The origin of life

[reggieM]

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.

I’m curious – where did you find that statement of Christian belief? I have never seen that in a Catholic source (I certainly could have missed it). For example, you’ve (admirably) referred to St. Thomas Aquinas in this discussion, but I don’t think the definition you’ve given here reflects his view.

Although distinctions need to be made as well. If we accept the front-loaded idea, compatible with a Thomistic view (not Aquinan), we could say that everything is best explained by a divine intelligent cause.

But there’s an efficient cause and a final cause, so that can’t be ignored either.

 

[reggieM]

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. :

That’s a key point. It goes beyond biology so there’s a consilience with the study of the universe – so more than one branch of science shows evidence for design:

“Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially.”
Nobel Prize winning Physicist Charles Townes
berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.” Physicist and Nobel laureate Arno Penzias

“If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA)

“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” Astronomer, Alan Sandage

“As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.” theoretical physicist and mathematician, Freeman J. Dyson

 

[reggieM]

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

That’s right. We might say “higher magnitude of observable design”. God provided us with the possibility of recognizing disorder and chaos and the experience of randomness – so that we could know the meaning of a term like “design”.

While it’s not possible (from a Catholic view) to consider that there is anything in existence that it outside of God’s creative power (everything is contingent on God) – we can see His power at work more clearly in some things than in others.

ID does not state that there is anything which is “not designed”, but just that design is observable in some things. If it was not observable in anything then the term “design” would be meaningless.

 

[grannymh]

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

Brief thought. While the origin of life leads to many wonderful creatures which can be studied in natural science, Adam, the pinnacle of wonderful creatures, is the first individual to share in the spiritual life of God through knowledge and love. He is the father of the human species on earth. Natural science would not recognize a spiritual transformation as a new species. On the other hand, Catholicism is not bound by natural science. Divine Revelation trumps.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

 

[grannymh]

That’s right. We might say “higher magnitude of observable design”. God provided us with the possibility of recognizing disorder and chaos and the experience of randomness – so that we could know the meaning of a term like “design”.

While it’s not possible (from a Catholic view) to consider that there is anything in existence that it outside of God’s creative power (everything is contingent on God) – we can see His power at work more clearly in some things than in others.

ID does not state that there is anything which is “not designed”, but just that design is observable in some things. If it was not observable in anything then the term “design” would be meaningless.

Personally, I consider all the universe, including us, intelligently designed. Since “ID does not state that there is anything which is “not designed”, but just that design is observable in some things.” Perhaps the name ID should be changed to include the reality of the universe, including us.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

 

[grannymh]

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.”
:

Pardon me. I am out of the loop. How does some individual research papers on individual examples of “evidence of design” relate to Catholicism itself which has some rather unique doctrines compared to Christianity in general? I need something more than Scripture references which point to God’s existence. I am not denying these Scripture references since I often use them in my own practice of the faith. Nonetheless, Catholicism’s chief doctrines are based on the rational/corporeal design of human nature.

I am beginning to understand the concept of intelligent design, but I firmly believe that the focus should be on human nature, the evidence of such can be found in one’s mirror.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

 

[grannymh]

I’m curious – where did you find that statement of Christian belief? I have never seen that in a Catholic source (I certainly could have missed it). For example, you’ve (admirably) referred to St. Thomas Aquinas in this discussion, but I don’t think the definition you’ve given here reflects his view.

Although distinctions need to be made as well. If we accept the front-loaded idea, compatible with a Thomistic view (not Aquinan), we could say that everything is best explained by a divine intelligent cause.

But there’s an efficient cause and a final cause, so that can’t be ignored either.

Instead of “intelligent cause” would “spiritual cause” be more appropriate?
A better description of the complete reality of design?

As I think about this, maybe I should change my personal “thesis” regarding the origin of the two sole parents of the human species to something like – Evidence of the spiritual cause of human nature.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I* am beginning to understand the concept of intelligent design, but I firmly believe that the focus should be on human nature, the evidence of such can be found in one’s mirror.*

God made man in his own image and likeness. We are, though dimly, His mirror reflection. But this likeness is reflected everywhere in the universe. God planned the universe, and shared with us His conception of the plan, so that we can understand it piece by piece, from start to finish.

Yes, the emphasis is on our power of understanding, which is a gift from God. A gift in two ways: first in scripture; and then in science, as Pope Pius XII remarks below.

 

[grannymh]

God made man in his own image and likeness. We are, though dimly, His mirror reflection. But this likeness is reflected everywhere in the universe. God planned the universe, and shared with us His conception of the plan, so that we can understand it piece by piece, from start to finish.

“Stop the [printing] press!”
I am actually old enough to have used that command on the spot.

From grannymh post 202. I am beginning to understand the concept of intelligent design, but I firmly believe that the focus should be on human nature, the evidence of such can be found in one’s mirror.

