Life

[gluadys]

Gluadys, thanks, you are a "B" even though you seem unable to admit it so you mischaracterize "B" as indicating God is a part time tinkerer. ok

No. Not ok. You don't get to choose for me. Your description as set out in option B does not match with anything I believe about God and creation.

For one thing, I totally reject the idea conveyed in "Where life was not able to evolve naturally ...." God does not need to "step in" at points where evolution can't do the job, because God made evolution to do the job. That is like saying "When the sun can't continue to shine naturally, God steps in to turn on the light." What kind of creator makes a sun to give light and then has to be rekindled every now and again? What kind of God would initiate evolution and then need to give it a boost now and again?

And, to re-iterate again, I don't believe God ever needs to "step in" because God is never away. God is always, always, already in. The notion of God "stepping in" to help implies that God is normally absent. I don't believe in an absentee God.

So please strike me off your list of B supporters. I don't fit there.

 

[Van]

Gluadys, you continue to mischaracterize "B". You have a pattern of wanting to reframe viewpoints based on your speculation. God steps in does not suggest in the slightest He was away, that is option "A". You are a solid "B" in my opinion.

Anybody else willing to stake out an actual position? See post 32 for the descriptions of "A" and "B".

 

[Melethiel]

Why do we have to pick A or B? Why not "X"?

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys, you continue to mischaracterize "B". You have a pattern of wanting to reframe viewpoints based on your speculation. God steps in does not suggest in the slightest He was away, that is option "A". You are a solid "B" in my opinion.

You are reframing my position. It is not what you described in B. You described God in B as stepping in to do what nature could not--using miracle to supplement nature in its own realm. I reject that. Maybe you would like to revise the wording of B so that it is recognizable to me as something I would own.

Otherwise I second Melethiel's suggestion.

 

[Van]

How can you pick anything if it is a mystery, Melethiel?? TE hold one or the other of these views. You say TE do not hold a view because it is a mystery? Fine. Let those who are not "know nothings" answer the question.

Glaudys, I can read and "B" is crystal, as written. Since you have a pattern of reframing whatever is posted, claiming the original was not "recognizable" perhaps you might offer a view that differs from "B"? Remember "B" is not the deistic view, but the active sustainer view. Or you might just post, oops, I misread it.

 

[shernren]

You have a pattern of wanting to reframe viewpoints based on your speculation.

Meep. I haven't busted one of my ironymeters in a while, Van, you owe me a new one.

 

[Mallon]

Apparently, TE's are know nothings that simply ask questions. I ask for a TE view, and the response is "What is the YEC view!"

This is the second thread where I have simply asked for TE's to state their views, and have been stonewalled. Obviously a seed does not sprout by happenstance, it is following its program. Did the first form of life get its "program" by happenstance or by supernatural intervention? A simply question. But do I get an answer? Nope. Apparently TE's not only do not accept Genesis, they do not accept the do unto others as you would have them do unto you part either. I asked an open ended question, not a "trap" question designed to put whoever answers in a bad light, yet the response is as if I did. Go figure.

I'm sorry that I've upset you by not answering your question from the outset. As to what the smallest unit of life is, I don't know. I guess that depends on what you would define as life. If it's the oft-cited combination of homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction, then I suppose something like a bacterium would be considered the simplest unit of life. Perhaps even viruses. Even simpler definitions have been proposed, though, that might include such things as genes. (I wonder if Richard Dawkins would argue genes are alive?)

So I've answered your question. Now I hope I might get an answer from those YECs (do you include yourself among them, Van) who believe things like plants and insects are somehow not alive. To those people: How do you define life?

 

[Van]

What is life and what is the smallest unit of life? Is a virus "alive" Is the smallest unit of "life" irreducibly complex? Could life come from non-life by happenstance, or does the occurrence require a supernatural organizing force.

