The origin of life

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum
*
Discussing evolution is not allowed at the moment, but you have misunderstood evolution; it is not a random-chance process. The creationist/ID strawman of evolution is presented as such, but that strawman is not evolution.*

But neither is evolution directed toward a specific end. It’s entirely possible that life would not have evolved anywhere in the universe. It’s also entirely possible that life would have evolved but would never have reached the point of self-consciousness anywhere in the universe.

The order in the universe that we see is expressed by science in terms of its theories: gravitation, quantum electrodynamics etc.* Evolution is a consequence of the order of the universe. *That same order that tells us the paths of the planets or the decay of a uranium atom also stands behind evolution. How could it be otherwise – there is not one physics for the universe and a different physics for evolution.

Yes, evolution is a consequence of the order of the universe. But how and why is the order of the universe directing evolution? Might the universe at its inception not have had an order that allows for life? What if the elements of the universe that first came into being were not fine tuned to eventually produce life?

If you say those original elements were not fine tuned for the purpose of making life possible, then we are back to square one. You would really be saying that the elements came into being by chance, that the order of the universe is essentially accidental … and so is evolution.

 

[Black_Rose]

Yes, evolution is a consequence of the order of the universe. But how and why is the order of the universe directing evolution? Might the universe at its inception not have had an order that allows for life? What if the elements of the universe that first came into being were not fine tuned to eventually produce life?

If you say those original elements were not fine tuned for the purpose of making life possible, then we are back to square one. You would really be saying that the elements came into being by chance, that the order of the universe is essentially accidental.

Then we would not be here to observe the universe. The anthropic principle renders the parameters of a fine-tuned universe to be a necessity not a contingency in order for observers with an empiricist epistemology to observe and study the universe. Often, the weak (non-teleological) anthropic principle is coupled with string landscape (as advocated by Leonard Susskind) or eternal inflation (as advocated by Alan Guth and Andrei Linde) to generate a large number (or infinite) of the possible universes to make one able to support life a certain occurrence in the vast multiverse.

 

[grannymh]

Aquinas is indeed excellent. I would also quote:
“The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Aquinas Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)

I am puzzled by the way some theists seem to support the ID argument. Unlike Aquinas’ God, as I quoted above, the ID designer is a relative failure. The ID designer was not capable of building a universe in such a way that the desired outcome would inevitably happen. The ID designer did not do such a good job at the start and so has to meddle with things part way through to keep them on track. It is that “meddling” which ID hopes to detect.

Aquinas’ God has no need to meddle because things are on track, hence the inability of either science or ID to detect Aquinas’ God. Compared to Aquinas’ God, the ID designer is an incompetent.

rossum

Thank you.

You and I are on the same track regarding our questions.

I have an interesting interchange regarding the “god of the gaps” accusation in the “Letters” section of This Rock magazine, January 2009. This was in answer to Michael Tkacz’s article “Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design” This Rock magazine, November 2008.

The odd thing is that I was reading the Tkacz article about the same time I landed on CAF. Having had letters to the editor published in This Rock I considered responding, but at that time I did not have enough understanding of the real issues.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is unique in all the universe.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Often, the weak (non-teleological) anthropic principle is coupled with string landscape (as advocated by Leonard Susskind) or eternal inflation (as advocated by Alan Guth and Andrei Linde) to generate a large number (or infinite) of the possible universes to make one able to support life a certain occurrence in the vast multiverse. *

Why is such a way of thinking considered scientific when it is pure speculation? Multiverse indeed! The ultimate atheist cop-out. Anything but God!!!

And as long as such bizarre speculation is rife, why couldn’t an infinite number of universes still contain not one universe with life or even the possibility of life?

 

[buffalo]

*Often, the weak (non-teleological) anthropic principle is coupled with string landscape (as advocated by Leonard Susskind) or eternal inflation (as advocated by Alan Guth and Andrei Linde) to generate a large number (or infinite) of the possible universes to make one able to support life a certain occurrence in the vast multiverse. *

Why is such a way of thinking considered scientific when it is pure speculation? Multiverse indeed! The ultimate atheist cop-out. Anything but God!!!