The usage of the word mirror is meant to convey human reflection, the reflection of our image, our human nature.

Pardon me. The likeness in “God made man in His own image and likeness” is more than a poetic mirror reflection. The fact that this particular likeness is totally separate from anything reflected in the universe is the basis for my defense of Adam and Eve being considered as the two sole parents of the human species. The origin of human life is one of a kind.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

 

[buffalo]

The fact that this particular likeness is totally separate from anything reflected in the universe is the basis for my defense of Adam and Eve being considered as the two sole parents of the human species. The origin of human life is one of a kind.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

Yup! :yup: Catholic teaching is all over this.

**355 **"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.
** I. “IN THE IMAGE OF GOD” **
**356 **Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221 **357 **Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.
**358 **God created everything for man,222 but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:

What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honor? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.223 **359 **"In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear."224

St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life… The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last."225 **360 **Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”:226

O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end;. . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.227 **361 **“This law of human solidarity and charity”,228 without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and peoples, assures us that all men are truly brethren.

 

[buffalo]

Here is another one, granny…

COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Createld in the Image of God*

 

[reggieM]

Why? Science studies the world. Those required mechanisms and starting conditions are part of the world and hence what science studies.

That’s a good question and path for thought. As I see it, the dominant view in science today is that things occurred through the process of an “blind, unintelligent, purposeless, indifferent … universe”. The philosophical aspect of that statement can be argued, but the scientific notion is that all of the processes and effects of those processes are reducible to natural mechanisms.

But if various features were required in the starting mechanisms, which enabled the universe to unfold or develop as it did over time, then there are a number of problems for the dominant scientific view.

First, we would have the intervention of an intelligent agent at the beginning. That intervention “did something” that the so-called “blind nature” couldn’t do on its own. That intelligent intervention means that there was a design in the beginning – a plan or purpose. That design, at the very least, included whatever pre-loaded mechanisms were placed in the original conditions.

In other words, “accident” has to be ruled out if an intelligent agent created things that were required for the development of what came after.

So – one big question would be: “Is there any evidence that an intervention with front-loaded information was required at the beginning”?

If the answer is “no” – then we have a process that looks exactly like a blind, unintelligent, random, accidental process. We could claim that it was front-loaded to look that way. But in reality, we’d have an illusion of randomness which is actually design, order and purpose.

This is strangely the opposite of what atheistic-scientists claim. They’ll say that the universe actually looks designed (Richard Dawkins and Leonard Susskind say this). In fact, it is almost obviously designed. But they claim that the appearance of design is an illusion.

But then we would flip this around for believers to say that “the appearance of randomness is really an illusion”.

So, I think it’s significant to determine if there is plausible evidence that an intelligent agent was involved. But for believers (and this is the important distinction you’ve raised about St. Thomas Aquinas’ views) – some major questions are: “Why did God do it this way”? or “What message was God trying to show in creating a universe that looks like it was developed by an atheistic-process”? “How does that fit with obvious (for believers) evidence of miraculous intervention in nature”? Should we believe that God was trying to show that he could intervene in nature, but also showing that He would never intervene in processes?

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.

Yes, that’s true. But those processes are not independent of God and they are limited to certain functions. Also, some will claim that we “already know” all of the processes that brought about life on earth – but is that really true?

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.

St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, uses the more common definition in his Design Argument. But as I see it, once we have God involved in shaping the universe, its laws, processes – and with God directly creating anything – then it’s essential to recognize what that could mean for the rest of what we observe in the universe.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

So far in this discussion we have not taken into account the field of study that is called philosophy of science.

There are issues that cannot be settled by the scientific method, but which have been fundamental assumptions in science ever since science began. For example: Among certain ancients it was believed that the universe always existed. There was not scientific proof for this, yet it was allowed because it seemed to some people the most logical explanation for why the universe exists. After all, how can something be made from nothing? Yet there was no scientific proof that the universe always existed.

The same, it seems to me, is the problem of modern science. It wants there to be no explanation for the universe that allows of some exterior Power producing something from nothing. The universe must therefore be eternal and infinite. That was Einstein’s view before Le Maitre challenged his view by introducing the idea of a seminal event that began the universe. Since the evidence has been amassed that the universe was created, and time created with it simultaneously, science has been seriously befuddled by its ancient dilemma. Did something really come from nothing?

The same is true of ID. Yet, the story is not quite the same. Modern science until Darwin postulated a creation event. Even Newton said as much. But after Darwin, the premise began to spread that not only was the universe not created, but there is no need for God to explain anything. Einstein was an exception among those who argued thus. But his God was not a personal God, just an Intellect that ordered the universe to be as it was. Einstein could not rid himself of the idea that everywhere in the laws of the universe there is evidence of design.

