Christian Abiogenesis

[Chesterton]

There are a couple of people here who are Christian and believe in abiogenesis. If you believe life came from non-life, do you believe God intended there to be life? Is your position simply analagous to an evolutionist who says "God intended to create man, and He did it through evolution of lower animals"? Or is there something more involved in your ideas?

 

[Mallon]

Speaking only for myself (though I suspect others may agree with me), I wouldn't say I "believe" in abiogenesis. I simply accept it as a good possibility. Christians have traditionally been very good at making fools of themselves by insisting that some phenomenon couldn't have occurred without some miraculous act of God, only to have science later show that the phenomenon has an entirely natural explanation. This doesn't mean that God wasn't involved, only that He didn't have to wave His magic wand. So I prefer to keep my options open.

I think it's important for us Christians to always remember the words of St. Augustine:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Having said all that, I see life -- and humanity in particular -- as being fully intended by God, regardless of whether it was poofed into existence or not.

 

[Chesterton]

Speaking only for myself (though I suspect others may agree with me), I wouldn't say I "believe" in abiogenesis. I simply accept it as a good possibility.

Having said all that, I see life -- and humanity in particular -- as being fully intended by God, regardless of whether it was poofed into existence or not.

So if you can see life as being intended without being designed, do you think life was intelligently directed? With abiogenesis (and maybe evolution to a lesser extent also), when I rule out design and direction, I get a picture of God making a few fundamental laws, then throwing a bunch of chemicals and conditions together just to see what happens, like a lazy artist throwing paint at a canvas just to see how it comes out.

 

[Sphinx777]

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.

The first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes. The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), just a few hundred million years younger than Earth itself. By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments, and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.

On the other hand, the exact sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).

 

[gluadys]

So if you can see life as being intended without being designed, do you think life was intelligently directed? With abiogenesis (and maybe evolution to a lesser extent also), when I rule out design and direction, I get a picture of God making a few fundamental laws, then throwing a bunch of chemicals and conditions together just to see what happens, like a lazy artist throwing paint at a canvas just to see how it comes out.

Interesting the images different people apply to the same idea. When I think of God using natural process to bring about something as amazing as life the phrase that occurs to me is "a smoking wick he will not quench" (Isaiah 42:3).

When people ask why God wasted billions of years before a life-bearing planet was formed, I think of the fact that it takes about 10 billion years for stars to produce the heavy elements needed for life to thrive. It takes a super-nova occurring in just the right proximity spatially and temporally for those heavy elements to be part of this planet. It takes a planet where water will normally be in liquid form, and a dynamically active planet---not one with no tectonic activity.

Even if one took a Deist position, it hardly seems likely that the Deist god could set things up so precisely if he lazily "threw paint at a canvas". It would take the sort of patience and planning that would go into precisely setting up a huge array of dominoes to fall exactly as one planned.

And I don't take a Deist position. Rather, it seems to me, God is more like one who nurtures the universe into a mode of generating life and nurtures the first steps toward life when they appear, like the patient servant who nurtures the flame in a smoking wick instead of quenching it. I don't know if "direction" is or is not the correct way to describe this nurturing, but I do think it is a decidedly active role for the Creator.

 

[Mallon]

So if you can see life as being intended without being designed, do you think life was intelligently directed? With abiogenesis (and maybe evolution to a lesser extent also), when I rule out design and direction, I get a picture of God making a few fundamental laws, then throwing a bunch of chemicals and conditions together just to see what happens, like a lazy artist throwing paint at a canvas just to see how it comes out.

I don't think I see things as black-and-white as you do.
For one, I don't see design and abiogenesis or evolution as being mutually exclusive as you do. A design is simply a blueprint for some intended outcome (be it a house, a robot or whatever). So whether or not something is designed is a completely separate issue than how that design is manifested. As such, I'm perfectly happy to think of humanity as designed, and evolution as being the mechanism God used to produce that design. The same holds true for abiogenesis. I'm happy to think of the first life form as being designed, and the naturalistic process of abiogenesis as being the mechanism used to produce that design.
And like gluadys, I don't an issue with God using natural means to bring about His designs. It doesn't make Him lazy in any way. I see God acting through natural processes just as we Lutherans profess God to be "in, with, and under" the Sacrament of Holy Communion. He is no less involved in nature than He is in miracles. I really don't think this is a new or particularly radical way of understanding God.

 

[pgp_protector]

If you believe life came from non-life

Of these chemicals, show the ones that are alive.

Oxygen,Carbon,Hydrogen,Nitrogen,Calcium
Phosphorus,Potassium,Sulfur,Sodium,Chlorine
Magnesium,Iron ,Fluorine ,Zinc ,Silicon
Rubidium,Strontium,Bromine ,Lead ,Copper
Aluminium ,Cadmium ,Cerium ,Barium ,Tin
Iodine ,Titanium,Boron ,Selenium,Nickel
Chromium,Manganese,Arsenic ,Lithium ,Mercury
Caesium ,Molybdenum ,Germanium ,Cobalt ,Antimony
Silver ,Niobium ,Zirconium,Lanthanum,Tellurium
Gallium ,Yttrium ,Bismuth ,Thallium ,Indium
Gold ,Scandium,Tantalum,Vanadium,Thorium
Uranium ,Samarium,Tungsten,Beryllium,Radium

 

[Chesterton]

Honestly, I think my black and white idea comed from reading the rigorous debates between design proponents and TE's on here, which sometimes even get downright nasty. It seems TE's often have such an adverse reaction to any mention of the word "design". But maybe I'm misreading things, as I'm not sure I've ever really seen the two of you explain it the way you have above (then again I haven't read every post ever made here).

It seemed when it came to the nature of God, TE's are in line with traditional Christianity. But when it came to the original work of God, it sometimes seemed you were really moving toward something more deistic. Anyways I think I understand (and like) your answers, so thanks for them.

Of these chemicals, show the ones that are alive.

Show me which of these are a computer:

Silicon, gold, aluminum, solder, plastic, electricity, etc.

 

[Mallon]

It seems TE's often have such an adverse reaction to any mention of the word "design".

I think the reaction isn't so much to the word itself as the way in which ID proponents use it. These days, when people like Dembski or Behe talk about design, they're using a very narrow definition that limits the meaning to, say, irreducible complexity. I think it's an unnecessary -- even irresponsible -- tact.

 

[shernren]

I would not say that God could not have created life supernaturally. I would just say He need not have.

And I defend abiogenetic experiments not necessarily because I believe they fully explain the origin of life, but because IDers' rejection of those experiments often have more to do with faulty philosophy of science than any problem with the design of the experiments themselves.

That, and because duty calls.

 

[Chesterton]

Hilarious cartoon!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

There are a couple of people here who are Christian and believe in abiogenesis. If you believe life came from non-life, do you believe God intended there to be life? Is your position simply analagous to an evolutionist who says "God intended to create man, and He did it through evolution of lower animals"? Or is there something more involved in your ideas?

Speaking for myself, I believe that God created the universe in such a way as to allow complex systems, such as biological life and inteligence, to develop.

Whether or not he intended for humans to exist precisely in the form that we do, or whether inteligent life of any kind was a desired property, I don't know. Also rather goes to the question of whether or not humans are the only advanced inteligent species in the cosmos, but I digress.

You can perhaps make an analogy to a marble track to describe my POV... God starts the ball rolling at the top, along a track he designed and built, knowing more or less the course the marble will take as it travels, but after starting the marble rolling, and creating the context for it to roll in, he is far more an observer than a direct intervener.

 

[shernren]

xkcd is one of the most amazing webcomics ever.

 

[pgp_protector]

Honestly, I think my black and white idea comed from reading the rigorous debates between design proponents and TE's on here, which sometimes even get downright nasty. It seems TE's often have such an adverse reaction to any mention of the word "design". But maybe I'm misreading things, as I'm not sure I've ever really seen the two of you explain it the way you have above (then again I haven't read every post ever made here).

It seemed when it came to the nature of God, TE's are in line with traditional Christianity. But when it came to the original work of God, it sometimes seemed you were really moving toward something more deistic. Anyways I think I understand (and like) your answers, so thanks for them.



Show me which of these are a computer:

Silicon, gold, aluminum, solder, plastic, electricity, etc.

None of those, care to answer my question now ?

 

[Willtor]

There are a couple of people here who are Christian and believe in abiogenesis. If you believe life came from non-life, do you believe God intended there to be life? Is your position simply analagous to an evolutionist who says "God intended to create man, and He did it through evolution of lower animals"? Or is there something more involved in your ideas?

I think abiogenesis is probably the means by which life arose on Earth. I may be overstating it, though. I haven't researched abiogenesis to the same degree as evolution so I don't know how strongly scientists in the field hold to their hypotheses or how much has been reproduced in the lab.

From following the thread, I would certainly say I don't have a problem with the idea. Life from non-life isn't a misfit within my broader theological views on God's relation to nature. Thomas Aquinas expressed a view of God's Providence that I think doesn't require a lot of revision, today. John Calvin addresses God's Providence much more extensively in Book I of Institutes. Both believe that nothing happens (with respect to people or in nature) except by the deliberate will of God. Thomas' contribution to theology (in the context of this discussion) was to reconcile this with secondary descriptions of causation. E.g., God causes the sparrow to fall to the ground in a very literal sense, even as gravity does it, too. Gravity is a creature of God and it obeys His command.

So it is with chemical processes. And if the evidence suggests that life arose from non-life through natural means I don't see why not.

 

[Chesterton]

None of those, care to answer my question now ?

Knowing nothing of chemistry and biology, and little of life itself for that matter, I'll have to logic it out the best I can.

Hmm, they say "money talks", so I'll say the metal gold is alive. How's that?

 

[pgp_protector]

Knowing nothing of chemistry and biology, and little of life itself for that matter, I'll have to logic it out the best I can.

Hmm, they say "money talks", so I'll say the metal gold is alive. How's that?

So you believe that Gold is alive correct ?

 

[Chesterton]

So you believe that Gold is alive correct ?

You could just go ahead and say whatever you're going to say, but just for fun I'll play along: Okay, I believe gold is alive.

 

[Chesterton]

You can perhaps make an analogy to a marble track to describe my POV... God starts the ball rolling at the top, along a track he designed and built, knowing more or less the course the marble will take as it travels, but after starting the marble rolling, and creating the context for it to roll in, he is far more an observer than a direct intervener.

But Christianity does have a minimum requirement it would seem, in that, not only life had to arise, but life with a soul, and a consciousness able enough and self-aware enough to understand itself, it's condition, and divine revelation.

So if humans weren't intended, it comes back to that other question: when did God give humans souls? Was God watching the course of evolution and saying "These fish? No, not yet. These reptiles? No, not good enough. These humans? Okay, that looks good. Here's the creature who can use a soul. And I'll be incarnate as one of them."

I'm not trying to be silly, but an idea which leaves open the possibility that we humans were not specifically intended seems problematic.

 

[gluadys]

But Christianity does have a minimum requirement it would seem, in that, not only life had to arise, but life with a soul, and a consciousness able enough and self-aware enough to understand itself, it's condition, and divine revelation.

So if humans weren't intended, it comes back to that other question: when did God give humans souls? Was God watching the course of evolution and saying "These fish? No, not yet. These reptiles? No, not good enough. These humans? Okay, that looks good. Here's the creature who can use a soul. And I'll be incarnate as one of them."

I'm not trying to be silly, but an idea which leaves open the possibility that we humans were not specifically intended seems problematic.

I think one has to distinguish between the idea the humans were specifically intended and specifically created. God, presumably, can specifically intend that evolution produce humanity without needing to specifically create the human form.

One thing I don't like about the track analogy is that as stated, it assumes only one track---one way to get to any species. If one is going to use that analogy, one should really think of a complex system of tracks with many switches that can be altered to turn a lineage in different directions. It may be, as well, that if we think of humanity as a specific intention, there is more than one possible route to get to that destination. Kenneth Miller says something along these lines in Finding Darwin's God--where he disputes Gould's image of a re-running of the tape of evolutionary history never giving us the same history twice. He points out that we do get converging ecologies, and it may be very probable that a human-type species would evolve in any phylogenetic scenario.

You will note that none of the essential characteristics you listed demand that the "human" intended by God appear specifically in the primate lineage.