The origin of life

[reggieM]

If I can skip the sociological study part and form my own questions based on what I have recently learned, I’ll contact anyone. I may have to grant confidentiality…

You might try websites of Catholic colleges. Look for the science department (anthropology, biology, etc). Most of them will give faculty contact information and a large number post email addresses for the professors.

 

[grannymh]

You might try websites of Catholic colleges. Look for the science department (anthropology, biology, etc). Most of them will give faculty contact information and a large number post email addresses for the professors.

Actually, I’m headed to St. Louis University this fall for a 50th reunion. This is a good reminder that I should start contacting Catholic colleges in the fall. Thanks.
Did I really say 50? Yikes!

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[rvilbig]

Yes, they have bought into pure scientism, as if evolution could be directed by the laws of chance rather than God’s ID.

The truth is that there is a chance that nature will produce good genes and there is also a chance that nature will produce bad genes. It all depends on the fortune that God grants to us. Despite the shifting fortunes of nature, though, we are still called to rejoice always in the goodness of the Incarnate Lord. Of this we read in the prophet Habakkuk:

“For though the fig tree blossom not nor fruit be on the vines, Though the yield of the olive fail and the terraces produce no nourishment, Though the flocks disappear from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls, Yet will I rejoice in the LORD and exult in my saving God.” (Habakkuk 3:17-18)

Some fig trees have good genes, some don’t. Some olive trees have good genes, some don’t. Some sheep have good genes, some don’t. We are at the mercy of the LORD God for receiving good genes. But our religion is not about nature being perfectly designed for the ends of our selfish material desires. Our religion is about the perfect sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross. This is why Cardinal Newman said that the argument from design "has been taken out of its place, has been put too prominently forward, and thereby has almost been used as an instrument against Christianity” (Idea of a University, p. 451). IDers have seem to have forgotten the reason for our faith.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[reggieM]

ID is not a theological proposal. It’s scientific research into the evidence of design in nature.

The truth is that there is a chance that nature will produce good genes and there is also a chance that nature will produce bad genes.

A very interesting scientific question is: “what are the chances that bad or neutral mutations will occur versus beneficial mutations”? Again, that’s just a probability study.

But our religion is not about nature being perfectly designed for the ends of our selfish material desires.

ID does not propose that nature is perfectly designed for the ends of our material desires. It proposes that nature gives evidence of the presence of intelligence.

Here’s the Haydcock Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible Commentary on Romans 1:19-20:

Ver. 19-20. That which is known of God. Or may be easily known of God, is manifest in them. The light of reason demonstrates to them the existence of one God, the maker and preserver of all things. This is made known to them from the creation of the world, or from the creatures in the world: the Creator may be discovered by the creatures, and as St. Chrysostom here says, every Scythian, every barbarian, may come to the knowledge of God by the wonderful harmony of all things, which proclaims the existence of God louder than any trumpet:

Our religion is about the perfect sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross.

Yes, but it’s important not to forget the infallibly defined dogmas of our Faith:

From the Canons of the First Vatican Council:

1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.
47 The Church teaches that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from his works, by the natural light of human reason (cf. Vatican Council I, can. 2 § 1: DS 3026),
48 We really can name God, starting from the manifold perfections of his creatures, which are likenesses of the infinitely perfect God, even if our limited language cannot exhaust the mystery.

The Book of Wisdom warns us not to neglect the ID argument:

1 For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan … For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen. ;

So, while you’re right to affirm that the sacred revelation of God through Christ is what our religion is about, we have to remember that revealation is supported by God’s “communication” to us through His created works. That’s how we know we have a faith which is consistent with reason.

That does not mean that we substitute rationality or science for Faith. But we have to use human reason to show evidence of God in the universe He created.

Cardinal Newman is warning about exaggerations on this point. Exaggerations on the matter of “revelation alone” would also be a problem (the heresy of Fideism).

