Was life inevitable?

[mark kennedy]

A fascinating discussion, tracked down a couple of the papers, really don't see anything conclusive.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why?

For a long time now I have speculated that the smallest particle of matter/ energy is the very love of God. Why should that not be a physical thing? It explains a lot --his intimate involvement and control of all things, his consternation at the bald claim that the creature can do without the Creator, etc etc etc. The only thing I can find wrong with this idea is that I thought of it, and therefore it is at least suspect. Well, that, and it isn't exactly what the Bible says, though I don't find it contradicting anything the Bible does say.

Among the things implied by that idea is the fact that no matter what they have come up with in cosmology and math they only get closer to seeing how he has done what he did. Or maybe I am saying that backwards, for those who see evidence before cause. Either way, they have shown nothing to disprove Creation.

I specially like it when they come up with things like "the nature of nature demands that it come into being" (ok, I know that isn't how they said it), and, "virtual particles pop in and out of existence" and so on.

Ok, that's enough for now, just, I see it in EVERYTHING they even suspect or guess, not that they are right, but that even if they are, they have only further affirmed his existence, to my mind.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Oh yes, certainly implies that. The part about how eyes evolved because of light and wings evolved because of air and brains evolved because of the inherent information in reality was kind of mind blowing to me. It’s like we evolved in order to comprehend what reality is.

Intriguing thoughts in there. I suspect the truth, were it to come out, would catch some of the evolutionists sideways so hard they might go into spasms, and make Creationists jaws drop.

So far the science of evolution, to my mind, has come up short, mostly for simply too much jumping to conclusions. But then, what do I know? --only that I am unconvinced.

 

[Ophiolite]

Intriguing thoughts in there. I suspect the truth, were it to come out, would catch some of the evolutionists sideways so hard they might go into spasms, and make Creationists jaws drop.

So far the science of evolution, to my mind, has come up short, mostly for simply too much jumping to conclusions. But then, what do I know? --only that I am unconvinced.

Your position is, superficially, a sound one. You ask what do you know. One thing you do not know is how science works. Scientific methodology is the very opposite of jumping to conclusions. I give a single example.

Darwin was already thinking of the concept of evolution when he returned from the Voyage on the Beagle, but rather than publish some preliminary thoughts based on his meticulous observations during the voyage (not to mention the wealth of data gathered by others) he spent over two decades researching, hypothesising, testing, discussing, evaluating, rejecting this, accepting that, but rigorously and vigorously questioning. This was the very antithesis of jumping to a conclusion.

If you were better versed in the methodology of science and in what it has revealed of evolution, and were you to consider all this with a truly open mind then I suspect (strongly) that you would be convinced there is currently no better supported explantion for the diveristy of life on the planet and few, if any, scientific theories that are so well established.

 

[mark kennedy]

Your position is, superficially, a sound one. You ask what do you know. One thing you do not know is how science works. Scientific methodology is the very opposite of jumping to conclusions. I give a single example.

Darwin was already thinking of the concept of evolution when he returned from the Voyage on the Beagle, but rather than publish some preliminary thoughts based on his meticulous observations during the voyage (not to mention the wealth of data gathered by others) he spent over two decades researching, hypothesising, testing, discussing, evaluating, rejecting this, accepting that, but rigorously and vigorously questioning. This was the very antithesis of jumping to a conclusion.

If you were better versed in the methodology of science and in what it has revealed of evolution, and were you to consider all this with a truly open mind then I suspect (strongly) that you would be convinced there is currently no better supported explantion for the diveristy of life on the planet and few, if any, scientific theories that are so well established.

Scientific methodology had very little to do with Darwin's life and work. He did raise orchids and pigeons, he liked to collect specimens. A professor at Cambridge was into taxidermy and he told young Charles Darwin about the rain forests of his native Brazil. Darwin was not a scientist, he was a naturalist, none of his theories have been rigorously or vigorously tested, or have they?

“I, for one, have never subscribed to this view of the origin of life, and I am by no means alone. The RNA world hypothesis is driven almost entirely by the flow of data from very high technology combinatorial libraries, whose relationship to the prebiotic world is anything but worthy of “unanimous support”. There are several serious problems associated with it, and I view it as little more than a popular fantasy” (reviewer's report in, Primordial soup or vinaigrette: did the RNA world evolve at acidic pH? Biol Direct. 2012).
​

An interesting discussion to be sure, but highly speculative and hardly definitive. The Law of Biogenesis was proposed by Louis Pasteur with the simple premise that life only comes from life, which was one of the core elements of cell theory, Omnis cellula e cellula, "all cells are from cells”. The only way science has ever seen life emerge is from life through reproduction. I've listened to many such discussions and read numerous papers on the subject, all very interesting, but spontaneous generation and abiogenesis remain popular fantasy.

