The origin of life

[reggieM]

Our Popes are on board with evolution, why is everyone afraid of this word??

The Darwinian worldview is atheistic and therefore evil, but I don’t think anyone is afraid of the word.

By CAF policy, debates on evolution are off-topic here so we really can’t address your concerns though.

 

[buffalo]

Computers are deterministic; chemistry is not. That is why it is impossible to predict where mutations will occur in DNA. See JohnJoe McFadden’s book: Quantum Evolution, for a crash course on the physical theories underlying mutations.

We are the mercy of God when it comes to getting good genes in evolution. Take Job as your example: “We accept good things from God; and should we not accept evil?” (Job 2:10).

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

We now know that DNA fights against mutations. If one should occur DNA makes several attempts to override. .

The mother’s cell preserves the lineage. We also know that there are 500 or so core genes that all organisms have and they were present right from the beginning. The core has the ability to “grow” features beneficial to an organism. Sort of like a lego set. You can build a lot of cool things out of some basic blocks, all you need is a plan.

Lending credance to this is the fossil record showing man organisms suddenly arising and staying the same since then.

 

[buffalo]

I think you all need to be very cautious with the argument from design. Cardinal Newman outright rejected Paley’s version, which is the one which most contemporary scientists follow, including the scientists listed above. Here are Newman’s thoughts on the argument from design:

“Physical Theology, then, is pretty much what it was two thousand years ago, and has not received much help from modern science : but now, on the contrary, I think it has received from it a positive disadvantage,—I mean, it 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)

“[T]he God of Physical Theology may very easily become a mere idol; for He comes to the inductive mind in the medium of fixed appointments, so excellent, so skilful, so beneficent, that, when it has for a long time gazed upon them, it will think them too beautiful to be broken, and will at length so contract its notion of Him as to conclude that He never could have the heart (if I may dare use such a term) to undo or mar His own work; and this conclusion will be the first step towards its degrading its idea of God a second time, and identifying Him with His works. Indeed, a Being of Power, Wisdom, and Goodness, and nothing else, is not very different from the God of the Pantheist.” (ibid, p. 454.)

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;” so there may be variations. Also note that nature acts “so as to obtain the best result;” so there is natural selection.

Our Popes are on board with evolution, why is everyone afraid of this word??

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

That is why IDvolution is so powerful explanation. It keeps St Thomas and St Augustine (and the Church ) happy. It uses the latest science to give support. Faith and reason are not opposed.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=6274

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

 

[rvilbig]

Natural selection does not have any idea about what is the best result. It does not know what is best or worst. If we were reduced to the Darwinian worldview there would be no best or worst, but only temporary survival and death.

You have a confused notion of God’s immanence. God selects in nature. First note that natural selection is described in the Bible:

“The thistle of Lebanon sent word to the cedar of Lebanon, ‘Give your daughter to my son in marriage,’ but an animal of Lebanon passed by and trampled the thistle underfoot.“(Kings 14:9)

Clearly, this passage indicates that some species have a better chance of surviving under certain environmental conditions; in the example, a robust cedar of Lebanon cannot be trampled by an animal, while a little thistle plant can. In other words, nature has the ability to select which species will survive in an environment. Natural selection also seems to be described in a passage in Ezekiel’s vision of a heavenly Jerusalem. Consider the following:

“Wherever the river flows, every sort of living creature that can multiply shall live, and there shall be abundant fish.” (Ezekiel 47)

To some, this concept of natural selection may appear harsh and contradictory to the goodness of God’s creation. However, once we recognize that God employs this process (through secondary causes) to bring about a greater good, it becomes evident that natural selection is actually a very useful process. Moreover, it appears that God himself ordains this process to occur according to His purposes. Consider the story of our Lord Jesus and the withered fig tree:

“Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went over to it, but found nothing on it except leaves. And he said to it, ‘May no fruit every come from you again.’ And immediately the fig tree withered.” (Mt 21:19).

This passage fulfills what was written by the prophet Ezekiel:

“And all the trees of the field shall know that I, the Lord, bring low the high tree, lift high the low tree, wither up the green tree, and make the withered tree bloom.” (Ez 17:24)

In other words, scripture teaches us that natural selection is governed by God to direct all of creation to the end for which it was created: the glory of God.

But more importantly, we might use St. Thomas’ argument for design in his Summa Theologica (On the Government of Things in General (q 103, article 1) where he argues against the claim that the world developed by chance (that is, Darwinian theory):

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].