More recently, especially among the biologists, that premise has been rejected. As someone mentioned earlier, even Dawkins allows the appearance of design. However, he postulates that we have been fooled by that appearance. For a scientist this represent a serious problem. How do we prove to ourselves that Nature has fooled us into believing that Nature is designed? How do we prove it scientifically? It can’t be done. It’s like the dilemma of the ancient atheists who chose to believe the universe is eternal. They could not prove there was no creation event. Likewise, it can’t be proved that nature is without design. If anything, the scientific evidence is all in the other direction. Design appears to exist everywhere in the universe. On our own planet we not only see evidence of design in highly complex products of nature all interwoven to support each other and to be supported by the very environment in which they exist, we also participate in the act of designing. Since we can design, it is the most logical thing in the world to believe that the creature who can design was most likely designed for (among other things) the purpose of designing (and thus made in the image and likeness of its Creator).

 

[edwest2]

Very interesting. All scientific approaches must start with an assumption. Here, the unbreakable assumption is that a very long series of fortunate events not only put the universe together but the first life as well. Intelligence of any kind must be excluded because that may - may - lead to an opening for some deity.

Biological design is an illusion? That sounds like a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

If human beings are just the end result of a series of fortunate events involving primarily chemistry then we are, in fact, chemical robots – nothing more. Our thoughts are only utilitarian, with the occasional digression for most of us.

So, is promoting some particular view of the origin life a purely scientific matter or is it designed to buttress a certain worldview? People generally spend time with things that will benefit them in some way. I think that’s the case here.

Intelligent Design looks at the specified and complex information in DNA and shows that it could not have gotten there through yet another series of fortunate accidents. The multiple reading frames and other necessary components that need to work together need to be there at the same time, not built up bit by bit. In the first place, such undirected construction would never be used to randomly build a house or a car. So-called Junk DNA is turning out to be functional and not the leftovers of millions of years of development.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Biological design is an illusion? That sounds like a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

Not quite. The appearance of biological design is an illusion. Our brains are wired in such a way that we tend to see design where there is actually none. Remember the “Face on Mars”?

The issue about the appearance of design is about how accurate a design detector the human mind is. The scientific consensus is that it can detect some design very easily, but it is rather too prone to false positives for full scientific accuracy. Hence the efforts of ID to find an objective, rather than subjective, way to detect design. Subjective design detection by the human mind is not sufficient for the purposes of ID.

Science has no problem with recognising design in biological organisms such as domestic animals or GM crops.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Not quite. The appearance of biological design is an illusion. Our brains are wired in such a way that we tend to see design where there is actually none. Remember the “Face on Mars”?

The issue about the appearance of design is about how accurate a design detector the human mind is. The scientific consensus is that it can detect some design very easily, but it is rather too prone to false positives for full scientific accuracy. Hence the efforts of ID to find an objective, rather than subjective, way to detect design. Subjective design detection by the human mind is not sufficient for the purposes of ID.

Science has no problem with recognising design in biological organisms such as domestic animals or GM crops.

rossum

This still doesn’t address the specified complexity issue.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rossum

Not quite. The appearance of biological design is an illusion. Our brains are wired in such a way that we tend to see design where there is actually none. Remember the “Face on Mars”?

Our brains are wired to see design everywhere. Our brains are not wired to see chaos anywhere. Our brains are desired to see truth. Our brains are also wired to be easily deceived. And finally, our brains are so wired that we can, if we so desire, deceive ourselves by asserting that the impression of a designed universe (incredibly more complex than the inner workings of a clock … which we would never imagine had designed itself) is itself a deception.

Right?

 

[rossum]

This still doesn’t address the specified complexity issue.

Show me an objective way to measure Specified Complexity and we can discuss it. Yes I have read Dembski, and I have even written a short piece demonstrating the use of Dembski’s Explanatory Filter: see this webpage.

We know that evolution can produce complexity/information when we have an objectively measurable definition of information such as Shannon Information or Kolmogorov Information. None of the proposed ID forms of information are currently objectively measurable. Dembski’s CSI has two issues that I am aware of, firstly it does not provide an objective way to decide what is and what is not a specification. Secondly it has no way to distinguish between what Dembski calls “Apparent CSI” and CSI. For example, if you feed CSI into the start of an evolutionary process you will get CSI out but the CSI at the end of the process in not real CSI but only Apparent CSI. So far Dr Dembski has not found a way to distinguish between CSI and Apparent CSI.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Here is a piece by Dembski that should give pause for the evolutionists to pony up their own proof.

iscid.org/papers/Dembski_ResponseToOrr_010703.pdf

 

[reggieM]

Here is a piece by Dembski that should give pause for the evolutionists to pony up their own proof.

iscid.org/papers/Dembski_ResponseToOrr_010703.pdf

That looks interesting.
I just recently read Dembski’s “Conflating Mind and Matter” and it was excellent (quite a long and detailed analysis, but very worthwhile). I’ll look forward to that one.

Another approach to specified complexity is in setting probability-limits on what random processes can produce as a baseline for evidence of design.