And as long as such bizarre speculation is rife, why couldn’t an infinite number of universes still contain not one universe with life or even the possibility of life?

Multiverse:

There must be fake universes
There must be one with God
There must be one where He created Adam and Eve
There must be one where evolution did not take place
There must be one where IDvolution is the solution.

Is it this one?

 

[rossum]

Mutations are planned events?

Some are. We can induce mutations in the laboratory and scientists have written their names into genomes. If mutations are planned by God then such planning is not detectable if God acts in an Aquinan (?) manner. In this case God can be considered as front-loading the universe with the required mechanisms and the required starting conditions.

ID is built round the supposition that design by God/the designer is detectable using scientific methods, and so does not talk about Aquinas’ God.

rossum

 

[Black_Rose]

Would hypothesis of the Aquinas God be falsifiable (or verifiable) through empirical observation? It seems it would be consistent with all possible manifestations of empirical evidence so it does not make an distinct, different predictions from an atheistic, materialist world in theory.

 

[edwest2]

Design is detectable. Archaeologists make this determination all the time. Scientists involved in the SETI Project are looking for signals from aliens they do not even know are there. Yet time and money have already been spent.

Design is the better explanation.

God bless,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

ID is built round the supposition that design by God/the designer is detectable using scientific methods, and so does not talk about Aquinas’ God.

rossum

“ay, there’s the rub;” Hamlet

 

[buffalo]

Some are. We can induce mutations in the laboratory and scientists have written their names into genomes. If mutations are planned by God then such planning is not detectable if God acts in an Aquinan (?) manner. In this case God can be considered as front-loading the universe with the required mechanisms and the required starting conditions.

ID is built round the supposition that design by God/the designer is detectable using scientific methods, and so does not talk about Aquinas’ God.

rossum

That is what IDvolution posits. God has front loaded the universe. He has front loaded life through the DNA language.

 

[reggieM]

Discussing evolution is not allowed at the moment, but you have misunderstood evolution; it is not a random-chance process.

Of course it is. Any formula that is affected by a random factor is, by definition, a random process.

 

[reggieM]

Interesting quote from Leonard Susskind

“If String Theory itself is wrong, perhaps because it is mathematically inconsistent, it will fall by the wayside and, with it, the String Theory Landscape. But if that does happen, then as things stand now, we would be left with no other rational explanation for the illusion of a designed universe.” (The Cosmic Landscape and the Illusion of Intelligent Design pg 355)

Mr. Susskind concludes that if his theory is false, there is “no other rational explanation” for the design which is observable and evident in the universe.

Since Mr. Susskind’s idea is already rejected by many scientists, the idea that universe was intelligently designed/created should be considered a plausible alternative and worthy of investigation.

 

[reggieM]

In this case God can be considered as front-loading the universe with the required mechanisms and the required starting conditions.

This would falsify neo-D-winism since any “required” conditions would have an impact on the outcome.

ID is built round the supposition that design by God/the designer is detectable using scientific methods, and so does not talk about Aquinas’ God.

If we want to ignore the quote I posted as well as St. Thomas’ sermon on Romans 1:19-20 and the 2000 year old history of the “structural design” argument in Catholicism (that St. Thomas supported), then you’re absolutely correct!

 

[rossum]

Of course it is. Any formula that is affected by a random factor is, by definition, a random process.

False. Generate millions of random numbers. Put them through a filter that only allows through the number 7. The (name removed by moderator)ut to the process is a stream of random numbers. The output from the process is 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7 … The output is not random despite the random (name removed by moderator)ut.

Weeds have been developing resistance to Roundup. That is not random, it is a direct result of the presence of Roundup in the weeds’ environment. Where Roundup is not used resistant weeds do not appear. Where Roundup is used resistance will appear over time. Not a random process.

rossum

 

[rossum]

This would falsify neo-D-winism since any “required” conditions would have an impact on the outcome.

