Abiogenesis or God?

[Jet Black]

Why would it have to be unevolvable?

well that is kind of the point of IC isn't it? something nature cannot do via evolution.

This is what I mean about naturalistic methodology, if you reject one part you reject all of it, if you accept part of it you accept all of it. I can reason as well as the next guy and I don't pin my hopes on a fragmentary conception of God. Why should I be compelled to accept Fox's or Darwin's conclusions on framentary evidence?

It's not a matter of being compelled to accept their conclusions on "fragmentary" evidence (though I would hardly say the evidence for evolution as a whole is fragmentary) but you are rejecting it and simultaneously admitting that there is evidence.

 

[mark kennedy]

well that is kind of the point of IC isn't it? something nature cannot do via evolution.

As far as the original creation it does not happen piecemeal is the whole idea. Evolution, and correct me if I am wrong, a biogenesis concept. Naturalistic materialism will include them as a matter of course but natural science doesn't need to.

It's not a matter of being compelled to accept their conclusions on "fragmentary" evidence (though I would hardly say the evidence for evolution as a whole is fragmentary) but you are rejecting it and simultaneously admitting that there is evidence.

Like I said, if you accept any of it you must accept all of it. This is not the kind of precision and discernment that natural science is known for. This is some kind of an axiom that treats theology and natural science as mutually exclusive. Thats just not how reason works.

 

[Jet Black]

As far as the original creation it does not happen piecemeal is the whole idea. Evolution, and correct me if I am wrong, a biogenesis concept. Naturalistic materialism will include them as a matter of course but natural science doesn't need to.

what?

Like I said, if you accept any of it you must accept all of it. This is not the kind of precision and discernment that natural science is known for. This is some kind of an axiom that treats theology and natural science as mutually exclusive. Thats just not how reason works.

what?

not following you here.

 

[mark kennedy]

To put it plainly there are limits to how far I can take naturalistic explanations. The fact that I agree with things like natural selection doesn't mean that I have abandoned creationism. I just don't take it to the extreme that it must account for every transition from the protoorganism to you. It might also supprise you to know I have no problem with ring species, or nested hiearchies in as much as the fit the same reasoning I put into my theology.

For instance, evolution is the change in gene frequencies in populations over time. Now this is perfectly consistant with the creationist position that all the diversity that fills our planet descended from the animals from the Ark. The gene pool is somewhat static and yet allows for a tremendous amount of diversity, up to and including limited speciation. Piecemealing a natural history of life on this planet with purely naturalistic methodology shuns theistic reasoning and I think thats wrong.

 

[Vance]

Well, no, nested heirarchies is not at all consistent with descent from the time of the ark since the "nestedness" can be seen going back much, much farther than any "kinds" categories you would name. All mammals, for example, share a vast number of common traits not shared by, say, amphibians. But mammals and amphibians share traits not shared with invertabrates (or insert here any number of other groups). But all of these share a number of traits not shared with bacteria, or the entire plant kingdom, etc, etc.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, no, nested heirarchies is not at all consistent with descent from the time of the ark since the "nestedness" can be seen going back much, much farther than any "kinds" categories you would name. All mammals, for example, share a vast number of common traits not shared by, say, amphibians. But mammals and amphibians share traits not shared with invertabrates (or insert here any number of other groups). But all of these share a number of traits not shared with bacteria, or the entire plant kingdom, etc, etc.

They are thought to go back much farther, as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out. I don't really by into the homology arguments since whenever there is a simularity it a homologous relationship. When there is a discernable change then it is considered a morphology, evolutionary change. Common traits and genes don't insist on universal common descent, this is based on naturalistic assumptions, not demonstrative proof.

 

[yossarian]

Common traits and genes don't insist on universal common descent, this is based on naturalistic assumptions, not demonstrative proof.

no, the pattern of commonality insists on it

 

[Ondoher]

They are thought to go back much farther, as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out. I don't really by into the homology arguments since whenever there is a simularity it a homologous relationship. When there is a discernable change then it is considered a morphology, evolutionary change. Common traits and genes don't insist on universal common descent, this is based on naturalistic assumptions, not demonstrative proof.

