Yay for abiogenesis
- Thread starter philadiddle
- Start date
- Status
Matthewj1985
Well-Known Member
Get ready for some serious goal post moving and mental gymnastics when it is announced that we as a species have created "life" from "non-life" in the lab. I have a bag of popcorn ready for popping to see how the creationist deal with that one. I am leaning towards outright denial ala transitional fossils myself.
Upvote
0
Why, what would that prove? That it takes intelligence to create life? Sounds like that would affirm theism.
Upvote
0
You don't have to move the goal post when it seems we are talking about "Recipes" to produce these building blocks. It took 20 years to find the right combination of two of the basic blocks to RNA. We are still dealing with an extremely narrow path.
So in one hand we have made good progress in learning how to build nucleotides naturally (and will probably find the other two combination given enough time) yet on the other hand continues to increase the number of tight ropes blind nature must travel which increases one's faith in the incredible power of the god of luck. Thus the god of gaps is ever being replace with the god of extreme luck.
Still even with all the RNA and DNA we have today we haven't yet to build life from scratch. Now I do believe one day (if given enough time) man will learn how to do this yet again walking an extreme narrow path in order to do so.
So in one hand we have made good progress in learning how to build nucleotides naturally (and will probably find the other two combination given enough time) yet on the other hand continues to increase the number of tight ropes blind nature must travel which increases one's faith in the incredible power of the god of luck. Thus the god of gaps is ever being replace with the god of extreme luck.
Still even with all the RNA and DNA we have today we haven't yet to build life from scratch. Now I do believe one day (if given enough time) man will learn how to do this yet again walking an extreme narrow path in order to do so.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You don't have to believe in luck. God set the universe up so that it would inevitably give rise to life. Don't you think He's powerful enough and clever enough to do that? There is no blind rope of luck in order for these natural events to occur, they are statistically probable, contrary to what creationist pamphlets may say.
Given the sample space we have in the universe, and the amount of time for planets and life to form, it is almost inevitable that a planet will give rise to life by natural means. I'll use the lottery to explain what I mean. A ticket may have a 1 in 70,000,000 chance of winning, and you probably won't win. However, there seems to be a winner almost every week. This is because the population of ticket holders is large enough that it is likely there will be at least one winner, even though it's still only a 1 in 70,000,000 chance that it's you. Likewise, the odds of a supernova occurring and for some of the debris to form a planet such as ours that will eventually become habitable has a very very small chance. Fortunately for us, there are countless stars to provide a large enough sample space that this actually becomes likely to occur in at least one instance. Once that happens, it is again only a matter of time for self replicating chemical compounds to form and start evolving, since the sample space we are dealing with is a large surface and lots of time. There's no reason to assume luck played a role in this. God did a good enough job for it to work itself out. He's not so incompetent that He has to just poof everything into existence.
Upvote
0
If luck were a factor in the creation of life, do you see anything inherently godless about it? Do you believe God is not able to bring about His will via chance circumstances?
Upvote
0
I sometimes wonder if actually, when it comes right down to it, there really IS any pure chance. Baecause it would seem to me that everything happens as a reult of something else,
Upvote
0
Matthewj1985
Well-Known Member
An argument I see many Christians use is "life is so unique we can fly to the moon but can't even create it under the most perfect conditions, therefore Goddidit".
Upvote
0
Is Robert Shapiro a creationist since he seem to have said something similar :
Insight into RNA origins
Even though Shapiro has some opposing views from Sutherland I serious doubt this would make him any friendlier toward creationist.
One of the things Science has to deal with is probability.
Now could God have made Mary (a virgin) pregnant the exact same same man could today? Of course yet I doubt he had to uses the equipment (needles,etc.) that man would use. The same with this case. Could God made this building blocks of RNA exact like these men did in the article? Of course yet I have serious doubts that God would have need of a lab or all those tools.
P.S Abiogenesis ,which is in the title, has absolutely nothing to do with God. There is not even a hint of God or any other intelligent agent in the mind of these men in these articles. Abiogenesis is all about blind nature own her own preforming the miracle of life.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Adoniram
Senior Member
Interesting article. Naturally though, there were a lot of "could haves." But, it is fascinating what is possible when an "intelligence" is present to manipulate things.
I also find the mindset that "God set the universe up so that it would inevitably give rise to life" interesting. I mean... it doesn't sound very "powerful or clever" to me. The Bible says "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (Rev. 4:11) And man, unique in that we alone are able to give praise and glory back to him, was created to glorify God (1 Chr. 16:23-24). Since his objective was a creation that would glorify and give him pleasure, why would God take the long way around to achieve his purposes? It just doesn't jive, especially considering that he could indeed "just poof everything into existence," (similar to what Genesis says) and enjoy the immediate pleasure of his work. No one, in wanting to travel from St. Louis to Kansas City, heads east across the Atlantic, Europe and Asia, the Pacific, and the western half of the US to get there.
Of course the Bible says that God didn't take the long way around, that he created within a very short time span. That "He's not so incompetent that He" couldn't "just poof everything into existence." Or " Don't you think He's powerful enough and clever enough to do that?"
I also find the mindset that "God set the universe up so that it would inevitably give rise to life" interesting. I mean... it doesn't sound very "powerful or clever" to me. The Bible says "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (Rev. 4:11) And man, unique in that we alone are able to give praise and glory back to him, was created to glorify God (1 Chr. 16:23-24). Since his objective was a creation that would glorify and give him pleasure, why would God take the long way around to achieve his purposes? It just doesn't jive, especially considering that he could indeed "just poof everything into existence," (similar to what Genesis says) and enjoy the immediate pleasure of his work. No one, in wanting to travel from St. Louis to Kansas City, heads east across the Atlantic, Europe and Asia, the Pacific, and the western half of the US to get there.
Of course the Bible says that God didn't take the long way around, that he created within a very short time span. That "He's not so incompetent that He" couldn't "just poof everything into existence." Or " Don't you think He's powerful enough and clever enough to do that?"
Upvote
0
Diverting the question from what God did do to what God could do misses the point. We all agree that God could create in any time frame he chooses. The question is not what we believe about God's power, nor what seems sensible to us ("If I were God, I would create this way..") but "What does the evidence tell us that God did?"
Secondly, it is a question of what we believe about the nature of scripture. I have no problem reconciling a literary composition about creation with the hard evidence provided by creation itself, because I understand that literature is not intended to be science. One only runs into difficulty accepting what science has learned about creation when one decides a priori that the scriptural account must be a scientific account of creation rather than a literary composition about creation.
Upvote
0
Adoniram
Senior Member
The "nature" of that particular "literary composition" is that it's the Word of God, not just a collection of stories. I have to believe it in it's entirety, not just picking and choosing..."this sounds reasonable but this doesn't." If I don't believe God in Genesis 1 when he says on the first day I did this, on the second day I did this, etc., what basis do I have for believing him when he says I sent my Son into the world and whoever believes in him will be saved?
Certainly, I'm not claiming the Bible is a book of science. But neither does it have to be in order to describe events that occurred. When a newspaper says that a house located at such and such location burned down at such and such time, no one calls that a scientific account of what occurred, nevertheless, it is accepted as a description of the event.
What does the "evidence" tell us that God did? Nothing. The evidence is inanimate material, mute, has no voice of it's own. Instead, what we have is a group of men and women, mainstream science, speaking for it. Interpreting it. It is this interpretation that mis-aligns with the scriptural account, not the evidence itself. Of course, misinterpreting evidence is nothing new for mainstream science. Science has been misinterpreting the evidence for centuries, continually having to revise and re-align their views, and continues to do so today. Incidently, there are a large number of scientists (admittedly small in comparison to the vast numbers of those in the mainstream, but still, not inconsequential), whose interpretations of the evidence do align with what God says he did in the scriptures.
So I'm faced with a choice: believe the men and women of science, who have shown their fallibility time and time again, or believe God, who has shown his infallibility time and time again. For me the choice is easy.
Col. 2:8
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
What difference does that make? When David composed a Psalm, he used a literary form of Hebrew poetry. Does that make it any less inspired? any less truthful?
Any form of writing must be in some sort of literary form. Even a grocery list is a simple literary form. The bible contains many literary forms. And it contains nothing that is not set in a literary form.
So what difference does its nature make?
I didn't say it was just a collection of stories. I didn't even say it was a collection of stories. The bible certainly contains many stories. But it also contains much that is not in story form.
Do you have a problem with teaching via stories? Do you think God is unlikely to inspire a story?
Hmmm. Sounds like you do. Are you saying that if you thought something in the bible is a story, you would choose not to believe it? Why would you throw out a perfectly good section of scripture if it is a story?
Sounds like you think "story" is a synonym for "lie". So are Jesus' parables lies?
Personally, I do believe the bible in its entirety--including the stories--especially the stories. Stories were the first way people kept history alive; the first way people tried to explain the world to their children and tell themselves who they were and who God is.
Is it your position that you know the mind of God in such depth that you can guarantee that he would never, ever, ever, under any circumstances reveal himself to the biblical authors through a story?
But you are. When you say you have to believe that the first day and the second day and the third day are not part of a story, but part of an actual history that could have been filmed if any human photographer had been there you are saying the days must be what science calls a day and not what a storyteller calls a day. The first kind of day is something that one must be able to measure objectively; the second is not. The second kind of day is a way of giving literary structure to the story.
Do you believe in Christ because science has objectively measured the Holy Spirit or proven the resurrection?
But it is science in essence. No, it won't get written up in a scientific journal, but you can bet it will be written in the fire department's log, and the insurance inspector's report as well as the newspaper. And though the newspaper will omit some of the details, those details are physical, measurable details about what caused the fire and what the effects were. That is scientific information.
And btw--the newspaper report, the fire station's log and the insurance inspector's report are all also a form of literary composition.
Go back to your house that burned down. What you have is inanimate, material, mute, physical evidence. Yet from it a determination will be made as to the cause of the fire, whether the insurance company is liable to pay the owner, and how much, and whether there is evidence of foul play.
If you trust the ability of an inspector to make such conclusions in the case of a fire, why would you doubt the ability of anyone familiar with examining similar evidence to come to conclusions that are at least as reliable?
No that is not the choice you are faced with. You are leaving out another group of men and women. The men and women of various theological schools who tell you how to understand scripture. It is not God who says you must believe Genesis 1 is a scientific account of creation. It is men and women theologians who are just as fallible in their hermeneutics as scientists are in their field.
Many people interpret scripture in many different ways and God, AFAIK, has not told us whose interpretation is correct. That is why we have competing views of the nature of scripture and how to understand it.
But while scientists are just as fallible as theologians and bible teachers and pastors, they have a way of learning whose interpretation is correct. They have the actual physical evidence which God left in creation and they can determine whose interpretation of the evidence best fits the case.
Upvote
0
Adoniram
Senior Member
Maybe I made a mistake in understanding your comment about the Scriptures being a "literary composition." Many people consider it to be that and that alone. Simply a book comprised of good moral stories that promote good lessons but not meant to be taken as being literally true. My point was that it is the Word of God, all true, all the time. It's that God inspired word for word what he wanted the authors to write down. (2 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:1) And because he told the author of Genesis to write that he created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, that is what I believe happened. God does not lie.
Of course, I understand that being in written form, the book is a literary composition. I also understand that most of it is meant to be taken literally as the simplest understanding of the context indicates; that some of it is allegory and clearly indicated when it is; and that some of it is symbolism and clearly indicated when it is.
But science didn't define what a day is, God did. "The evening and the morning were the first day." Science only much later was able to measure it more precisely. Much much later in fact; even in Biblical times it was known to be a 24 hour period.
I did not say there was no science in the Bible. It would be pretty hard to write anything without involving science of some sort. What I said was that it wasn't a science book (my exact words being "book of science"). Must I explain the difference to you?
And by pointing this out, I take it that you believe the use of the word "day" in the Genesis passages is a mere literary device? That God, when he told the author to write "day," comprised of a morning and an evening in this case, didn't really mean a day?
But even though it contains information that is scientific in nature, you wouldn't called it a science book would you?
I see that in reference to the Bible you said "I have no problem reconciling a literary composition about creation with the hard evidence provided by creation itself, because I understand that literature is not intended to be science." So it's not science, but it is, huh?
In the case of scientists interpretations of the evidence of creation, I tend to trust those whose interpretations of that evidence lines up with what the Bible indicates. And as I said earlier, there are plenty whose do.
Though theologians often have helpful insights to offer, I don't need one to tell me how to understand the scripture. It was written plainly, in simple language, by simple people. That's the beauty of it. It's not written in great technical terms that require a PhD to understand.
Yes, they can. And many have interpretations that are actually compatible with the Bible.
Mainstream science does have an agenda. A telling point was offered by one prominent evolutionary scientist, and I'm sorry but can't recall his name right now but I can find it out. He said, and I'm paraphrasing here: I have to believe in evolution even though the evidence is slim, because the alternative is to believe in special creation, and that is unthinkable.
Upvote
0
I think any Christian understands all scripture to be inspired literary compositions.
Why would you think that? I don't know of any reason to assume a priori that most of the bible is meant to be taken literally. Indeed, this seems to be a distinctly new concept in the history of biblical interpretation. For over 1500 years, the primary task of Christian theology was seen to be the illumination of the scriptures as allegory. Who changed the rules and why?
A day, in fact, is the period of time it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis. God defined it by creating the earth to rotate on its axis. Scientists defined it by developing units of time (hours/minutes/seconds) and measuring how long it takes the earth to rotate once.
First and foremost I don't believe God dictated the scriptures. I believe God inspired the writers to write. I don't believe he told them precisely---word-by-word---what to write. So I believe it was the human author who chose the word day.