Just because some (it was very true of Catholic philosophers of the past) made the error of putting too much emphasis on rational arguments supporting the Faith, does not mean that we throw away all of the ID argumentation.

It needs to be presented as part of a whole. It’s not the entire body of knowledge – and not intended to be that.

The greater danger, as I see it, is dismissing ID arguments and surrendering to an atheistic view of the universe – while at the same time claiming that God does act in the universe but that His actions are indistinguishable from random movements of matter.

The Church uses ID theory to investigate miracles – excluding natural causes through the scientific method.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ryan
*
This is why Cardinal Newman said that the argument from design "has been taken out of its place, has been put too prominently forward, and thereby has almost been used as an instrument against Christianity” (Idea of a University, p. 451). IDers have seem to have forgotten the reason for our faith.*

To the extent that ID would encourage pure deism as opposed to theism, Newman had a valid point. However, deism is still a gateway or halfway house to theism for those who are atheists. I think of Antony Flew, who recently gave up atheism in favor of deism on the basis of both the Big Bang and ID. Before his death, he was also corresponding with an Anglican bishop about the possible divinity of Christ. Exactly where his heart was at the moment of his death is anybody’s guess. But he was certainly no atheist at the end.

So I don’t agree with your chronic carping against ID. Obviously, ID by itself doesn’t make us Christians. But it does emphasize that we are not purely products of chance in an atheistic universe.

The Scriptures also emphasize that we are the product not of chance, but of design. Why then do you oppose bringing intelligent design into scientific discussions?

Let me ask you flat out:

Do you believe the universe was not specifically designed for life?

 

[rvilbig]

Do you believe the universe was not specifically designed for life?

Of course the universe was designed for life. But is this a scientific truth? Of course not, how could it be? This realization requires our “natural reason” to understand, as Vatican I, taught, and hence is philosophical and not scientific. Furthermore, life is contingent on quantum events (gene mutations) which do not necessarily follow from any determinate laws of the universe. This is why there were dinosaurs on the earth for millions of years and no humans, and it could have remained this way if God had willed it so. Aquinas suggested this idea (STh I q.22 a.1):

“Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things; not upon all, as some formerly believed. For to providence it belongs to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes.”

Moreover, as I’ve already written: a Catholic understanding of design is compatible with evolution. I’m re-posting parts of posts #93 and #76.

(#93) If you want to use a Catholic argument from design, please, use Saint Thomas Aquinas’: “We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result” (STh I, q. 2, a. 3). Note that nature acts “nearly always in the same way;” so there may be variations. Also note that nature acts “so as to obtain the best result;” so there is natural selection.

(#76) Consider the platypus: a mammal with a bill, webbed feet, and a venom gland. It also lays eggs. Since the evolutionary line that includes mammals diverged long before the appearance of birds and reptiles, these features emerged in evolution twice. What does this reveal about evolution, you might ask? Newman offers an interesting answer: “It is prima facie unaccountable that an accident should happen twice… If we expect a thing to happen twice, it is because we think it is not an accident, but has a cause. What has brought about a thing once, may bring it about twice. What is to hinder its happening? rather, What is to make it happen ? Here we are thrown back from the question of Order to that of Causation. A law is not a cause, but a fact; but when we come to the question of cause, then, as I have said, we have no experience of any cause but Will. If, then, I must answer the question, What is to alter the order of nature ? I reply, That which willed it;” (Grammar of Assent, p 71-72). Hence evolution has a cause which directs it toward its end. NB This is philosophical.

In my experience, there are two ID arguments: one based on Lee Spetner’s book “Not by Chance” and the other William Dembski’s “Specified Complexity” argument. Spetner argues that highly ordered genes are of very low probability, and hence could not have evolved. The problem is that all genes, without exception, are of low probability, when you use the probability multiplication law, so this doesn’t prove anything. And Dembski assumes his conclusion: he quantizes complexity and then says complexity can only come from complexity, which is what he sought to prove. This is why we need to use reasonable arguments from design, like Aquinas’ and Newman’s.

Hope this helps clarify,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[rossum]

(#93) If you want to use a Catholic argument from design, please, use Saint Thomas Aquinas’: “We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result” (STh I, q. 2, a. 3). Note that nature acts “nearly always in the same way;” so there may be variations. Also note that nature acts “so as to obtain the best result;” so there is natural selection.

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)

In my experience, there are two ID arguments: one based on Lee Spetner’s book “Not by Chance” and the other William Dembski’s “Specified Complexity” argument.

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

 

[buffalo]

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

Rossum, when are you going to turn Catholic? You are a great Catholic apologist.

Perhaps if we can make progress on IDvolution you would be an immense help.

I think that is where the mistake is made. ID the science is only trying to go about detecting design.

 

[reggieM]

…hence the inability of either science or ID to detect Aquinas’ God.

Interesting guess but not quite right:

St. Thomas makes this argument clear in his Summa Theologica (On the Government of Things in General (q 103, article 1):

Certain ancient philosophers denied the government of the world, saying that all things happened by chance. But such an opinion can be refuted as impossible in two ways.

First, by observation of things themselves: for we observe that in nature things happen always or nearly always for the best; which would not be the case unless some sort of providence directed nature towards good as an end; which is to govern. Wherefore the unfailing order we observe in things is a sign of their being governed; for instance, if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order, as Tullius says (De Nat. Deorum ii), quoting Aristotle [Cleanthes].

Let’s take it slowly.

First, by observation of things themselves:

or even more slowly:

observation

Another term for that is “detection”. So, but observing things in nature (as ID does) …

**[there is an] unfailing order we observe in things **

Order is something that can be observed and studied. We recognize this in various constants of the universe that must fit a narrow range of values. We can recognize symmetry and mathematical balance. St. Thomas points out that this order is similar to “a well-ordered house”. And this is what ID observes in the study of “molecular machines” – biological features which are similar to man made machines (and even more sophisticated and highly functional).

When we see such things through scientific observation:

we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order

We recognize an intention, and therefore intelligence behind the structure.

So, I’m glad you appreciate the excellence of St. Thomas Aquinas. This passage I quoted from which argues against the random-chance development of the world (e.g. evolutionary development) and points out that God’s designing intelligence can be detected in nature through observation.

 

[reggieM]

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.

Does God meddle with things when He answers prayers and works miracles?

It is that “meddling” which ID hopes to detect.

We might wonder what the Holy See does in reviewing the miracles of Lourdes or for canonizations of saints.

 

[reggieM]

In my experience, there are two ID arguments: one based on Lee Spetner’s book

You might consider Michael Behe’s two books and Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell. That will give you a better overview of the topic from a scientific perspective.

 

[reggieM]

Of course the universe was designed for life. But is this a scientific truth? Of course not, how could it be? This realization requires our “natural reason” to understand, as Vatican I, taught, and hence is philosophical and not scientific.

Just one last brief comment (I want to avoid a debate on evolution also) …

Our natural reason can be applied to the study of nature. Philosophy is one application, certainly. But mathematics, logic and the various sciences are also subjects which are understood through natural reason. Theology, on the other hand, requires faith – a quality that rises above natural reason.

What the Church teaches is that we can come to a recognition that God exists by using natural reason, and that is not limited to philosophical considerations alone. The anthropic principle has lead many scientsts to recognize God’s designing power in the universe.

 

[edwest2]

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

This is a common set of statements often repeated. The fear, of course, is that The Designer might turn out to be the Christian God

ID is unconcerned about meddling. It looks at the specified coded information in DNA and asks, who put this together? I concur from a scientific standpoint that chance and chance alone is a bad explanation. No one listens to a symphony by Beethoven and supposes the sounds just happened to order themselves. It is becoming clear that the code in DNA can be played differently much like a musical instrument. There are multiple and even overlapping reading frames. Environmental influences can cause shifts in an organism’s outward appearance. This makes sense.