The nested hierarchy is real. Independent analysis of character traits, whether anatomical or molecular always produce the same tree with statistically significant degrees. The best explanation for the twin nested hierarchies of morphologic and molecular analysis is common ancestry. Descent with modification cannot help but generate such trees.

 

[Vance]

But you say you accept the nested heirarchies as valid evidence of common descent at least among "kinds", so you DO see why they are persuasive. Now, you must explain why this is not persuasive beyond a certain point. The logic that you see in this evidence is the same going back long before your "kinds" (whatever that is). You say it is not demonstrative proof, but science does not work solely on proofs, but on evidence. It is VERY demonstrative evidence, as you freely admit, even though you limit the scope of its persuasiveness for yourself based on your theological barriers.

Other than theological barriers, what is the reason why the logic and persuasiveness ends beyond a certain point? The same exact commonality and distinction issues exist all the way back.

If you say, well, I draw the line at point X because I have other problems with the processes beyond that point, then this says nothing about the quality of the nested hierarchy evidence overall.

This is all a puzzle of various forms of evidence, some more persuasive than others. Full common descent through evolution has a variety of types of evidence to support it. If nested heirarchies is one of those evidences, then it is evidence (even if not itself conclusive) for the whole process unless you can show that the evidence of nested heirarchies *itself* doesn't work beyond a certain point. You can't say this particular form of evidence becomes unpersuasive at a certain point just because you don't accept evolution past that point for other reasons. You would just say, yes, I can see that evidence is there, but it is simply not enough without this other evidence as well. That is fine.

 

[Inner City Blues]

Seriously I can't answer this poll because it makes no sense. People always want to pit science against belief in God, and that makes no sense. The people that are against the idea of evolution sound like the people that excommunicated Galileo for his Earth around the sun theory. They seem like the flat Earth versus the round Earth series. It's adherence to an ideology that presupposes science against God. I think literal interpretation of the Creation is the new flat Earth that despite all the die hards that want to say the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, they will eventually be disproven with the facts. A theory is in science means that it's basically true, but you just don't have the capacity to do the experiment to prove it. Hypotheses are the ideas that are more tenuous.

God created the universe and the mechanism for our creation/evolution. Science seeks to understand that mechanism, they are not there to prove or disprove God. I suspect the next creationist thing will be to jump on the dark matter band wagon because we don't understand it yet, so they can easily say it's God.

 

[mark kennedy]

But you say you accept the nested heirarchies as valid evidence of common descent at least among "kinds", so you DO see why they are persuasive. Now, you must explain why this is not persuasive beyond a certain point. The logic that you see in this evidence is the same going back long before your "kinds" (whatever that is). You say it is not demonstrative proof, but science does not work solely on proofs, but on evidence. It is VERY demonstrative evidence, as you freely admit, even though you limit the scope of its persuasiveness for yourself based on your theological barriers.

I never said that I limited myself because of my theology, I just said that there are limits to naturalistic methodology. There is a difference between providence and intervention. When God acts in time and space as He did in the original creation then that is intervention, what follows is providence where things unfold as God intended. I am aware of the demostrative proofs that you are refering to and they don't support descent from a universal common ancestor.

Other than theological barriers, what is the reason why the logic and persuasiveness ends beyond a certain point? The same exact commonality and distinction issues exist all the way back.

Neither the natural scientist nor the theologian think in a vacume. They reason with the same general faculties. I have reservations about the ability of the theologian to explain God as well as the natural scientist to explain the way nature works. There is no barrior for natural science in theology, anymore then there is anything in natural science to exclude God acting in time and space to create the living world in a matter of days. You are mixing up your naturalistic assumptions with the demonstrative proof and jumping to conclusions.

This is all a puzzle of various forms of evidence, some more persuasive than others. Full common descent through evolution has a variety of types of evidence to support it. If nested heirarchies is one of those evidences, then it is evidence (even if not itself conclusive) for the whole process unless you can show that the evidence of nested heirarchies *itself* doesn't work beyond a certain point. You can't say this particular form of evidence becomes unpersuasive at a certain point just because you don't accept evolution past that point for other reasons. You would just say, yes, I can see that evidence is there, but it is simply not enough without this other evidence as well. That is fine.