Why? Science studies the world. Those required mechanisms and starting conditions are part of the world and hence what science studies. Remember that God created life via an indirect process, “let the earth bring forth…” Those indirect processes we know as cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry etc.

I suspect that part of our disagreement is due to the two separate definitions of “Intelligent Design” that are current. The Discovery Institute definition is the one I have a big problem with; I have far fewer scientific problems with the more common definition.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Why? Science studies the world. Those required mechanisms and starting conditions are part of the world and hence what science studies. Remember that God created life via an indirect process, “let the earth bring forth…” Those indirect processes we know as cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry etc.

I suspect that part of our disagreement is due to the two separate definitions of “Intelligent Design” that are current. The Discovery Institute definition is the one I have a big problem with; I have far fewer scientific problems with the more common definition.

rossum

This definition?

Definition of Intelligent Design

                                      [What is intelligent design?](http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php)

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

 

[rvilbig]

I just found an interesting passage in Saint Francis de Sales’ writings. Apparently, this great Doctor of the Church believed in evolution through acquired characteristics:

“I heard of a little land animal in the Indies that enjoys swimming with fish. By engaging in this activity, it becomes a fish. A land animal actually turns into a marine animal. When we enjoy God, we become conformed to God.” (Living Love, page 69)"

Of course, we now know that evolution occurs through changes in eggs and sperm, and that species evolve, and not individuals.

But isn’t this actually confirmed in Scripture? Recall the words of Saint Paul: “My children, for whom I am again in labor until Christ be formed in you!” (Gal 4:19). In other words, we become conformed to Christ when we are receptive to the Holy Spirit and give birth to Christ through our new spiritual lives: we are transformed into a new species.

Any thoughts?

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[rossum]

This definition?

That is the Discovery Institute definition, what you might call “small ID” or DI-ID. In part it says:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause

That is a small creationism, and is not what historically Christians have believed. Historical Christian belief would read:The theory of Christian creation holds that every single feature of the universe and of living things is best explained by an intelligent cause.
DI-ID is looking for a small designer. This has very little to do with the Christian God, who is not a small designer but a very large designer.

If everything is intelligently designed by God then it will be impossible for DI-ID to distinguish anything from anything since it is all designed by God. Paley’s watch on a heath would not stand out as “designed” against the background of the grass, which is equally designed.

In order to distinguish “designed” from “not designed” the DI-ID hypothesis requires that there are some non-designed things in existence. In a created world, there is nothing that is not designed. If Christianity is true then DI-ID has set itself a hopeless task.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

That is the Discovery Institute definition, what you might call “small ID” or DI-ID. In part it says:
That is a small creationism, and is not what historically Christians have believed. Historical Christian belief would read:The theory of Christian creation holds that every single feature of the universe and of living things is best explained by an intelligent cause.DI-ID is looking for a small designer. This has very little to do with the Christian God, who is not a small designer but a very large designer.

If everything is intelligently designed by God then it will be impossible for DI-ID to distinguish anything from anything since it is all designed by God. Paley’s watch on a heath would not stand out as “designed” against the background of the grass, which is equally designed.

In order to distinguish “designed” from “not designed” the DI-ID hypothesis requires that there are some non-designed things in existence. In a created world, there is nothing that is not designed. If Christianity is true then DI-ID has set itself a hopeless task.

rossum

They are not looking for a designer. They are looking for evidence of design. Who that designer is is philosophical.

Our basis for even doing science is that the universe is intelligible. That means an intelligence was at work. Can we see evidence for design? I answer yes, we intuitively know when we see something designed. Does it standout from the background design? That is the essence of the search.

The more a designed artifact shows complexity and purpose the higher the magnitude of design.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

buffalo
*
They are not looking for a designer. They are looking for evidence of design. Who that designer is is philosophical. *

And this search for design cannot be limited to life on earth. Only if the universe was first created with the elements required for the later appearance of life, would life have been possible. Therefore the design must go back to the Big Bang, just as Genesis tells us.

“Let there be light!”

This from atheist Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
: