Origin of Life

[JVD]

This has likely been covered, but...

What do TE's believe about the origin of life? Is that basically the difference between a TE and an AE? (AE=athiestic evolution)

I can swallow Micro Evolution, and even, if I try hard, Macro-Evolution but I cannot swallow spontaneous generation.

 

[gluadys]

This has likely been covered, but...

What do TE's believe about the origin of life? Is that basically the difference between a TE and an AE? (AE=athiestic evolution)

I can swallow Micro Evolution, and even, if I try hard, Macro-Evolution but I cannot swallow spontaneous generation.

First, evolution does not deal with the origin of life. The theory of evolution covers the changes that occur in species once life already exists.

The question of the origin of life is dealt with by a different scientific field called abiogenesis. It deals with the chemical reactions that would need to happen to get from non-life to life.

Spontaneous generation is a theory that was falsified in the 19th century. Until Pasteur disproved it, many people believed that complex organisms such as mice, flies, maggots, etc. were generated spontaneously from rotting straw or meat. There is no comparison between that theory and abiogenesis which is about the origin of the simplest forms of life, even simpler than the cell.

Second, no that is not the difference between a TE and an AE. TEs and AEs do not have differing views about science. They have differing views about God. TEs believe that everything revealed by scientific investigation comes ultimately from God. That includes evolution and abiogenesis---but not spontaneous generation since the latter has been falsified.

btw--spontaneous generation was one of the things creationists used to point to as evidence of special creation. So I always find it a little ironic to hear creationists disavowing it. Spontaneous generation, if it really happened, would falsify evolution, since evolution requires that all living things have parents. If, as some contend, Adam & Eve were created as fully mature adults without parents, that would be spontaneous generation. The same applies to specially created kinds. Any complex living thing that just pops into existence without parents is an example of spontaneous generation since it is not a possible product of evolution which requires it to have parents. And abiogenesis is not a process that produces complex life forms.

 

[ebia]

This has likely been covered, but...

What do TE's believe about the origin of life? Is that basically the difference between a TE and an AE? (AE=athiestic evolution)

I can swallow Micro Evolution, and even, if I try hard, Macro-Evolution but I cannot swallow spontaneous generation.

Abiogenesis isn't an area of science I've paid any attention to, but I presume science will eventually have a good working theory about it if it doesn't already.

I don't believe in a "God of the gaps", so I'm not looking for a point in the creation mechanics where God has to step in a give it a kick in the right direction.

 

[Alchemist]

This has likely been covered, but...

What do TE's believe about the origin of life? Is that basically the difference between a TE and an AE? (AE=athiestic evolution)

I can swallow Micro Evolution, and even, if I try hard, Macro-Evolution but I cannot swallow spontaneous generation.

Hi JVD,

Personally, I think abiogenesis (development of life from basic chemical compounds) is a reasonable hypothesis for the creation of life, although scientists haven't really explained it in great detail yet. That said, I think abiogenesis, if shown to be a valid theory, would line up with the Bible quite nicely - Genesis does say that man was created "from dust", and although I prefer to take Genesis literally (though, as a myth - I will explain this further for you if you like) and not read too much scientific into it, could it be that the "dust" from which man was formed was God's metaphor for basic organic chemicals, that only now in this scientific era we realise? If so, that seems pretty cool to me.

As for the differences between theistic evolution and atheistic evolution, on the surface it may seem as though we believe the same thing. Although it is true we accept the same things scientifically, it is certainly not true that we accept the same things theologically, which really has a great impact on how we view evolution. For instance, in atheistic evolution, the random chemical mutations in DNA which natural selections acts upon are seen as blind and unguided (due to their random nature). However, for a theistic evolutionist, random mutations are not seen as indication of a blind process as they would for an atheist. We believe that God can use chance and random processes in a guided way, because as the Creator, anything that happens in the world is under his control.

Likewise, while an atheistic evolutionist would believe that the universe, as it can be naturally explained, does not require God. However, most Christian evolutionists would not believe this. Indeed, like all Christians, theistic evolutionists believe God is the "first cause" of the universe; i.e. without God's act of creation, the universe would not exist. Indeed, some Christians (myself included) go further than this, in that they believe the universe is utterly dependent on God, to the extent that without God's continual presence, the universe would cease to exist - a form of panentheism which is completely at odds with atheistic thought.