Nor do I say that evolution proceeds by chance. You see, chance is a ratio: the probability of one outcome to all other outcomes. Chance is not even a cause, and it does not even make logical sense to say that “chance (read:ratio) causes something”. A cause selects one outcome while not selecting any other outcome. For example, there is a certain chance that I will reply to your post (based on statistical analysis of my previous responses) and there is a certain chance that I will not reply. I have selected to reply. From your perspective, however, you can only guess at the chances. This is why Newman said that “evolution is accidental to us, not to God” (link)

(continued)

 

[buffalo]

Darwinism from an informatics point of view

…
Leaving aside the problems associated with defining what a gene is, it can still be shown that the random processes which evolutionary theory claims are capable of generating biological complexity, simply don’t work. They don’t work because they are, by their very nature, incapable of generating the top-down functional hierarchy of nested decision structures that is responsible for making the whole system. Since this objection to the adequacy of random processes is an in-principle objection, it is useless for evolutionists to attempt to counter it by resorting to vast amounts of time or huge probabilistic resources. The fundamental problem of Darwinism is that the greater cannot come from the less.

To sum up: Darwinism, from an informatics point of view, has absolutely zero credibility. This explains, among other things, why so many computer programmers who are interested in the ID/evolution debate are on the ID side. In their own job they have never seen a single bit of software arise gratis. Rather they have to create, bit by bit, the active information of the software applications they develop. These people are justifiably perplexed when they encounter the evolutionist claim that God did not have to write a single line of code, because biological complexity (which is far greater than any computer software) arose naturalistically. “Why no work for Him and so much work for me?” they may ask. In this post, I hope I have helped explain that God, also in this case, expects far less from us than what He Himself did and does.

 

[rvilbig]

Or we could use the argument from Fr. James McWilliams, S.J. in his Catholic college textbook Cosmology:

Structural Order. Teleology is order in activity, and is therefore called dynamic order. But there is also the order of structure. Structural order ; is the harmonious arrangement of diverse integral parts in one pattern or configuration. Thus the frond of a fern or palm has leaflets or blades, arranged along the stern in a recognizable pattern. Structural order is characterized by symmetry and proportion. Symmetry is the repetition of some feature, as in the similarity of two leaflets on opposite sides of the stem, or the two eyes of an animal. Proportion is the gradation of a feature or character according to a more or less fixed ratio; thus in the frond the row of leaflets on either side of the stem is arranged in gradually diminishing sizes from the base to the tip. Structural order is observable in the wings of a bird, in a snowflake, in a frost- flower on a window-pane. In fact, a most interesting study is the examination of natural objects, even with a microscope, to discover their intricate and amazing structures. Moreover, X-rays disclose a structure in the very atoms themselves.

It is true that structure is often suitable for useful activity, still it can be recognized without our knowing its utility. Hence, structural order, apart from dynamic order, furnishes independent evidence for intelligence.

Or we could try the Thomistic Catholic philosopher Dr. Peter Kreeft:

The Catholic philosopher, Dr. Peter Kreeft gives a nice explanation:

Peter Kreeft — Handbook of Christian Apologetics page 5.
The Design Argument
This sort of argument is of wide and perennial appeal. Almost everyone admits that reflection on the order and beauty of nature touches something very deep within us. But are the order and beauty of the product of intelligent design and conscious purpose? For theists the answer is yes. Arguments for design are attempts to vindicate this answer; to show why it is the most reasonable one to give. They have been formulated in ways as richly varied as the experience in which they are rooted. The following displays the core or central insight.

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)
2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
3. Not chance.
4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer.

I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same God here as the one of revelation. Let me give you an example:
"Some time after these events, God put Abraham to the test. He called to him, “Abraham!” “Ready!” he replied. Then God said: “Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer him up as a holocaust on a height that I will point out to you.” (Gen 22:1-2)
Where’s the design here? Would you blame Abraham if he thought that God was random and his plans were aimless? The truth is, it takes faith to see God’s design. That’s why God credited Abraham with righteousness: he had **faith **in God’s difficult to understand design.

Or we could try the Catholic Physicist Stephen Barr’s book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith where he cites the Latin Christian writer Minucius Felix near the beginning of the third century:

”If upon entering some home you saw that everything there was well-tended, neat, and decorative, you would believe that some master was in charge of it, and that he himself was superior to those good things. So too in the home of this world, when you see providence, order, and law in the heavens and on earth, believe there is a Lord and Author of the universe, more beautiful than the stars themselves and the various parts of the whole world.”

I can provide a dozen more like this also, if interested.

Send them my way. I enjoy this stuff. But let me offer you some advice: If you want to win souls for Christ, perhaps try something other than lecturing sinful atheists about design in nature. They lack the disposition to see it. If you want to be effective in gathering lost sheep, walk by their side. Scripture tells us that nature often appears aimless:

“For creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.” (Romans 8:19-20).

