The origin of life

[reggieM]

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.

When we talk about atheistic science, that is basically another term for “mainstream science”.
For example, there are really only two possible explanations for the extremely narrow range of numeric values aligned with the processes in the universe which were necessary to support life.

1. We were phenomenally lucky.
   or
2. Our universe was intentionally designed by an intelligent agent

Mainstream science accepts only option #1 as valid.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Mainstream science accepts only option #1 as valid. *

Yes, the option for which there is no evidence whatever.

 

[rvilbig]

When we talk about atheistic science, that is basically another term for “mainstream science”.
For example, there are really only two possible explanations for the extremely narrow range of numeric values aligned with the processes in the universe which were necessary to support life.

1. We were phenomenally lucky.
   or
2. Our universe was intentionally designed by an intelligent agent

Mainstream science accepts only option #1 as valid.

There’s a third option: we have phenomenally Bona-venture (Latin for “good fortune” and Saint Francis’s name for John of Fidanza when he was cured of his childhood illness). Why dwell on one Divine Attribute, Intelligence, so much. Newman argued that “the aspect under which Almighty God is presented to us by Nature, is (to use a figure) of One who is angry with us and threatens evil.” (Grammar of Assent, 391)

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Why dwell on one Divine Attribute, Intelligence, so much.

Because God made us in His image and likeness? Just as God designed the universe to produce us, we see our own creations reflecting that same power of intelligent design.

Science cannot deal with God’s love. But certainly it should be able to see His intelligence reflected in His creation.

The mind of God is not God’s only attribute, but it really has to be the single attribute that first attracts the atheist’s attention, **if **anything at all is going to attract it.

We know from his own testimony ( in his book There Is a God) that former atheist Antony Flew found in the idea of Intelligent Design a gateway to discovering God. Whether he was able to reach beyond the cognitive God to the loving God we may not ever know, as he has now gone into that good night.

 

[buffalo]

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

I can’t let this one go.

Does not IDvolution reveal God’s eternal power and divine nature?

IDvolution does not posit a static universe. IDvolution is all about change by adaptation.

How about this? Since God created the language of DNA, and we know that DNA can be instrumental in healing, perhaps Jesus “spoke” the DNA language to cure the body.

The bottom line difference between evolution and IDvolution is in what direction is the arrow pointing. From the ground up or from God down? IDvolution says God breathed the super God powered language as a means for life to continue to flourish.

 

[buffalo]

More info to support IDvolution… peer reviewed.

Skittle: A 2-Dimensional Genome Visualization Tool

Background: It is increasingly evident that there are multiple and overlapping patterns within the genome, and that these patterns contain different types of information - regarding both genome function and genome history. In order to discover additional genomic patterns which may have biological significance, novel strategies are required. To partially address this need, we introduce a new data visualization tool entitled Skittle.

Results: This program first creates a 2-dimensional nucleotide display by assigning four colors to the four nucleotides, and then text-wraps to a user adjustable width. This nucleotide display is accompanied by a “repeat map” which comprehensively displays all local repeating units, based upon analysis of all possible local alignments. Skittle includes a smooth-zooming interface which allows the user to analyze genomic patterns at any scale.

Skittle is especially useful in identifying and analyzing tandem repeats, including repeats not normally detectable by other methods. However, Skittle is also more generally useful for analysis of any genomic data, allowing users to correlate published annotations and observable visual patterns, and allowing for sequence and construct quality control.

**Conclusions: Preliminary observations using Skittle reveal intriguing genomic patterns not otherwise obvious, including structured variations inside tandem repeats. The striking visual patterns revealed by Skittle appear to be useful for hypothesis development, and have already led the authors to theorize that imperfect tandem repeats could act as information carriers, and may form tertiary structures within the interphase nucleus.

Results

1. Detecting Patterns of Nucleotide Composition
   Using the Nucleotide Display, it is immediately obvious
   that most genomes are made up of regions strongly dominated
   by specific nucleotides, and this is seen at all scales.
   Taking a random window from the human genome, we
   can see alternating regions which are on the scale of thousands
   of nucleotides, and are predominantly either ATrich
   or GC-rich, and these often have sharply defined borders
   [Additional file 1A]. This stands in contrast to what
   we observe with randomly generated sequences [Additional
   file 1B], which do not have any visually obvious
   patterns of nucleotide composition. This phenomenon is
   also observed at much larger scales, and when Skittle is
   “zoomed out” we see visual patterns on the scale of millions
   of nucleotides, which we observe to correspond
   directly to recently mapped human isochores [13].
   **

 

[grannymh]

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.

Where do I go for information about inductive methods used by microbiologists? I am thinking of the logic definition – the process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances. For me the origin of human life is primary so I am wondering if the research conclusions regarding polygenism have misused reasonable limits of induction.

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.

Yet, when it comes to human life, we are told that science has ruled out two sole parents. And I wonder how accurate simulated populations are when there is no real data from millions of years ago.