So yes, theistic evolutionists are definitely evolutionists. But we are certainly not atheists! If you are interested, I can go into a bit more detail. But in summary, basically I believe, as a theistic evolutionist, that the laws of nature were created by God, and are continuously dependant on Him. Although I accept evolution is a random process, I know that God ultimately in control of creation, as He is the one who lets these random processes occur anyway . And when I think about it, I cannot think of a God more powerful than one who can create the diversity of life that we see on this planet, and the immense complexity present in this universe, by seemingly random processes. If there is anything in nature that demonstrates God's power, it is that!

Peace,
Nick

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Hi JVD,

Personally, I think abiogenesis (development of life from basic chemical compounds) is a reasonable hypothesis for the creation of life, although scientists haven't really explained it in great detail yet. That said, I think abiogenesis, if shown to be a valid theory, would line up with the Bible quite nicely - Genesis does say that man was created "from dust", and although I prefer to take Genesis literally (though, as a myth - I will explain this further for you if you like) and not read too much scientific into it, could it be that the "dust" from which man was formed was God's metaphor for basic organic chemicals, that only now in this scientific era we realise? If so, that seems pretty cool to me.

As for the differences between theistic evolution and atheistic evolution, on the surface it may seem as though we believe the same thing. Although it is true we accept the same things scientifically, it is certainly not true that we accept the same things theologically, which really has a great impact on how we view evolution. For instance, in atheistic evolution, the random chemical mutations in DNA which natural selections acts upon are seen as blind and unguided (due to their random nature). However, for a theistic evolutionist, random mutations are not seen as indication of a blind process as they would for an atheist. We believe that God can use chance and random processes in a guided way, because as the Creator, anything that happens in the world is under his control.

Likewise, while an atheistic evolutionist would believe that the universe, as it can be naturally explained, does not require God. However, most Christian evolutionists would not believe this. Indeed, like all Christians, theistic evolutionists believe God is the "first cause" of the universe; i.e. without God's act of creation, the universe would not exist. Indeed, some Christians (myself included) go further than this, in that they believe the universe is utterly dependent on God, to the extent that without God's continual presence, the universe would cease to exist - a form of panentheism which is completely at odds with atheistic thought.

So yes, theistic evolutionists are definitely evolutionists. But we are certainly not atheists! If you are interested, I can go into a bit more detail. But in summary, basically I believe, as a theistic evolutionist, that the laws of nature were created by God, and are continuously dependant on Him. Although I accept evolution is a random process, I know that God ultimately in control of creation, as He is the one who lets these random processes occur anyway . And when I think about it, I cannot think of a God more powerful than one who can create the diversity of life that we see on this planet, and the immense complexity present in this universe, by seemingly random processes. If there is anything in nature that demonstrates God's power, it is that!

Peace,
Nick

Wonderful post! Thank you for that. It really distills some things that I've been mulling over but have been unable to adequately articulate.

 

[linssue55]

This has likely been covered, but...

What do TE's believe about the origin of life? Is that basically the difference between a TE and an AE? (AE=athiestic evolution)

I can swallow Micro Evolution, and even, if I try hard, Macro-Evolution but I cannot swallow spontaneous generation.

The Origin Of Human Life....Rom 1:20...Gen 1:26...Gen 1:27-28....Gen 2:7

 

[Smidlee]

evolutionist want very badly to separate their theory from abiogenesis.(it's been pointed out that often abiogenesis is taught as evolution and still trying to help promote Darwinism) It's also true Darwin dare not add origins of life to his theory either since he would have enough problems already. But creationists know very well if it could be demonstrated that life could be created in a lab (of course then it had to be showed it possible in nature) then evolutionist would galdly use abiogenesis as strong evidence for TOE. but because they can't they want to run from it like a plague.
First , even if someone has all the parts required to make life it still not possible to start it. A dead cell all the parts required for life but yet there no way to bring it to life. The big problem is the laws of thermodynamics. these laws will quickly destroy the building blocks of life especailly DNA.
second , you got to finally deal with "which came first" paradox. Evolutionist love to push paradox farther and farther back so they don't have to deal with. yet it's even bigger paradox in cells than "the chicken or egg" one. Now some scientist wants badly to prove life on anothrer planet so they don't have to deal agian with these paradox. we are wasting millions if not billions trying to find life on Mars , they are desperate to find life on Mars. Probably praying for it.

If the origins of life can't be possible by natural laws then this points only to creation. This would point that sometime in history a supernatural event took place to formed life. if this is true then it just as much reasonable to think it happen more than once. In fact God created many groups of creatures even fully formed. The fossils can also be interpreted that God created different creature separately which is why we see a sudden appearance of different species. Also God could have created Man without a ape , each made separate.

 

[notto]

If the origins of life can't be possible by natural laws then this points only to creation.