Instead of throwing arguments of design at atheists: “proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Cor 1:23-25)

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[rossum]

is there an explanation to how DNA formed?

Life probably started as RNA only - “RNA World”. At a later stage proteins and DNA were added. In effect DNA was built on the basis of the pre-existing RNA.

rossum

 

[lemondiesel]

Life probably started as RNA only - “RNA World”. At a later stage proteins and DNA were added. In effect DNA was built on the basis of the pre-existing RNA.

rossum

You are Buddhist? We should talk more…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Our Popes are on board with evolution, why is everyone afraid of this word??

It’s not that we are afraid of the word. It’s that evolutionists (many of them, anyway) have used the word as a synonym for aimless creation, creation without intelligent design, the means by which, as Dawkins argued, atheism can be made respectable.

We may restore arguments of design in order to defeat these illogical inferences. Evolution in no way explains how our own capacity to engage in intelligent design of the things we make could have arisen out of a fundamentally undesigned world. This fact, that the universe first came into being prepared (by all its elements) to eventually produce life, rather than to be universally and eternally lifeless, should give pause to any interpretation of evolution as essentially pointless and meaningless.

The question is not only: Why is there something rather than nothing? The question is also: Why is this *something *so determined through billions of years to create beings capable of questioning the reason for its own being?

There is a really good reason why atheists have not been happy with the arrival of the Big Bang theory. They cannot fathom what it was that caused the universe to come into being when it did not before exist; and they fear in their heart of hearts that this cause might after all be the God they could so easily defy when they once comfortably assumed (without proof) in the good old days of Nietzsche that the universe was infinite and eternal.

 

[rossum]

You are Buddhist? We should talk more…

Open a thread in Non-Catholic Religions.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

The gap the Designer has to fit in just got a bit smaller:
Orign of Life: Adding UV Light Helps Form ‘Missing G’ of RNA Building Blocks.
It is unwise to rely on “Science does not know X” to support your argument. Science is always working to reduce the number of possible values of X that you can use.

rossum

To me, the “gap” is not common sense because it depends on a person’s lack of knowledge.

 

[grannymh]

rossum

It is unwise to rely on “Science does not know X” to support your argument. Science is always working to reduce the number of possible values of X that you can use.

It is also unwise for science to presume that it alone has a pathway to the truth. It is unwise for science to rely on its own method to assert a presumption outside of science; namely that there can be no Intelligent Designer just because we cannot physically examine Him.

You would never presume that there is no intelligent designer for the watch you wear on your wrist just because you had not met and shaken the hand of the man who designed it.

Is there a difference between science as a discipline and scientists who interpret?
Would it be better to say that science as a discipline cannot rule out the reality of the spiritual?

Ah, one says. Spirituality cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude spiritual reality which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. These tools are part of human nature – the human being one sees in the mirror.

If we are ever to understand the origin of life, we need first to understand and accept our own human nature.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

I think you all need to be very cautious with the argument from design. Cardinal Newman outright rejected Paley’s version, which is the one which most contemporary scientists follow, including the scientists listed above. Here are Newman’s thoughts on the argument from design:

“Physical Theology, then, is pretty much what it was two thousand years ago, and has not received much help from modern science : but now, on the contrary, I think it has received from it a positive disadvantage,—I mean, it 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)

“[T]he God of Physical Theology may very easily become a mere idol; for He comes to the inductive mind in the medium of fixed appointments, so excellent, so skilful, so beneficent, that, when it has for a long time gazed upon them, it will think them too beautiful to be broken, and will at length so contract its notion of Him as to conclude that He never could have the heart (if I may dare use such a term) to undo or mar His own work; and this conclusion will be the first step towards its degrading its idea of God a second time, and identifying Him with His works. Indeed, a Being of Power, Wisdom, and Goodness, and nothing else, is not very different from the God of the Pantheist.” (ibid, p. 454.)

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;” so there may be variations. Also note that nature acts “so as to obtain the best result;” so there is natural selection.

Our Popes are on board with evolution, why is everyone afraid of this word??

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

This is an interesting link.
www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0811fea4.asp

If only the two camps would talk to each other…
granny would be the moderator

 

[grannymh]

This is an interesting link.
www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0811fea4.asp

If only the two camps would talk to each other…
granny would be the moderator

Here is what I believe would unite scientists and philosophers.