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.

Maybe it is the emotional fear of letting go of the natural science microscope.

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

There is a lot of deep meaning in that quote.

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[grannymh]

I can’t let this one go.

Does not IDvolution reveal God’s eternal power and divine nature?

IDvolution does not posit a static universe. IDvolution is all about change by adaptation.

How about this? Since God created the language of DNA, and we know that DNA can be instrumental in healing, perhaps Jesus “spoke” the DNA language to cure the body.

The bottom line difference between evolution and IDvolution is in what direction is the arrow pointing. From the ground up or from God down? IDvolution says God breathed the super God powered language as a means for life to continue to flourish.

I have this nagging desire to redraw your circles, maybe like a pyramid with God at the top as the source of truth for faith and reason.

 

[buffalo]

I have this nagging desire to redraw your circles, maybe like a pyramid with God at the top as the source of truth for faith and reason.

Actually we are on the same page. I was wondering where to stick philosophy and metaphysics.

SInce IDvolution is not constrained by empirical science we can stick God in there. :clapping: Isn’t it great to be free?

I will let you in on a little secret. The circles have to do with Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. (evo’s don’t like this theorem at all) God would have to be the biggest circle.

 

[grannymh]

SInce IDvolution is not constrained by empirical science we can stick God in there. :clapping: Isn’t it great to be free?

I think it is great that God has a sense of humor when He looks at your drawings.

 

[buffalo]

I think it is great that God has a sense of humor when He looks at your drawings.

Correction - God would have to be outside the biggest circle.

 

[rvilbig]

The bottom line difference between evolution and IDvolution is in what direction is the arrow pointing. From the ground up or from God down? IDvolution says God breathed the super God powered language as a means for life to continue to flourish.

Evolution is both from God (the first cause) and toward God (the harvest of Christians), and directed by God during the in between (the actualization of potencies). Here’s how Dietrich von Hildebrand described it:

“Invariably in the idealist, the readiness to change is limited to a concept of nature’s immanent evolution or self-perfection: its scope remains exclusively human. Whereas, with the Christian, it refers to a basic transformation and redemption of things human by things divine: to a supernatural goal.” (Transformation in Christ, p.6)

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[reggieM]

His *power *to bring about change and His divine nature in that He has the right to select.

Again, I don’t want to discuss evolution because it’s off-topic.

A static universe of irreducibly complex parts would suggest that God is powerless to make His will manifest to free creatures.

A static universe could not contain irreducibly complex anything since the act of creation (and the sustinance of creation) is not a matter of stasis. Irreducible complexity is merely evidence that random mutation is an insufficient explanation for some of the features found in the universe. God can certainly manifest His will through stability (as in the physical laws, theological truths) as well as through change and adaptation.

If God does not mutate genes according to His will, then pray tell, how did Christ cure the blind and deaf?

God did not use natural processes in Christ’s cures. If so, He would have had to wait for the right, lucky mutation to arrive. The fact that Christ intervened in nature to work direct, physical changes in bodies means that he transcended natural (evolutionary) processes.

Perhaps I’m blind myself: what’s the connection between “the wrath of God” (Rom 1:19) and IDvolution?

The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.

The wrath of God is directed against atheism and the wickedness of suppressing the truth about the evidence of God’s existence. What can be known about God is evident even to atheists. Therefore, they cannot say “we didn’t see any evidence of God”. They could use the excuse that they weren’t trained in the true religion, perhaps. But God has made his existence and his attributes evident in nature – the things that have been made.

ID merely affirms and gives evidence of the work of an intelligent designer in nature. This has been a part of the Catholic apologetic since the apostolic age. Modern ID theory merely contributes more mathematical and scientific precision in recognizing the presence of the power of intelligence in nature.

 

[buffalo]

Evolution is both from God (the first cause) and toward God (the harvest of Christians), and directed by God during the in between (the actualization of potencies). Here’s how Dietrich von Hildebrand described it:
“Invariably in the idealist, the readiness to change is limited to a concept of nature’s immanent evolution or self-perfection: its scope remains exclusively human. Whereas, with the Christian, it refers to a basic transformation and redemption of things human by things divine: to a supernatural goal.” (Transformation in Christ, p.6) -Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

I use the latest science to build the case for IDvolution.

 

[grannymh]

ID merely affirms and gives evidence of the work of an intelligent designer in nature. This has been a part of the Catholic apologetic since the apostolic age. Modern ID theory merely contributes more mathematical and scientific precision in recognizing the presence of the power of intelligence in nature.

Regarding the apostolic age, would you be referring to Acts 17: 22-34? Or something else? There is a reference to nature, but I can’t find it at the moment; however, the reference to nature should be seen in conjunction with Paul’s method in Acts 17: 22-34.