This is why God of the gaps isn't valid as science. All unexplained phenomena can be explained by it, therefore it doesn't explain anything.

There is a big difference between us not being able to do something in the lab and claiming that something isn't possible. This type of hasty conclusion has failed miserably in the past.

Should all currently unexplained phenomena be attribted to God's intervention? Didn't work with disease, earthquakes, or lightning. It is an unscientific conclusion. Prior to us splitting the atom, did we attribute nuclear reactions to God's intervention?

I think you will find that scientists are not running from abiogenesis. It is a very active area of research. Just because the theory of evolution does not address it doesn't mean its not being addressed. Chemistry doesn't address where atoms came from in the first place. Does that mean that Chemistry is invalid or that chemists are running from atomic theory and matter cooking? No.

Darwin didn't address the origin of life because that is not what he set out to do. Evolution explains the diversity of life, not its origins - just like chemistry addresses the reaction of atoms, not their origins.

 

[ebia]

evolutionist want very badly to separate their theory from abiogenesis.(it's been pointed out that often abiogenesis is taught as evolution and still trying to help promote Darwinism)

The only people I've ever seen trying to connect the two are creationists.

But creationists know very well if it could be demonstrated that life could be created in a lab (of course then it had to be showed it possible in nature) then evolutionist would galdly use abiogenesis as strong evidence for TOE.

I really don't see how demonstrating abiogenesis in the lab would provide evidence for the TOE at all. Not that TOE needs any extra evidence.

but because they can't they want to run from it like a plague.

They haven't run from it at all. It's a separate theory, one with much less evidence to date but equally interesting.

First , even if someone has all the parts required to make life it still not possible to start it.A dead cell all the parts required for life but yet there no way to bring it to life. The big problem is the laws of thermodynamics. these laws will quickly destroy the building blocks of life especailly DNA.

Nice handwaving, but this doesn't prove abiogenesis is impossible at all. Chucking in the laws of thermodynamics in a vague way is almost always an indicator that the person doing so has no idea what they are talking about. This an argument from incredulity with a bit of technobabble thrown in.

second , you got to finally deal with "which came first" paradox.

What "what came first" paradox? Scientists aren't suggesting chickens or chicken eggs spontaneously came to life.

Evolutionist love to push paradox farther and farther back so they don't have to deal with.

What paradox?

yet it's even bigger paradox in cells than "the chicken or egg" one. Now some scientist wants badly to prove life on anothrer planet so they don't have to deal agian with these paradox.

On the contrary - finding life on another planet, or even proving that life on earth came from another planet, won't stop scientists trying to find out how it came about originally. That's the difference - scientists keep pushing further and further for better and better explanations. Creationists say "Goddidit".

we are wasting millions if not billions trying to find life on Mars , they are desperate to find life on Mars. Probably praying for it.

Scientists would love to find life on Mars if it is there. Because it opens up interesting lines of inquiry such as where else in the universe is there life? What form does it take?

If the origins of life can't be possible by natural laws then this points only to creation.

We'll never know if it can't be possible.

And creation is not the only other possibility. For instance, life might always have existed. Doesn't seem likely, I know, but it is another possiblity.

And creation by a Christian God is far from the only creation possibility.

This would point that sometime in history a supernatural event took place to formed life. if this is true then it just as much reasonable to think it happen more than once.

Is it? How can you reason about a supernatural event you know nothing about?

In fact God created many groups of creatures even fully formed. The fossils can also be interpreted that God created different creature separately which is why we see a sudden appearance of different species. Also God could have created Man without a ape , each made separate.

He didn't though. I wonder why. Maybe he would prefer to create a creation that actually runs, rather than one he has to keep pushing along.

 

[Crusadar]

This is why God of the gaps isn't valid as science. All unexplained phenomena can be explained by it, therefore it doesn't explain anything.

Neither is evolution of the gaps ( i.e. isn't it wonderful that evolution produced or eyes, even though we have no clue how it did it we still believe it did it.)

 

[Crusadar]

Should all currently unexplained phenomena be attribted to God's intervention? Didn't work with disease, earthquakes, or lightning. It is an unscientific conclusion. Prior to us splitting the atom, did we attribute nuclear reactions to God's intervention?

Just one comment notto, like um knowing how something works is a lot different then knowing how it came to be? We can study, examine and discover how something works but the conclusion of how it originated is more philosophy then science.

 

[notto]

This is why God of the gaps isn't valid as science. All unexplained phenomena can be explained by it, therefore it doesn't explain anything.

Neither is evolution of the gaps ( i.e. isn't it wonderful that evolution produced or eyes, even though we have no clue how it did it we still believe it did it.)

We have a lot of clues on how the evolution of the eye happened. It isn't a gap at all. When there is a gap in science, it is explained as 'we don't know' but 'we are still looking'. Saying that God did it to fill those gaps ends the discovery and can be used to explain anything.

Don't know what causes disease? God did it.
Don't know what causes lighting? God did it.
Don't know what causes earthquakes? God did it.
Don't know the exact pathway that led to the development of the eye? God did it.

Explains nothing because it can be used to explain everything.

Explanations that use evolution as a conclusion are based on evidence, research, and many independent lines of evidence. There is a lot to still discover but ending the discovery with God did it isn't scientific and really explains nothing at all about the phenomena being studied

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Don't know the exact pathway that led to the development of the eye? God did it.

Explains nothing because it can be used to explain everything.

Explanations that use evolution as a conclusion are based on evidence, research, and many independent lines of evidence. There is a lot to still discover but ending the discovery with God did it isn't scientific and really explains nothing at all about the phenomena being studied

But God did do it. He may have used evolutionary processes but that in no way alters the fact that He did it.

Well, I've split my hair for the day. See ya's around.

 

[Crusadar]

Don't know what causes disease? God did it.
Don't know what causes lighting? God did it.
Don't know what causes earthquakes? God did it.
Don't know the exact pathway that led to the development of the eye? God did it.

Explains nothing because it can be used to explain everything.


How about this then:

Don't know what causes disease? Evolution did it.
Don't know what causes lighting? Evolution did it.
Don't know what causes earthquakes? Evolution did it.
Don't know the exact pathway that led to the development of the eye? Evolution did it.

Explains nothing because it can be used to explain everything.

Is there really a diference. Again - knowing how something works is not the same as knowing how it came to be!

 

[Critias]

Hm, God being replaced with evolution. Now, Crusadar you might just have exposed much more than many are willing to show.

 

[notto]

But God did do it. He may have used evolutionary processes but that in no way alters the fact that He did it.

Well, I've split my hair for the day. See ya's around.

Exactly. Science can show us HOW God did things. Evolution can be one of those mechanisms. The careful study of creation can also falsify some beliefs about how that creation happened. For instance, we know that God did not create the world a few short thousand years ago. There is evidence in the direct handiwork of God that shows us that this is not the case. This evidence was first uncovered by Christian scientists who went out looking at the creation to try to uncover evidence to back up their interpretation of scripture. They couldn't do that. Since we can't change the creation and what it tells us (or ignore it and claim we are still doing science) its better to realize that our interpretation of scripture may not be as infallible as we would like to think.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Since we can't change the creation and what it tells us (or ignore it and claim we are still doing science) its better to realize that our interpretation of scripture may not be as infallible as we would like to think.

I remember someone had something very similar as part of their sig at one time. Something to the effect of "When science and the Bible contradict one another you can rest assured that the problem lies in our interpretation of Scripture." or something like that. I always like that quote.

 

[notto]

How about this then:

Don't know what causes disease? Evolution did it.
Don't know what causes lighting? Evolution did it.
Don't know what causes earthquakes? Evolution did it.
Don't know the exact pathway that led to the development of the eye? Evolution did it.

Explains nothing because it can be used to explain everything.

Is there really a diference. Again - knowing how something works is not the same as knowing how it came to be!

Your projecting the inability of God of the Gaps to provide value to our understanding with science which can actually provide us value in our look at evidence.

There absolutely is a difference. Physical evidence that can be duplicated, researched, and analyzed. Pathways and mechanisms that can be observed. Independent lines of evidence. Conclusions that can be refined and falsified or supported.

God did it provides none of these.

All evolution does is explain how life works and how biodiversity came about. God did it does nothing to explain it in a scientific sense.

Outside of that, I don't think anyone says that evolution causes earthquakes. We know what causes earthquakes and its not evolution.

 

[Critias]

I remember someone had something very similar as part of their sig at one time. Something to the effect of "When science and the Bible contradict one another you can rest assured that the problem lies in our interpretation of Scripture." or something like that. I always like that quote.

If I may, let's make this quote more realistic, shall we?

"When scientists interpretation of evidence and the Bible contradict one another you can rest assure that the problem lies in our interpretation of Scripture."

That is what TEs really mean here. It is man's interpretation of evidence versus the author's intended meaning of the Bible. TEs take man everytime.

 

[notto]

That is what TEs really mean here. It is man's interpretation of evidence versus the author's intended meaning of the Bible. TEs take man everytime.

So, was Galileo right or wrong?