Christian Abiogenesis

[Mallon]

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.

This is a line pushed by palaeontologist Simon Conway-Morris a lot these days, too. Check out his book, Crucible of Creation.
Don't know what to think about his views, but there it is.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

Do you mean altered by intervention?

 

[gluadys]

Do you mean altered by intervention?

Certainly possible. But again a natural cause might alter the set of a switch as well, or influence which fork a species would take. However, that is just setting the question back. Imagine a bit of track being blocked by a rock fall. Anything that moved past the rock fall would have to take a different route. But then one can ask if the immediate natural cause (the rock fall) happened "naturally" or by "intervention".

You might like to check out this paper.

Divine Guidance of Natural Process in Creation - Theistic Evolution & More

The author, Craig Rusbult, is an interesting person because he is not a theistic evolutionist himself (he leans to Progressive Creation), but he gives a very fair presentation of theistic evolution and defends it against some common misconceptions.

Note the distinction he draws between divine intervention (he calls it "theistic action") that looks miraculous and divine intervention that looks natural.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

...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.

History has shown scientists have been known to make fools of themselves quite readily also.

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.

Which magic wand is that? Oh you mean the one He used to raise Christ form the dead. Well I believe He has used it, does use it, and will use it again in the future.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

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).

Why? You do realize this is a prophecy about Christ right?

Isaiah 42:1-4 Behold, my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the Gentiles. He will not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor cause it to be heard in the street. A bruised reed will he not break, and a dimly burning wick will he not quench: he will bring forth justice in truth. He will not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set justice in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

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.

You are confusing the general, claims of design, with the specifics of claimed evidence.

In any event, there is nothing irresponsible about questioning science. It is normal and healthy for science and knowledge. What is irresponsible is to stifle the questioning of science. This is by its nature is unscientific.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

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

Sure, and He may have used miraculous intervention.

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.

You have yet to demonstrate with any reasoning or evidence that this claim is true. Clearly when Cambridge awarded Stephen C Meyer a PhD in the Philosophy of Science they thought he understood what it was. I would rather trust the department heads at Cambridge.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

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.

Isn't this the same as Deism? Do you believe in the death and bodily resurrection of Christ? Just curious.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

... 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.

This is not very believable given that a "human type species" only arose once even though there have been many "chances". Converging ecologies says nothing about the details of needing a species with a theory of mind to fill any of the niches.

 

[gluadys]

This is not very believable given that a "human type species" only arose once even though there have been many "chances".

Only once????

Prominent Hominid Fossils

Looks like a lot more than once.

Converging ecologies says nothing about the details of needing a species with a theory of mind to fill any of the niches.

Says nothing about the details of preventing a species with a theory of mind emerging to fill the niches either.

What's your point?

 

[gluadys]

Why?

Did you read the rest of post 5? I think I explained why there. If not, come back with a more specific question.

You do realize this is a prophecy about Christ right?

Of course. And you do realize that Christ is the creative Word, right?

John 1:2-3 [The Word] was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him and without him not one thing came into being

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Only once????

Prominent Hominid Fossils

Looks like a lot more than once.

Counting all the hominids as distinct hardly satisfies "any phylogenetic scenario".

Says nothing about the details of preventing a species with a theory of mind emerging to fill the niches either.

What's your point?

The point is that given materialistic natural selection Gould is 100% right. Rerunning could easily, and most likely would, have filled the niche our hominid ancestors filled very easily without a theory of mind.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Did you read the rest of post 5? I think I explained why there. If not, come back with a more specific question.

I did not read the last paragraph. I see you comment there. Though, I still don't see how a verse intended to describe the meekness of Christ ties into your analogy. Yes, I do see the word wick is used in both. But no big deal. It is just not the verse that comes to my mind when I think of creation.

Of course. And you do realize that Christ is the creative Word, right?

John 1:2-3 [The Word] was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him and without him not one thing came into being

Yes.