1) What is life? Something that uses energy, and grows and replicates. A virus is not alive, but rather alters the life of something alive. If you unplug a virus from its host, it does not replicate, use energy or grow.

2) Is the smallest unit of life irreducibly complex? Yes, or in other words life could not
occur by the random falling together of its component parts because the probably is statistically impossible, or so I believe.

3) Could life come from non-life without a supernatural organizing force. No, a force outside of what is known currently to science needed to arrange one or more forms of life initially, in order for life to begin.

The above was the sort of answer I had expected. It may not be correct, but it is what I believe and I am not afraid to lay it out with clarity.

I believe the earth and the universe were created more than 10,000 years ago, but I am open to sound arguments that humans like me did not exist until about 6000 years ago. I do believe "death" existed before Adam was created, and that the "death entered the world" refers to the spiritual separation of Adam from God, rather than the onset of physical death.

 

[gluadys]

How can you pick anything if it is a mystery, Melethiel?? TE hold one or the other of these views.

That is YOUR claim. Some of us disagree that TEs hold one or the other of these views.

Glaudys, I can read and "B" is crystal, as written. Since you have a pattern of reframing whatever is posted, claiming the original was not "recognizable" perhaps you might offer a view that differs from "B"? Remember "B" is not the deistic view, but the active sustainer view. Or you might just post, oops, I misread it.

Just what have I misread? Please look at your proposal B again. The parts I have bolded are parts I specifically disagree with. Please note that this is more than half of the paragraph. If you see them as essential to this viewpoint, then I am rejecting this viewpoint.


The second alternative of theistic evolution is that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were multitudinous. He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s Evolutionary Tree of Life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to Special Creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.



I agree God is an active sustainer, but not in the way you have described: not as one who has to author multitudinous miracles to sustain creation or make up for its deficiencies or must act supernaturally to bring about life as we know it.

1) What is life? Something that uses energy, and grows and replicates. A virus is not alive, but rather alters the life of something alive. If you unplug a virus from its host, it does not replicate, use energy or grow.

2) Is the smallest unit of life irreducibly complex? Yes, or in other words life could not
occur by the random falling together of its component parts because the probably is statistically impossible, or so I believe.

3) Could life come from non-life without a supernatural organizing force. No, a force outside of what is known currently to science needed to arrange one or more forms of life initially, in order for life to begin.

Just to pick up a few more differences. No problem with 1 as long as we recognize that by different criteria viruses, and even simpler forms would be considered "alive".

And that leads to a basic problem with 2. By the criteria given, yes the simplest form of life is irreducibly complex, but the conclusion--that it could not occur through a natural process--is not valid. (It is, of course, a mischaracterization to assume the process is one of components "randomly falling together".) There are evolutionary processes that produce irreducible complexity, so the mere existence of IC does not rule out natural means of arriving at an IC result. wherever we decide to draw the line between life and non-life.

3, of course, only follows if one accepts the premises of 2.

 

[Van]

So science has evidence of natural processes that produce something as complex as a living organism as defined by 1 above. If you say so.

If it was at all probable, you would think all the scientists trying to create life would have succeeded. But instead, they say more research is needed. That sounds like they have no evidence, only speculation which is not as yet supported by results. But we cannot do it, and we have no evidence life has originated on the planets and moons of our solar system. Therefore I think it is correct to say life as defined above, did not arise by the naturalistic processes known to science at this time. Even the simplest single celled life form is very complex, too complex to fall together. Therefore some organizing force must have been involved, a force that is unknown to science.

 

[gluadys]

So science has evidence of natural processes that produce something as complex as a living organism as defined by 1 above. If you say so.

If it was at all probable, you would think all the scientists trying to create life would have succeeded.

Why? Neither possibility nor probability means easy success. What reason can you give for holding them to a timetable?

I, for one, am amazed at how far research into abiogenesis has come in the last decade. Just 2-3 years ago I was still thinking "if scientists create life....". Today, I am thinking "when they create life...."

