God.

 

[ribozyme]

Not his position on the origin of life. His position on what he thinks of RNA World and similar origin of life theories held by a sizable chunk of scientists at this point. He says outright that they’re tantamount to miracles, and are relied on in a ‘If there’s even the slightest chance of this occurring, then it obviously did because we’re here’ way. That doesn’t paint a very flattering picture.

In personal communications about 9 months ago, he agreed the RNA world was akin to a religious faith. He also conveys the same sentiment here: pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/shapiro_on_dbb.html

If you want to know why Professor Shapiro classifies most origin of life hypotheses as miracles, you should attempt to acquire a comprehensive knowledge of the origin of life literature. The PDFs that I posted are excellent primers on origin of life research.

Check the Wikipedia for yourself - unless something has recently changed, Freeman Dyson considers himself a non-dogmatic christian. Lubos Motl considers himself a christian atheist - which, apparently, is an atheist with a respect for christianity, or at least parts of it.

Please define “Christian”. Do you think Dyson is a “Christian” by your definition? I do not think Lubos Motl can be called a “Christian” when we define “Christian” rigorously. Dyson might be a “Christian” in the same context as Professor Motl.

 

[VociMike]

So, I suppose some “apologists” were would be happy to point out the flaws in their hypotheses. Does anyone want to try? I have my own opinions on this topic too and I most certainly do not think God was responsible for the origin of life in any way. So anyone want to assert that “God did it?”

Are you saying that these authors have offered scientific evidence for the non-existence of God? If that is not what you (or they) are saying, then what exactly is it that you want to discuss?

 

[Nullasalus]

If you want to know why Professor Shapiro classifies most origin of life hypotheses as miracles, you should attempt to acquire a comprehensive knowledge of the origin of life literature. The PDFs that I posted is are excellent primers on origin of life research.

You’re still not answering my question, but that’s fine. I know what Shapiro thinks of RNA world and similar origin of life concepts, and what that implies about other scientists who believe in them. That’s a pretty sharp criticism, but I suppose we can leave it at that.

Please define “Christian”. Do you think Dyson is a “Christian” by your definition? I do not think Lubos Motl can be called a “Christian” when we apply define “Christian” rigorously. Dyson might be a “Christian” in the same context as Professor Motl.

And Dyson might not be a “Christian” in the same context as Professor Motl. In fact, he’s likely not, considering he does not profess atheism, and has directly responded to Weinberg’s ‘it takes religion to make good men do evil’ argument with:

“Weinberg’s statement is true as far as it goes, but it is not the whole truth. To make it the whole truth, we must add an additional clause: “And for bad people to do good things—that takes religion.” The main point of Christianity is that it is a religion for sinners. Jesus made that very clear. When the Pharisees asked his disciples, “Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?” he said, “I come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.” Only a small fraction of sinners repent and do good things, but only a small fraction of good people are led by their religion to do bad things.”

Is he a Catholic? Of course not. An orthodox christian? No, as he rejects dogma - if I’m to understand him, he has faith in Christ and Christ’s teachings, but theology and the particulars that come with it don’t engage him. He trusts and leaves that up to God. Obviously, I’d disagree with him on quite some things.

But if you’re trying to insist Freeman Dyson is a christian atheist, I’m sorry, that just seems like a desperate reach to me. From the wikipedia:

“Dyson is a strong opponent of reductionism. He is a non-dogmatic Christian, happy to attend various churches and indifferent to much theology.”

 

[ribozyme]

You’re still not answering my question, but that’s fine. I know what Shapiro thinks of RNA world and similar origin of life concepts, and what that implies about other scientists who believe in them. That’s a pretty sharp criticism, but I suppose we can leave it at that.

I think your original question was: “How do you feel about Shapiro arguing that a fairly good chunk of the scientists observing the origin-of-life problem are currently taking a downright unscientific point of view?”

Well, I agree with Shapiro’s criticisms, and I am able to find some other flaws in the RNA world on my own without his help. I am comfortable with Shapiro’s position, and I do not object when he claims some origin of life hypotheses can be classified as “miracles”.

 

[Nullasalus]

I think your original question was: “How do you feel about Shapiro arguing that a fairly good chunk of the scientists observing the origin-of-life problem are currently taking a downright unscientific point of view?”

Well, I agree with Shapiro’s criticisms, and I am able to find some other flaws in the RNA world on my own without his help. I am comfortable with Shapiro’s position, and I do not object when he claims some origin of life hypotheses can be classified as “miracles”.

Fair enough. All that I find interesting about it is it, if nothing else, proves that even materialist, purely scientific people can come to believe in miracles - especially if they need a materialist miracle to diminish another view they don’t really welcome.

Mind you, I say this knowing that I’ll welcome Shapiro’s theory if it turns out to be demonstrable - though he insists that it’s not important to make it demonstrable with any past condition of life. I don’t think even an ultimately correct Shapiro would do much damage to the concept of a creator and intelligence behind our universe, which really is the issue.

Incidentally, you may want to read up on Andre Linde some more. I’ve seen him quoted as believing particles may have consciousness, and consciousness may be a fundamental force of the universe. And Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment in QM has been actually performed in the laboratory. It’s an interesting day for determinism and materialism.

 

[rossum]

Nothing in any scientific experiment has ever shown that God has not been involved in each and every step of creation.

The title of ths thread is “The origin of life and creationism”. Creationists, whether of the YEC variety or of the TE variety have as much, if not more, of a problem with the origin of life than non-theists. I am not saying that there are no problems with abiogenesis but at least there is the possibility of coming up with a reasonable explanation from one or other of the various ideas currently being pursued. The description in Genesis, whether literal of figurative, is not of God creating the first living thing, but of God creating the second living thing. Saying “God did it” is not a solution to the problem of the origin of the first living thing.

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

The title of ths thread is “The origin of life and creationism”. Creationists, whether of the YEC variety or of the TE variety have as much, if not more, of a problem with the origin of life than non-theists.

Of course. No argument from me.

I am not saying that there are no problems with abiogenesis but at least there is the possibility of coming up with a reasonable explanation from one or other of the various ideas currently being pursued.

I think that it is rather likely that at some point, we will find that explanation. That would not exclude the role God plays in creation, though.

The description in Genesis, whether literal of figurative, is not of God creating the first living thing, but of God creating the second living thing. Saying “God did it” is not a solution to the problem of the origin of the first living thing.

I was responding to ribozyme’s original post. I do believe that God did it, but I understand that that isn’t a scientific answer and I wouldn’t put it forth as one. Regardless, the articles ribozyme linked to do not exclude the action of God in the origin of life.

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

I was responding to ribozyme’s original post. I do believe that God did it, but I understand that that isn’t a scientific answer and I wouldn’t put it forth as one. Regardless, the articles ribozyme linked to do not exclude the action of God in the origin of life.

My point is that if God is alive, then actions of God cannot be the origin of life, but can only come after the origin of life. Only if God is not alive can any action of God be the origin of life. For a creationist life can be both material and immaterial while a materialist only allows material forms of life. Hence the difficulties creationists have explaining the origins of (immaterial) life do not apply to materialists.

rossum