 

[crawfish]

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 any TE believes that God just kicked things off and waited to see what would happen. God had a purpose and a plan, and the fact the tool He used has a natural explanation doesn't change that.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't think any TE believes that God just kicked things off and waited to see what would happen. God had a purpose and a plan, and the fact the tool He used has a natural explanation doesn't change that.

You say plan, I say design. Tomáto, tomàto? Or is "plan" general, and "design" more specific?

 

[crawfish]

You say plan, I say design. Tomáto, tomàto? Or is "plan" general, and "design" more specific?

I have no problem with the term "design", but its current implication seems to remove the possibility of natural implementation.

Honestly, all TE's are creationists and believers in intelligent design in their purest sense. Sadly, our mode of thought excludes us from the popular definitions of those terms.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I have no problem with the term "design", but its current implication seems to remove the possibility of natural implementation.

Honestly, all TE's are creationists and believers in intelligent design in their purest sense. Sadly, our mode of thought excludes us from the popular definitions of those terms.

No, you are avoiding a clear distinction.

Do you believe in miraculous intervention by God?

 

[crawfish]

No, you are avoiding a clear distinction.

Do you believe in miraculous intervention by God?

I believe that God intervenes in a supernatural fashion. I also believe that, when a natural explanation exists and is well-supported, then it indicates that God used a natural method there. I do not believe that God necessarily intervened in areas where we do not have a natural explanation - either God did so supernaturally, or we just have not discovered the natural explanation yet.

And, personally, I believe the natural is every bit as miraculous as the supernatural. Being able to discern all the steps that a baby goes through from conception to birth does not decrease my awe at the one who made it all happen.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I believe that God intervenes in a supernatural fashion. I also believe that, when a natural explanation exists and is well-supported, then it indicates that God used a natural method there. I do not believe that God necessarily intervened in areas where we do not have a natural explanation - either God did so supernaturally, or we just have not discovered the natural explanation yet.

We agree.

If the evidence does point to the miraculous then to still doubt is fooling your self.

And, personally, I believe the natural is every bit as miraculous as the supernatural. Being able to discern all the steps that a baby goes through from conception to birth does not decrease my awe at the one who made it all happen.

But, you can not ignore the fact that God intervenes in a way that defies any explanation of science. You can decide to call every thing a miracle, but that does not change this fact.

 

[crawfish]

We agree.

If the evidence does point to the miraculous then to still doubt is fooling your self.

I don't look for rationale to miracles. What I do see is that in scripture, there are only two "miraculous" events which would have left evidence we could study today; creation, and the flood.

Here's a question for you. About 16 years ago, some friends of ours were having a baby. At 6 months, the doctors said the sonogram indicated the baby's heart was diseased and could not support her after she was born. The parents decided to carry her to term anyway. We all prayed like crazy during that time. The baby was born on schedule, and lo and behold, she lived! Over the course of the next few months she became more and more stable and was able to go home. The girl is sixteen now and completely healthy. Now, I feel this was a miracle: surviving against all rational odds and regaining full health. However, let's say that the doctors used her as a study guide and eventually determined a natural process that led to her recovery. Should I feel any differently about her recovery? Should I feel that God was less involved?

I'm not sure that evidence will ever point to miracles, only lack of evidence. At what point do we stop looking? At what point do we say "this is miraculous", and decide that area is not fit for further study? Do you think, with that attitude, that we might mistake the natural for the supernatural and actually fail to discover a natural law?

But, you can not ignore the fact that God intervenes in a way that defies any explanation of science. You can decide to call every thing a miracle, but that does not change this fact.

There is just no utility, IMO, in assuming the supernatural. Nearly all creationists accept some level of evolution at this point; that was not always the case. Had not "evolutionists" continued study of natural phenomena associated with evolution, it is likely that microevolution would still be considered a fanciful notion. For decades creationists have opposed the idea of whale evolution, but evidence has become appealing enough that some creationists are starting to work it into their models.

I fully agree that God intervenes in a way that science cannot explain and that evidence cannot support. What I will not do, though, is discredit God's natural work in order to laud his supernatural work (in fact, the very existence of natural law is itself a supernatural act). Both are equal evidence of His power and majesty.