While I appreciate ID and its accomplishments, I do not see it as part of a Catholic Apologetic approach to God and the Catholic Church because it appears to ignore the real example of the creative power of God which is the human person. Because human nature is an unique unification of body and soul, it is the best exhibit of Irreducible Complexity. Yet, this masterpiece of “intelligent design” is ignored. Why?

As I understand ID, it is separate from any kind of Catholic doctrines regarding human nature and original sin which are found in the reality of two sole parents of the human species as taught by the Catholic Church founded by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Because nature does point to its Divine Creator and ID is certainly pointing to an intelligent designer of nature, I can understand ID as an introductory tool to a supernatural being. I would really like to find a Catholic apologist along the lines of Paul who is using ID as an affirmation of Catholicism.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for spiritual truth needs Catholicism.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

Look no further.

peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm

 

[grannymh]

granny

Look no further.

peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm

Thanks. I’ve been curious about Peter Kreeft and am glad you mentioned him. I will hang on to his argument. Personally, I would have treated some of his thoughts a bit differently because I believe the emphasis should be on human nature – what one sees in the mirror.

But –

How should I reconcile his last paragraph with my original statement? – “I would really like to find a Catholic apologist along the lines of Paul who is using ID as an affirmation of Catholicism.”

From link
peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm

How much does this argument prove? Not all that the Christian means by God, of course—no argument can do that. But it proves a pretty thick slice of God: some designing intelligence great enough to account for all the design in the universe and the human mind. If that’s not God, what is it? Steven Spielberg?

On the other hand, I did spot a possible lead into human nature and consequently Catholicism. Do you have a link where Peter connects ID to Catholicism?

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

*I would really like to find a Catholic apologist along the lines of Paul who is using ID as an affirmation of Catholicism. *

I don’t see a necessary connection between ID as such and Catholicism so much as ID and theism in general.

ID cannot tell us much more about the Designer than the power to intelligently design. But that is a first giant step toward Catholicism, especially for those who are victims of scientism and don’t want to believe there is any credible knowledge outside the realm of science.

However, some modern concepts in science are edging us toward the Judeo-Christian world view. The Big Bang is one. “Let there be light.” For a long time many scientists were reluctant to believe that the universe was created. Now they know it was at a moment in time. Likewise, the Catholic concept of a Trinitarian God (3 in 1) seems consistent with God’s plan for Creation as an image of Himself. The single atoms of the universe contain three parts (persons) – proton, neutron, electron. In Catholic teaching we have a natural law morality propounded by Paul that seems embedded throughout the human race, so that no one has any excuse to deny it. Isaac Newton observed as much when he said: “Thus you see there is but one law for all nations: the law of righteousness and charity dictated to the Christians by Christ, to the Jews by Moses, and to all mankind by the light of reason, and by this law all men are to be judged at the last day.”

 

[grannymh]

granny

*I would really like to find a Catholic apologist along the lines of Paul who is using ID as an affirmation of Catholicism. *

I don’t see a necessary connection between ID as such and Catholicism so much as ID and theism in general.

ID cannot tell us much more about the Designer than the power to intelligently design. But that is a first giant step toward Catholicism, especially for those who are victims of scientism and don’t want to believe there is any credible knowledge outside the realm of science.

However, some modern concepts in science are edging us toward the Judeo-Christian world view. The Big Bang is one. “Let there be light.” For a long time many scientists were reluctant to believe that the universe was created. Now they know it was at a moment in time. Likewise, the Catholic concept of a Trinitarian God (3 in 1) seems consistent with God’s plan for Creation as an image of Himself. The single atoms of the universe contain three parts (persons) – proton, neutron, electron. In Catholic teaching we have a natural law morality propounded by Paul that seems embedded throughout the human race, so that no one has any excuse to deny it. Isaac Newton observed as much when he said: “Thus you see there is but one law for all nations: the law of righteousness and charity dictated to the Christians by Christ, to the Jews by Moses, and to all mankind by the light of reason, and by this law all men are to be judged at the last day.”

Thanks for the above. The more I think about it, the more I realize I am asking the wrong questions.

What I am really looking for is an ID scientist who accepts the reality of two sole parents of the human species and is able to defend that position. I’ve made a couple of contacts, but they did not work out. I got the impression, wrong I hope, is that Adam and Eve were small potatoes.

Blessings,
granny

The beauty of the universe is a joy to behold.

 

[reggieM]

Regarding the apostolic age, would you be referring to Acts 17: 22-34? Or something else?

There are many references in the New Testament. You could check out St. John Chrysostom’s sermon on Our Lord’s words in Luke 12:27 – that’s basically the ID argument, the observation of design in nature. St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 1:19-20 is a foundational text on the concept of Intelligent Design in nature – that’s where the Catholic teaching starts (actually, it goes back to the Old Testament, through the Gospels – St. Paul just re-affirms it).

While I appreciate ID and its accomplishments, I do not see it as part of a Catholic Apologetic approach to God and the Catholic Church because it appears to ignore the real example of the creative power of God which is the human person.