It all comes down to how you intend to draw up the tree of life based on the evidence. For a long time there was the consensus amoung the intellectual elite that species never changed (immutability). Then Darwin and a host of other evolutionary philosophers decided to swing to the other extreme and came up with the non-constancy of species that traced all the branches to one single common ancestor. My contention is simply that the truth lies somewhere between those two extreme scenerios.

 

[Vance]

And my question is why? Other than a theological belief in a special creation, what specific naturalistic reason do you have for drawing a line at some point in the nested hierarchy procession? Why is the evidence compelling up to a certain point (which happens to match your theologically based time limits) and not beyond?

And it would be perfectly understandable to say "well, really there is no specific naturalistic reason for drawing a line somewhere, but since I believe that there is this time limit, the evidence becomes less persuasive for me beyond that point."

But, if you are saying that it is not theologically based reasons for differentiating between the nested hierarchy evidence at some point, then you would have to provide the naturalistic reasons. The scientifically reasonable reasons. And they would have to be reasons *within the heirarchy itself*, not some reason separate from the hiearchy.

 

[ego licet visum]

God is by definition alive

Unless God reproduces other members of the God-species he is not by definition alive. Do you know of any deity children of God? (humans, including Jesus, would not count. We are humans, not deities)

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Unless God reproduces other members of the God-species he is not by definition alive. Do you know of any deity children of God? (humans, including Jesus, would not count. We are humans, not deities)

Actually this raises a funny point. Since God can hybridize with humans (Mary), does this mean humans and God are the same "kind"?

 

[yossarian]

It all comes down to how you intend to draw up the tree of life based on the evidence. For a long time there was the consensus amoung the intellectual elite that species never changed (immutability). Then Darwin and a host of other evolutionary philosophers decided to swing to the other extreme and came up with the non-constancy of species that traced all the branches to one single common ancestor. My contention is simply that the truth lies somewhere between those two extreme scenerios.

good, so can you come up with any consistent way to generate a bunch of shrubs from the data?

 

[gladiatrix]

Response to Mark's Post #37--PART 1

You have used methodological naturalism (MN)and theology as though the two things were somehow interchangeable.

That which may be known of God is manifest in them

Where you got this is a mystery to me but methodological naturalism rejects theology as a matter of course. What I have come to appreciate is the they have some common ground, abiogenesis is just not one of them.

And what "common ground" do theology and MN share?

I was pointing out to you that IF that is so, then for YOU to continue trying to conflate the two, then you would also have to abide by the rules of MN which can only consider empirical evidence.

I don't know what conflate means but it sounds disgusting

FYI

From the Merriam Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: con·flate
Pronunciation: k&n-'flAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): con·flat·ed; con·flat·ing
Etymology: Latin conflatus, past participle of conflare to blow together, fuse, from com- + flare to blow -- more at BLOW
1 a : to bring together : FUSE b : CONFUSE
2 : to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole


And for an example of such conflation all we need do is look at your previous statement:

That which may be known of God is manifest in them

Where you got this is a mystery to me but methodological naturalism rejects theology as a matter of course. What I have come to appreciate is the they have some common ground, abiogenesis is just not one of them.

1. Now of course abiogenesis would NOT be a "common ground". Looks like you just contradicted your contention that abiogenesis IS some form of theology. Thank you for admitting that abiogenesis is not theology since you contend that MN/abiogenesis IS theology.

2. And again, I want to see this alleged "common ground" between MN and theology (looks like conflation to me).

and I have no problem discerning between NM and Christian theism.

If that is so, then you will no longer continue to demand that abiogenesis, scientific theory (MN uses empirical evidence) must accept your God (theology, NO empirical evidence) as an explanation for the appearance of life on earth. No? the why not? Your god-belief is NOT a scientific proposition.

You seem very confused about both and your a prime example of how if you accept anything in NM you have to accept all of it, and if you reject part you have to reject it all.

Don't project your confusion/mind-set onto me.