The Ancient Greeks believed that living things could spontaneously come into being from nonliving matter, and that the goddess Gaia could make life arise spontaneously from stones – a process known as Generatio spontanea. (Biogenesis)
​

The Scriptures make clear that God is the author of life. Darwin's theory is based on an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes. While it may leave the atheistic materialist intellectually satisfied abiogenesis is a vigorously tested theory of life's origins, with no demonstrative proof that life from nonmaterial sources is even possible. It remains, a popular fantasy.

 

[Chriliman]

Intriguing thoughts in there. I suspect the truth, were it to come out, would catch some of the evolutionists sideways so hard they might go into spasms, and make Creationists jaws drop.

So far the science of evolution, to my mind, has come up short, mostly for simply too much jumping to conclusions. But then, what do I know? --only that I am unconvinced.

I think we’re all prone to jump to conclusions from time to time, what’s important is that we’re willing to change our minds in light of evidence that suggests our conclusions are wrong.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think we’re all prone to jump to conclusions from time to time, what’s important is that we’re willing to change our minds in light of evidence that suggests our conclusions are wrong.

The evidence is certainly compelling, life comes from life every single time.

 

[Speedwell]

​

The Scriptures make clear that God is the author of life. Darwin's theory is based on an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes.

And both can be correct. The notion that an apparently complete system of natural causes for natural phenomena rules out divine providence is such a grotesque and obvious metaphysical error that I have to suspect that creationists are using it knowingly for propaganda purposes.

Mark has me on ignore because he knows his arguments on this point cannot stand up to scrutiny, but I wouldn't like to see anyone else bamboozled by them.

 

[mark kennedy]

It covers quite a lot of recent discoveries in a fairly objective way but makes numerous logical errors in promoting a teleological explanation, especially the retrospective fallacy and the 'puddle' fallacy.

The retrospective fallacy involves looking at the probabilities of all the significant events that led to a particular outcome and marvelling at the overall improbability of that particular outcome, while ignoring the self-selecting bias (some chain of events had to occur, and that particular outcome is just one of a vast number of possible outcomes). Evolution by natural selection lends itself to this kind of fallacy, being a hugely wasteful process where the survivors are the tiny tip of an iceberg of failures that is too often ignored.

The puddle fallacy derives from Douglas Adams:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’"
​

He goes on to point out the potential drawbacks of such 'puddlecentric' reasoning:

"This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.’"
​

The last part of the video suggests that the evolution of intelligence was somehow a result of selection pressure from Platonic forms, "as brains evolve against and in response to universal truths". But universal truths are not selection pressures; the evidence suggests that intelligence evolves in response to pressures for flexible and creative responses, predictions (especially behaviour), and forward planning. Regardless of Meno's paradox and the theory of recollection, rather than using supposed innate knowledge of Platonic forms to identify their real-world approximations, we can abstract the ideal forms from the real-world examples.

Yea, universal truths like the laws of; dominance, segregation and independent assortment and bigenesis. I've always thought a rudimentary understanding of basic biology was a good first step to understanding adaptive evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Darwin was not a scientist, he was a naturalist

Historical context matters here. In Darwin's time those who studied the natural world were referred to as naturalists or natural philosophers. "Scientist" as both a term and a profession arguably didn't get more widely recognized as such until the 20th century.

The Law of Biogenesis was proposed by Louis Pasteur with the simple premise that life only comes from life, which was one of the core elements of cell theory, Omnis cellula e cellula, "all cells are from cells”. The only way science has ever seen life emerge is from life through reproduction. I've listened to many such discussions and read numerous papers on the subject, all very interesting, but spontaneous generation and abiogenesis remain popular fantasy.

Keep in mind that what Louis Pasteur was testing was the spontaneous formation of modern living organisms (i.e. molds, flies, etc). It did nothing to rule out the formation of life from non-life via chemical precursors. This is a classic creationist error. For someone claiming to be well-read on these subjects, I'm surprised you would make such a reference.