Yes, I believe he structured his story using "day" as a literary device. And yes, he really meant "day". He did not mean, for example, an eon. It is not the specific word "day" that is an allegory. It is the composition (no one seems to know precisely what to call it; it is not a classic Hebrew poem though it contains poetic features---it appears to be designed for liturgical use--a sort of hymn of praise perhaps) that is an exquisite literary structure. A focus on a single word hides the beauty of the whole.
No, I wouldn't call a newspaper a science book. But let's recall as well that a newspaper, though its ostensibly primary purpose is to report news, contains much that is not reports. It also contains many advertisements, opinions, entertainment features, and so on. Similarly, the bible contains history, law, proverbs, parables, letters, hymns, etc.
You are saying that the opening chapter of the bible is the same sort of composition as a report. But is there any good reason to think it is? You seem to think that only a report can be relied on to be true. But doesn't this demand that it be "true" in some scientific sense as we discussed earlier i.e. with objectively verifiable physical measurable evidence? Yet if we look at the 23rd Psalm, it is none of these things, yet it is true. Why could the opening chapter of Genesis not be true in the way a Psalm is without being a report of the physical happenings of specific historical days?
You mean with what you think the Bible indicates IOW with how you interpret the Bible. But you are a fallible human being with limited mental powers. Your interpretation of the what the Bible indicates could be in error.
Who told you that the scripture was written plainly, in simple language, by simple people? Theologians--that's who. It may have been a pastor or Sunday school teacher or the author of a book about the bible that you read. But all these people in turn learned from some other teacher; some of them studied at Bible college or seminary or theological schools. You, yourself, I expect, have studied the bible both in a class at your church, in a summer camp, and on your own with the help of books and videos.
So you have taken a theological position: that there is a way to understand scripture--a way that follows what makes plain sense to an average modern American without a lot of education.
It makes no sense. The bible was not written by simple people. It was written in the first place by people who could write. And in biblical days those were the best educated people around. Only about 2 of any given 100 people received an education that included literacy. So most of the bible was written by people who had what was for their time the educational equivalent of a modern PhD.
We see in the gospels, for example, that the scribes (those who could read and write) were not only entrusted with reading the law, but with interpreting it. Why? Because they were the most highly educated people in the community.
Nor was the bible written for simple people. It is a matter of cultural arrogance to think that non-literate people are "simple". In days when oral education was more common than today, much great wisdom was passed down orally, and people still distinguished fools from the wise, even if neither could read or write.
Nor does the bible contain simple ideas. It contains many profound ideas that the wisest of modern times--as well as biblical times--find difficult to wrestle with. Anyone who teaches that the bible is written in plain, simple language for simple people has never read the epistles of Paul.
Are some parts of the bible simple to understand? Of course. Yet simplicity can also hide deeper meanings. Jesus parables were spoken to simple illiterate people and they are easy to understand simply as stories. Yet they also contain much more than what lies on the surface, and those who looked for more than just an afternoon's entertainment found a deeper meaning in them.
Finally, and most importantly, what is plain and simple to a modern American may be very different from what was plain and simple to an ancient Israelite.
"Simple" in fact, is not a simple idea in itself. Are we speaking of simple people or simple language? Highly sophisticated people can use simple language. Sometimes it takes a great deal of effort to express an idea simply. That is why the "simple" 17-syllable poems called 'haiku' are so admired. Each one is very simple, but it takes great skill to make them simple.
And what do we mean by simple people? People without an education or literacy? People without modern technology? People who live in tents? People who are at the bottom of the social scale? I think you would agree that none of these things makes a person incapable of deep thinking and great wisdom, capable of dealing with ideas that are by no means simple. They may not have a diploma from Harvard on the wall, but that doesn't mean they can't follow complex logic, innovative word-play, dramatic structure or symbolic language.
I think the whole theological idea of "simple language for simple people" is an immense put-down of both the people of biblical times and people of modern times who have less than a college education. It assumes that if you don't have formal educational qualifications you are too stupid to be able to follow a metaphor. I would be insulted by a preacher who thought that of me. And I wouldn't be prepared to follow a so-called biblical teacher who thought that of himself or of the authors of the bible.
Of course. Learn the physical operations of nature. What makes the material universe work as it does.
In the first place, that is not a scientific conclusion. It may be his personal attitude, but as you can see, it does not refer to any fact of nature which can be objectively verified by other scientists. Remember, scientist is a job description. At bottom a scientist is a human being like you with many roles in addition to his/her work. Not every word a scientist says is science. Only what they do as scientists.
Secondly, that must have been a long time ago. The evidence has not been "slim" in over a century.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