This Rock Magazine, November 2008, “Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design” by Michael W. Tkacz. What impressed me was that in a sense, Aquinas was facing the same type of dilemma regarding scientific research and doctrine that Catholicism faces today. Michael W. Tkacz writes:

“Into this medieval debate come Aquinas, who reasoned thus: God is the author of all truth; the aim of scientific research is the truth; therefore, there can be no fundamental incompatibility between the two. Provided we understand Christian doctrine properly and do our science well, we will find the truth.”
and

“In the Thomistic view, the teachings of the faith are fully compatible with what we learn of nature through scientific research, provided we both understand those divine teachings correctly and we do our scientific research consistently and rigorously.”

Please note that the above quotes are taken out of context in order to demonstrate my position. It is sincerely recommended that one reads the entire article in order to understand Tkacz’s position on evolution. Use link above.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is sacred.

 

[reggieM]

If you want to win souls for Christ, perhaps try something other than lecturing sinful atheists about design in nature. They lack the disposition to see it.

I don’t think St. Paul saw it that way.

Romans 1:19-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

He teaches us that truths about God are “plain” even godless (atheist) and wicked men. God’s invisible qualities and His design in nature “have been clearly seen” – and no one is lacking the capability of seeing this.

Given that some prominent atheists have converted to theism through a recognition of the presence of intelligent design in nature, I don’t think the effort to make this known is as useless as you may think.

 

[reggieM]

For example, there is a certain chance that I will reply to your post (based on statistical analysis of my previous responses) and there is a certain chance that I will not reply. I have selected to reply. From your perspective, however, you can only guess at the chances.

Yes, and as I make my guess I realize that an intelligent agent is the one who will or will not reply. That agent is not determined by physical laws or environmental factors alone – you have a free choice. This is certainly different than if I determine the odds of a coin-flip or the trajectory of a rock rolling down a hill.

 

[Shredderbeam]

A Science is just a body of knowlege. There is a common abuse of the word to mean only the low or physical sciences. As each science is a study of a particular genus etc. certain sciences are inappropriate for certain questions. The physical sciences presuppose epistimological science; and are prior to ontological and theological science. This is why the phrase “Queen of the sciences” is perscribed to Theology, because it is posterior to even philosophy (which it pressuposes).

To divide science and theology into different genera is absurd; for their distinction is one of species. For the ends of one are the presuppositions (in general) of the next.

A good scientist will at least know metaphysics, which is enough to demonstrate God’s existence a posteriori.

When I talk about science, I mean the empirical method of studying reality, not any particular branch.

 

[rvilbig]

I don’t think St. Paul saw it that way.

Romans 1:19-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

He teaches us that truths about God are “plain” even godless (atheistist) and wicked men. God’s invisible qualities and His design in nature “have been clearly seen” – and no one is lacking the capability of seeing this.

Given that some prominent atheists have converted to theism through a recognition of the presence of intelligent design in nature, I don’t think the effort to make this known is as useless as you may think.

Does not evolution reveal God’s “eternal power and divine nature” (Rom 1:20)? : His *power *to bring about change and His divine nature in that He has the right to select. A static universe of irreducibly complex parts would suggest that God is powerless to make His will manifest to free creatures. If God does not mutate genes according to His will, then pray tell, how did Christ cure the blind and deaf? Perhaps I’m blind myself: what’s the connection between “the wrath of God” (Rom 1:19) and IDvolution?

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[rvilbig]

Yes, and as I make my guess I realize that an intelligent agent is the one who will or will not reply. That agent is not determined by physical laws or environmental factors alone – you have a free choice. This is certainly different than if I determine the odds of a coin-flip or the trajectory of a rock rolling down a hill.

Yet flipping a coin and rolling a rock down a hill both have a deterministic final cause (in Aristotelian philosophy): that is, your determination to prove your point. Don’t let atheists convince you that anything is random and you’ll be fine.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

Is there a difference between science as a discipline and scientists who interpret?

I suppose there is a difference. Science as a discipline requires proof, sometimes deductive, sometimes inductive. The Big Bang was deductively implied in Einstein’s mathematics, but he refused to see that because he didn’t want the interpretation of the math to go that way. LeMaitre corrected Einstein’s math and opened the door to the Big Bang. Einstein later admitted that his interpretation of the math was the biggest blunder of his life. Inductive evidence later appeared to confirm the mathematical deduction; namely, the Hubbel telescope showing the galaxies moving away from each other, and also the echo noise of the Big Bang picked up by radio scopes emanating from all parts of the universe.

Would it be better to say that science as a discipline cannot rule out the reality of the spiritual?

Science really cannot rule out anything, as it is supposed to be open-minded to the point of imagining the most bizarre scenarios for natural law, such as Einstein’s theory of relativity. However, atheistic science has completely ruled out God and the supernatural, which suggests to me that atheism is more a psychological reaction to some emotional condition rather than a logical reaction to the evidence at hand.

In other words, Plato was right: “Atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of the understanding.”