You seem very confused about both and your a prime example of how if you accept anything in NM you have to accept all of it, and if you reject part you have to reject it all.

[SPELLING-GRAMMAR NAZI]

It's not "your", but "you're"

[/SPELLLING-GRAMMER NAZI]

With regard to the bolded part of your statement, this looks like more projection of your own mind-set onto others, because this sort of "all or none" type of "acceptance" is characteristic of religious dogmas/doctrines/ideas. Scientific theories can and do change to reflect new data/better ideas. When was the last time a religious dogma changed/accomodated itself to reflect reality? Hmmm...Oh, wait the Pope did apologize for persecuting Galileo...~400 years after the fact, but that really doesn't have much to do with any present-day Catholic dogma, now does it? And IMO it was done purely as a PR ploy ("see we're not the unscientific, unreasonable bumpkins some may think we are") because Catholic Church no longer has the power to murder/persecute those who disagree with it (wouldn't have happened if the RCC still wielded the power it once had, IMO).

The real problem with faith-based, untestible claims made by religions is that there is NO way to really settle disputes over doctrines, etc. How does one make the "cut" without some kind of tangible evidence? The lack of any real way (evaluative arguments pro or con) to settle such arguments certainly does explain why the history of religion usually written in blood...the only way to "settle" the dispute is through bloodshed/persecution with "history" written by the "winning" side, i. e., "god (s?) was(were) with them" the "winning" side, naturally.

The above means that in order to establish you god as a fact, you would need empirical evidence (to abide by the rules of MN, IF MN and theology are really the same).

Of course you seem to want to be given the usual theistic pass and special plead your deity into existency by mere declaration

What you are resisting is the secret realization that God is revealed to even the most willfully ignorant.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
(Romans 1:18-23,The King James Version, 1769)

Ah yes, the old classic of threats(the wrath of God riff....yawn!) instead of an argument.

In addition, the since when is divine revelation/personal experience ANY part of methodological naturalism?

Why Personal Experience is NOT Evidence

What empirical evidence (REQUIRED by science) is there that your God has anything to do with the appearance of life on earth?==>You would need such evidence to include your god-belief as the foundation for a SCIENTIFIC theory of how life appeared on earth. Where is it? (this means that you would need evidence both for the existence of your God AND be able to directly link your God to the appearance of life)

 

[mark kennedy]

gladiatrix, welcome to my ignore list. I don't mind a little harsh criticism if its over something but none of you elaborate rants are substantive. By the way, the wrath of God was not the point of the quote, its just the teleological end to which willfull ignorance of God is directed. The point was that mankind has rejected the knowledge of God;'...being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.'

I can see you have issues but I don't think they have anything to do with God or abiogenesis and certainly not me. Bye Bye

 

[gladiatrix]

Response to Mark's Post #37--PART 2

Since you know good and well that no empirical evidence is used by theists to justify their beliefs, you clearly need the same to be true of the proponents of evolution/abiogenesis.

I know that naturalistic materialism is antitheistic from top to bottom.

"Antitheistic"??? There is really no such word, but then it's really popular "Sarfatispeak". I am really fond of another favorite of his for those who don't buy YEC/his god...misotheist, but then I digress....

1. What "anti- theistic" would mean of course is "against theism/god(s?). This would mean that science/MN would have claimed that there was empirical evidence that disproved the existence of God===>Show me such a statement.

2. I am certain that there are atheists who will take both evolution and abiogenesis as evidence that god(s? why not creation by Divine Committee™, eh, mark?!!) do not exist. However, that is not what the science/MN is neutral on the topic of god(s?) because such god-belief(s?) is(are) NOT testible. The very fact that you claim that MN/science is "antitheistic" is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you don't know what you are talking about.

I don't need NM to understand or appreciate evolutionary biology.

But you do need it to understand evolutionary biology.

Whats more empirical evidence is nothing without the mind it takes to understand it. It is clear you are woefully ignorant of NM in principle and practice. It is telling that this is just one long argument around abiogenesis and one long antitheistic rant.

And an example of my alleged "ignorant of NM in principle and practice" would be what? Just one example rather than an unsupported assertion of ignorance would be good.

I don't appreciate the inflamatory personal remarks, but its interesting to see if there is a real point to these bizzare, condescending rationalizations.

And an example of ONE of my "bizarre, condescending rationalizations" would be what? Your rebuttal of such an alleged one would be? Until you present and demonstrate even one of my arguments to be a "bizzare, condescending rationalization", then you are the one who is guilty of "inflammatory personal remarks" (but you don't have anything else...oh, forgot about threatening me with your God's wrath...yawn!).

To "make it so", i. e., first, you DECLARE MN to be a "theology" and hence by DECLARATION any scientific theory that arises from the application of MN must necessarily be nothing more than "theological" dogma, comparable to your theological dogmas (everything, even the MN are just "faith-based"). As yet you have NOT given any argument that would even come close in justify your declaration that MN/evolution/abiogenesis = theology.

That my pedantic, overzelous friend is exactly what it is:

"Since most of the matter and energy in the universe is in external galaxies farther away than a million light-years, God must have created most of the matter and energy in the universe to deceive human beings. That is such a malevolent theology as well as such an arrogant pretension that I cannot believe anyone, no matter how devoted to the literal interpretation of this or that religious book, could seriously consider it.

Nevertheless, this sort of doctrine is being urged upon us. Already there are trends essentially to prevent the teaching of Darwinian evolution in schools. Since evolution is one of the major insights in the biological sciences, this restriction can only be understood as a serious and major attack on the teaching of science itself."

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/sagan.html

WHERE in this OPINION of Carl Sagan's is there any EVIDENCE that MN is a theology? Looks like he was commenting on YOUR theology, i. e., "That is such a malevolent theology as well as such an arrogant pretension... ". As such that remains his OPINION. No where does he claim that MN/science has disproved such a theology.

Furthermore, I notice that you didn't include the preceding paragraph which gives the part you posted a whole new context...Now for the WHOLE story:

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/sagan.html

Let me give just one example of how the argument goes. By adding up all the begets in the Book of Genesis you can get the age of the Earth. It turns out to be about six thousand years old—A begat B, B begat C, C begat D. A's lifetime is stated, B's, C's and so on. Then you get up to historical times. Add it all up: 4004 B.C. according to Archbishop Usher. Now, if that is the case, then an interesting question arises. How is it that there are astronomical objects more than 6000 light-years away? It takes light a year to travel a light-year, so if we see an object that is a million light-years away or two million light-years away, we are seeing it as it was one or two million years ago in the past. If the entire universe is only 6,000 years old, what must we deduce from this? I think the only possible conclusion is that 6,000 years ago God made all the photons of light coming to the Earth in a coherent format so as to deceive astronomers into thinking there are such things as galaxies, that the universe is vast and old.

{your "quote"}
Since most of the matter and energy in the universe is in external galaxies farther away than a million light-years, God must have created most of the matter and energy in the universe to deceive human beings. That is such a malevolent theology as well as such an arrogant pretension that I cannot believe anyone, no matter how devoted to the literal interpretation of this or that religious book, could seriously consider it.

Nevertheless, this sort of doctrine is being urged upon us. Already there are trends essentially to prevent the teaching of Darwinian evolution in schools. Since evolution is one of the major insights in the biological sciences, this restriction can only be understood as a serious and major attack on the teaching of science itself.

Sagan was showing that some YECs don't hesitate to try to suggest that the appearance of age is just an "artifact" of divine creation and may even be a test of faith (put there deliberately by God to deceive us, only true believers will not be "fooled"). I agree with him that such a suggestion by YECs is both "malevolent theology as well as such an arrogant pretension".

Now how does Sagan's comments on the tactics used by YECs support your contention that MN is a theology in any shape form or fashion? Where is there any untestible, faith-based concept (the theological kind) presented as a scientific theory?

Second, you simply DENY and IGNORE any and all empirical evidence for evolution or abiogenesis. We aren't fooled by your desperation to conflate MN with theology because we understand why you so desperately NEED it to be so.

For one thing abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory so don't try to equate the two.

????WHERE did I ever claim that abiogenesis was part of evolutionary theory? This is the second time you have made this bogus claim. Do substantiate or retract it.