 

[pitabread]

Among the things implied by that idea is the fact that no matter what they have come up with in cosmology and math they only get closer to seeing how he has done what he did. Or maybe I am saying that backwards, for those who see evidence before cause. Either way, they have shown nothing to disprove Creation.

Supernatural creation is not a falsifiable proposition so of course nothing can explicitly disprove it. I'm more interested in why those feel it is evidenced.

Ok, that's enough for now, just, I see it in EVERYTHING they even suspect or guess, not that they are right, but that even if they are, they have only further affirmed his existence, to my mind.

Fair enough.

Where I struggle with this concept of evidence for Creation is that if everything is evidence thereof, what is the basis for comparison?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Where I struggle with this concept of evidence for Creation is that if everything is evidence thereof, what is the basis for comparison?

It looks like a circular argument that begs the question - if Creation is axiomatic, everything must ipso-facto be evidence for Creation.

If this is claimed not to be the case, it is reasonable to ask for some justification such as the criteria for judging what is evidence for Creation, and/or how a claim of Creation could, in principle, be falsified (i.e. criteria of falsification).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Supernatural creation is not a falsifiable proposition so of course nothing can explicitly disprove it. I'm more interested in why those feel it is evidenced.



Fair enough.

Where I struggle with this concept of evidence for Creation is that if everything is evidence thereof, what is the basis for comparison?

So far creation by Self-existing Creator is not falsifiable, simply because science doesn't have to tools to study the matter (By that I don't mean that I hold out hope they ever will be able to "see God" via science). Yet they keep coming up with things that seem to operate on principles as yet not well understood to us --principles that sound related to God.

The basis for comparison, I suppose, is only the theoretical lack of evidence, if any. But I don't think basis for comparison is necessary for overwhelming reason to believe. Consider the fact that we all believe we exist --in fact, our word "empirical", assumes the notion we exist, and that we do in fact consider. We operate by a trust in the notion that we are real (and we can not function otherwise). To believe that God created everything is no harder (for me at least) to do. It makes more sense to me that he should exist, than it does that I should exist.

It is not simply that science has failed to come up with proof either way on the question of the existence of God, but that good sense knows better than to believe science is the only way to know something to be true. (Btw, many things are not falsifiable that science uses all day long.) To me it is evidence because, 1. It fits the small theory of God, and 2. There is no better explanation --in fact, to my thinking at least, other explanations posited only fall farther into infinite regression or circular reasoning.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It looks like a circular argument that begs the question - if Creation is axiomatic, everything must ipso-facto be evidence for Creation.

If this is claimed not to be the case, it is reasonable to ask for some justification such as the criteria for judging what is evidence for Creation, and/or how a claim of Creation could, in principle, be falsified (i.e. criteria of falsification).

Not all that is believable and useful is falsifiable.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Not all that is believable and useful is falsifiable.

Things that are not falsifiable should not be believe regardless of utility.

 

[Speedwell]

Things that are not falsifiable should not be believe regardless of utility.

Nonsense. Think of all the the art and music you would lose out on because you have abandoned the unfalsifiable idea of beauty.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think we’re all prone to jump to conclusions from time to time, what’s important is that we’re willing to change our minds in light of evidence that suggests our conclusions are wrong.

Agreed, though I'm not too sure of the scope of your word, "suggests". There is, for the person whom God inhabits, an internal assumption, hardly even recognizable for some believers for what it is, that God does indeed exist, unquestionably so --it would be for me like questioning whether I have a mind, except much stronger than that. It is, for me, a sure thing. The Bible rightly says that faith is the evidence of what is not seen.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Things that are not falsifiable should not be believe regardless of utility.

Then why does science use math and logic? Science uses good sense.

 

[Chriliman]

It looks like a circular argument that begs the question - if Creation is axiomatic, everything must ipso-facto be evidence for Creation.

If this is claimed not to be the case, it is reasonable to ask for some justification such as the criteria for judging what is evidence for Creation, and/or how a claim of Creation could, in principle, be falsified (i.e. criteria of falsification).

Couldn't we say a Creator could be falsified if it turns out that either literally nothing or some eternal cause that isn't God caused the universe?

 

[Speedwell]

Couldn't we say a Creator could be falsified if it turns out that either literally nothing or some eternal cause that isn't God caused the universe?

No, because you couldn't show that God was not behind that as well. That's what unfalsifiable means. Nothing that science has discovered or in principle ever could discover can disprove the existence of God.