But instead, they say more research is needed. That sounds like they have no evidence, only speculation which is not as yet supported by results.

You speak as if there is only a hair's breadth between speculation and empirical result. Believe it or not there are many intermediate situations like "a bit of suggestive evidence", "some research indicates", "promising lines of experiment", "exciting new breakthroughs". All of these are, in fact, supported by experimental results. Not THE result (yet) of being able to announce "Ah ha! we've created a living reproducing cell." But, yes, there is much more than mere speculation. There is active research and experimentation and investigation of not just one, but many possibilities as to when, where, under what conditions life could form.

But we cannot do it, and we have no evidence life has originated on the planets and moons of our solar system. Therefore I think it is correct to say life as defined above, did not arise by the naturalistic processes known to science at this time. Even the simplest single celled life form is very complex, too complex to fall together. Therefore some organizing force must have been involved, a force that is unknown to science.

Well, I have already objected to equating natural processes to things just falling together. As for the rest, it is your statement of disbelief that God gifted creation with the capacity to produce life. Time will tell who is right on that score.

 

[Van]

Lets see, science has been trying to recreate life for at least 150 years without success, yet naturalistic processes created it. Naturally naturalistic forces are defined as including whatever unknown force actually created life. Got it.

TE appears to be a "I believe in whatever turns out to be true" belief system. Would you like magic crystals with that?

 

[Mallon]

TE appears to be a "I believe in whatever turns out to be true" belief system. Would you like magic crystals with that?

Imagine that. Evolutionary creationists, as proponents of good science, are apt to change their minds in light of new evidence, and so do not commit themselves to labelling everything we do not yet understand a "miracle".
What a bunch of kooks we must be!

We haven't been able to cure cancer for quite some time, too. Maybe God is miraculously withholding the cure from us. Surely it can't be because of a simple lack of understanding on our part. Might as well just give up!

 

[Van]

The failure of TE to take a position, to adopt a "it could be this or that position" is hardly a commitment to science. It is a commitment to evasion. The question I cannot answer is "why?" There is a big difference between, I believe it is this, but I could be wrong, and I believe the unknown truth, whatever that might be.

An actual scientist working of the cure for cancer holds a working hypothesis, and explores through experimentation and analysis whether or not it is true. He or she does not spend a lot of time trying to prove he or she knows more than others, or in finding fault with those exploring alternate possibilities.

It is ok not to believe in miracles, to believe that God is a passive sustainer, that he set the universe in motion and is allowing it to function according to his rules, which we might call naturalistic processes. But to hide and define that process as miraculous, and post vague statements that could mean "A" or "B" is not worthy of science or of fellowship. It is like raising corporate taxes and telling the consumers their taxes have not been raised. Just words calculated to evade truth.

Is TE simply an effort to proclaim Christ and avoid the ridicule of science? That is my working hypothesis.

 

[Mallon]

Your beliefs about evolutionary creationism confuse me, Van, because I'm not sure that they actually stem from anything anyone here has advocated.
Evolutionary creationists accept evolution (and other natural sciences) because that's what God's creation tells us. We in no way accept evolution simply to avoid ridicule from other scientists. Why would you think that?
We are by and large reluctant to say anything definitive regarding abiogenesis for the simple reason that science by and large has nothing definitive to say on the matter. Life may have been created in one big poof of smoke, or it may very well have come about via natural processes. We cannot yet say for certain. The science simply hasn't reached that state of maturity yet. That said, we are not willing to take the stance that life MUST have been created ex nihilo simply because we have not yet been able to replicate it. THAT'S a rediculous conclusion to reach (and is often the same one touted by neocreationists).

So what's your problem with us, Van? That we don't make definitive statements about topics we do not yet have definitive answers to?

 

[Assyrian]

The failure of TE to take a position, to adopt a "it could be this or that position" is hardly a commitment to science. It is a commitment to evasion. The question I cannot answer is "why?" There is a big difference between, I believe it is this, but I could be wrong, and I believe the unknown truth, whatever that might be.