I think that you are the one guilty of the very thing you charge me with (conflating abiogenesis with evolution). For one thing the link you gave in this post:

Now if you want to know my postion is on abiogenesis then try this link.

Abiogenesis and evolution

makes it clear to me that you DO consider the abiogenesis to be part of evolution (and HERE). That you have, how shall we say a unique definition of the subject of abiogenesis, has been pointed out to you a number of times (Ex. HERE and HERE). However, your view of abiogenesis is not correct, however much you try to recraft the concept to suit a debate position (strawman, much!)

The rest of your post is the same inflamatory nonesense, abiogenesis is the same naturalisitic materialism that has been poisoning the well for a century and a half.

Present-day abiogenesis (NOT the Aristotelian version) has NOT been around for 150 years. Huxley postulated the notion of a "primordial archebiosis", in which the living organisms observed in the present world had originally arisen in a series of stages from non-living matter during the later part of the 19th century, but he didn't have any evidence to back it. However, the science of abiogenesis didn't come into being until the Urey-Miller experiments during the 1950s provided the first support for the Oparin/Haldane hypthesis. Now we do have evidence to back the notion, however much you refuse to face it.

Of course has MN/science overturned the notion of vitalism, i. e., "considered life a special phenomenon that did not necessarily obey the laws of the universe as they applied to inanimate objects......that some special influence (a vital force), operating only within living tissue, was required to convert inorganic materials into organic ones, " then you are quite right about that. You will just have to pardon me if I weep crocodile tears if you view that as a "poisoning" of your particular theological "well". However vitalism is not the same thing as biogenesis, nor is the chemistry that overturned what could be viewed as the theologically compatible warm-fuzzy of vitalism, abiogenesis.

BTW, I and others are still waiting for your evidence that abiogenesis has "poisoned the well". There are theists here who are comfortable with the notion of abiogenesis, so you really can't claim that their "well" (belief) was "poisoned" (Mark==>"I tauht I saw a Puddy Tat! I did! I did! Bad ole Puddy Tat, Science/MN!)

Now if you have something intelligent to say, then fine, I'll be glad to listen to what you have to say

Care to address my arguments (presented now a THIRD time)

• Abiogenesis--Part 1
• Abiogenesis--Part 2
• Abiogenesis--Part 3
• to napajohn's questions following up on 3 posts about abiogenesis

On the other hand if you continue to spew out these ridiculas allegations
and insults I have no recourse but to shun you for being divisive and argumentative.

Well,now let me see.... You have

• threatened me (oh I forgot it is your God that "threatens", you are just the instrument of His will, right?)
• called/implied that I am ignorant more than once (Ex. " It is clear you are woefully ignorant of NM in principle and practice.")
• called me a pedant ("my pedantic friend")
• characterized my posts as ranting ("this is just one long argument around abiogenesis and one long antitheistic rant")
• painted my points as "bizzare, condescending rationalizations"
• insinuated that I am being "divisive and argumentative"

Somehow, your indignation over being "insulted" strikes me as being rather hypocritical. But then "any port in the storm" (any excuse to "shun" me) that you can use to avoid any substantitive argument will do, eh?!!

 

[Vance]

" Where you got this is a mystery to me but methodological naturalism rejects theology as a matter of course."

Mark, I think this has been explained to you already. Methodoligal naturalism is a process, it makes no decision regarding theological issues and has nothing to do with any questions regarding the supernatural. It is PHILOSOPHICAL naturalism which is the actual belief that the natural is all there is.

You seem to be using naturalistic materialism, naturalistic methodology and philosophical naturalism interchangeably, which is an error.

Think of it like a Ven diagram. Some who use naturalistic methodology also hold to philosophical naturalism, but some who use naturalistic methodology do NOT (ie, scientists who are Christian, Muslim, etc). But all who hold to philosophcal naturalism also would use naturalistic methodology.

 

[slayer-2004]

hmmmm both .My guess is that God wrote the laws of nature so abiogenesis could occur and calculated the universe so that it would run exactly how he wanted it too ... resulting in life .

Why ? Beats me .