The Designer did, in fact, build a universe that works. I’m sure you are aware of various statements regarding fundamental forces in the universe and their fine tuning. In other words, if they were off by a slight amount, then life as we know it could not exist.

That has been buried under the multiverse concept where in an infinite set of universes, one, this one, just happened to turn out right.

That is why Intelligent Design is appealing. That is why if an alien device were found on Mars scientists would examine it and conclude an intelligence made it even though no trace of that intelligence were ever found.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ryan

Of course the universe was designed for life. But is this a scientific truth? Of course not, how could it be?

I’m confused here.

(A) Are you subscribing to the view that ID is true in fact, but need not be true in science?

(B) Or are you saying that it may be true in fact but cannot be proven in science?

(C) Or are you saying that science clearly can be used to deny Intelligent Design?

Or are you saying something else altogether?

 

[rvilbig]

The anthropic principle has lead many scientsts to recognize God’s designing power in the universe.

The anthropic principle is philosophy. Good luck with your evangelization efforts Reggie. Take care,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[rossum]

This passage I quoted from which argues against the random-chance development of the world (e.g. evolutionary development) and points out that God’s designing intelligence can be detected in nature through observation.

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.

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.

rossum

 

[Black_Rose]

You might consider Michael Behe’s two books and Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell. That will give you a better overview of the topic from a scientific perspective.

Why not read the “Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives” on the Origin of Life instead to you a better overview of the topic from a scientific perspective? It’s a real intellectual treat although it is somewhat hard to digest. It’s free, easily accessible (with no registration required, at least for now, just a few clicks away!), and available online! I read all of the articles I posted, by the way…

cshperspectives.cshlp.org/cgi/collection/the_origin_of_life
cshperspectives.cshlp.org/cgi/collection/the_rna_world

I recommend:

“Closing the Circle: Replicating RNA with RNA” - Leslie K.L. Cheng and Peter J. Unrau

“Planetary Organic Chemistry and the Origins of Biomolecules” - Steven A. Benner, Hyo-Joong Kim, Myung-Jung Kim, and Alonso Ricardo

“The Origins of Cellular Life” - Jason P. Schrum, Ting F. Zhu, and Jack W. Szostak

“The Origin of Biological Homochirality” - Donna Blackmond

“Ribonucleotides” - John D. Sutherland

“Bioenergetics and Life’s Origins” - David Deamer and Arthur L. Weber

“The Origins of the RNA World” - Michael P. Robertson, and Gerald F. Joyce

 

[Black_Rose]

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.

rossum

I thought the physics of evolution and the decay of a uranium atom are different… doesn’t a uranium atom primarily decay through alpha emission through quantum tunneling through the potential barrier? The thorium decay products would eventually undergo a subsequent series of decays eventually yielding a lead isotope depending on the isotope of uranium that initially decayed. I do not see how quantum tunneling has much relevance in any of the biological sciences except, perhaps, certain analytical methods in biochemistry and molecular biology such as electron microscopy.

Of course, most chemistry is concerned about the action of electrons in the orbitals of atoms instead of the events in the nucleus.

A more appropriate analogy would be chemistry since biology can be reduced through chemistry although the former utilized evolved protein catalysts instead of typical solution chemistry (or conducted with the assistance of a heterogeneous catalyst, or solid phase or gas phase chemistry). But it is obvious that enzyme-catalyzed reactions and reactions in solution obey the same laws of chemistry despite being in different realms.

 

[Black_Rose]

Well, if you really want to get nitpicky, I suppose these two articles disproved what I just said about quantum tunnelling…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_isotope_effect
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

I briefly read about KIEs before, but I never heard of quantum tunnelling in a biochem paper.

Most certainly, the nucleus does affect the chemical bonds, resulting in different rates of reactions with KIE.

 

[buffalo]

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.

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.

rossum

Mutations are planned events?