An actual scientist working of the cure for cancer holds a working hypothesis, and explores through experimentation and analysis whether or not it is true. He or she does not spend a lot of time trying to prove he or she knows more than others, or in finding fault with those exploring alternate possibilities.

It is ok not to believe in miracles, to believe that God is a passive sustainer, that he set the universe in motion and is allowing it to function according to his rules, which we might call naturalistic processes. But to hide and define that process as miraculous, and post vague statements that could mean "A" or "B" is not worthy of science or of fellowship. It is like raising corporate taxes and telling the consumers their taxes have not been raised. Just words calculated to evade truth.

Is TE simply an effort to proclaim Christ and avoid the ridicule of science? That is my working hypothesis.

Why should we adopts a position on something science hasn't worked out yet? Sure a scientist researching some area will have a working hypothesis he is trying to verify or disprove. But does the rest of science adopt that position without any evidence? Why is it evasion to say we don't know about something science does not know?

Why would we care about 'the ridicule of science' if we didn't think science was the best way we have to understand the universe around us. And if we do think science is the best way to understand the how nature works, why would we need to adopt science just to stop science ridiculing us?

I think there may be a certain amount of projection in you working hypothesis. It is Creationists who feel the ridicule of science as you put it. But you don't just abandon Creationism because science ridicules it, the reason to drop it is because the science is right.

 

[gluadys]

Lets see, science has been trying to recreate life for at least 150 years without success, yet naturalistic processes created it.

Not really. The first experiment to see if anything related to life could appear naturally was, AFAIK, the Miller-Urey experiment that produced organic molecules. That is often portrayed as an attempt to create life, but it was not. And it was in 1953, just over half a century ago.

TE appears to be a "I believe in whatever turns out to be true" belief system.

You would prefer that people believe what they know to be false? I don't think anyone does that. You hold your beliefs because you believe them to be true, not because you think they may turn out to be false.

What is really wrong with saying "I don't know what is true in this instance. I'll wait to find out what is true." Doesn't that indicate a commitment to truth above all--even if it turns out to be a truth we don't like?

Would you like magic crystals with that?

Sure. If they work.

 

[Assyrian]

Lets see, science has been trying to recreate life for at least 150 years without success, yet naturalistic processes created it.

Not really. The first experiment to see if anything related to life could appear naturally was, AFAIK, the Miller-Urey experiment that produced organic molecules. That is often portrayed as an attempt to create life, but it was not. And it was in 1953, just over half a century ago.

You forget research by the great Victor Frankenstein which is at least 200 years old and the 16th century work of Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel in Prague, though the golem was more silica based than organic.

 

[Van]

I have seen nothing to indicate my working hypothesis is not valid.

Does TE avoid the ridicule heaped upon creationists? Yes.

Yes, I have posted the position of TE that I found on the internet, not the position expressed here because no position was taken.

Here is an example, What caused the Big Bang to bang? The response will be "What big bang?

Time will tell.

 

[Mallon]

I have seen nothing to indicate my working hypothesis is not valid.

Your hypothesis was that evolutionary creationism is "simply an effort to proclaim Christ and avoid the ridicule of science". As I said earlier, it is wrong because we accept evolution on the basis of the evidence alone, rather than as a means of avoiding ridicule.

Does TE avoid the ridicule heaped upon creationists? Yes.

Sadly, we don't fair so well against having our faith constantly called into question by our anti-evolutionary brethren.

Yes, I have posted the position of TE that I found on the internet, not the position expressed here because no position was taken.

What position that you "found on the internet" are you referring to?

Here is an example, What caused the Big Bang to bang? The response will be "What big bang?

Most evolutionary creationists I know are happy to admit to the Big Bang. As for what caused it, nobody can say. It must, by definition, have a cause outside of time and space. Sounds like God to me.