What do you think about abiogenesis?

[Darkness27]

As a TE we accept the theory of evolution, how life is diverse and connected through common ancestry, but it says nothing about how life originated. So I'm curious as to what the TE community here thinks about abiogenesis, the scientific study of how life originated. Did life originate via natural processes as evolution is naturally driven, or did God create life without the use of natural processes?

For me, I accept that abiogenesis is a valid scientific study, and I do think that life originated via natural processes under the watchful eye of God. I do not know how much God suspended any natural law(s) to complete His will, but working off my own ideas about God and evolution I would think it would be comparable to evolution. Only problem is I have no idea how much God intervenes with evolution either.

P.S. I'll try to do a poll, however I've never done one before so who knows how it will turn out

 

[crawfish]

I think it's dangerous to say that it could not have happened through God's natural processes.

 

[mark kennedy]

As a TE we accept the theory of evolution, how life is diverse and connected through common ancestry, but it says nothing about how life originated. So I'm curious as to what the TE community here thinks about abiogenesis, the scientific study of how life originated. Did life originate via natural processes as evolution is naturally driven, or did God create life without the use of natural processes?

For me, I accept that abiogenesis is a valid scientific study, and I do think that life originated via natural processes under the watchful eye of God. I do not know how much God suspended any natural law(s) to complete His will, but working off my own ideas about God and evolution I would think it would be comparable to evolution. Only problem is I have no idea how much God intervenes with evolution either.

P.S. I'll try to do a poll, however I've never done one before so who knows how it will turn out

Its been logically and scientifically proven to be a myth. God does not play dice, God is first of all the Creator, you might want to give that some thought the next time you choose such a bad argument.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Mallon]

I don't have any strong feelings either way only because there is no good evidence either way. Regardless, I don't make a habit of betting against science. It tends to win out over scientific concordism.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't have any strong feelings either way only because there is no good evidence either way. Regardless, I don't make a habit of betting against science. It tends to win out over scientific concordism.

I could look it up but I'd rather ask, what is scientific concordism?

 

[Darkness27]

Its been logically and scientifically proven to be a myth. God does not play dice, God is first of all the Creator, you might want to give that some thought the next time you choose such a bad argument.

My intention is not to argue, I don't think I made an argument, just ask questions about how people feel about this issue. I agree God doesn't play with dice, but using natural laws isn't playing dice as God set up all the natural laws in the beginning. Perhaps God set up the universe in such a way that life on a tiny blue planet was inevitable, or perhaps God set it up and tweaked some things here and there as time went on to complete His will. I don't feel comfortable saying how much God used natural law or divine intervention, but I do feel comfortable saying that God did use natural law, despite that I don't know how much.

Have a nice day
Mark

You too
God bless

 

[Mallon]

I could look it up but I'd rather ask, what is scientific concordism?

It's the belief that God superseded the minds of the biblical authors in order to grant them scientific knowledge that they could have otherwise known, and that science therefore must concord with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[gluadys]

As a TE we accept the theory of evolution, how life is diverse and connected through common ancestry, but it says nothing about how life originated. So I'm curious as to what the TE community here thinks about abiogenesis, the scientific study of how life originated. Did life originate via natural processes as evolution is naturally driven, or did God create life without the use of natural processes?

For me, I accept that abiogenesis is a valid scientific study, and I do think that life originated via natural processes under the watchful eye of God. I do not know how much God suspended any natural law(s) to complete His will, but working off my own ideas about God and evolution I would think it would be comparable to evolution. Only problem is I have no idea how much God intervenes with evolution either.

P.S. I'll try to do a poll, however I've never done one before so who knows how it will turn out

I don't think we have enough scientific evidence to say for sure that life originated via natural processes, so I wouldn't affirm that yet. But I am comfortable with either a supernatural or a natural process (or some mixture of both) to bring life into existence. I don't think finding and confirming that life arose through a natural process should have any impact on belief in creation. A natural process would simply be how God chose to create, just as a supernatural process would be.

 

[crawfish]

Its been logically and scientifically proven to be a myth. God does not play dice, God is first of all the Creator, you might want to give that some thought the next time you choose such a bad argument.

Have a nice day
Mark

Honestly, I can't figure you guys out. You claim to believe that God is control of natural "random" processes such as weather, yet you claim that something like evolution or abiogenesis would be impossible because it would be a random, natural process.

Either God is in control of stuff or he isn't. Pick a side.

 

[Darkness27]

I don't think we have enough scientific evidence to say for sure that life originated via natural processes, so I wouldn't affirm that yet. But I am comfortable with either a supernatural or a natural process (or some mixture of both) to bring life into existence. I don't think finding and confirming that life arose through a natural process should have any impact on belief in creation. A natural process would simply be how God chose to create, just as a supernatural process would be.

I agree with the one exception that I do think there is enough evidence to affirm that life originated via natural processes. Obviously not as much as evolution, but I think there is enough out there to accept it.

 

[Voice in the Desert]

I don't have any strong feelings either way only because there is no good evidence either way. Regardless, I don't make a habit of betting against science. It tends to win out over scientific concordism.

Actually the Bible has a far better track record than science throughout history. So from that viewpoint you'd be much better off with the Bible than science.

 

[crawfish]

Actually the Bible has a far better track record than science throughout history. So from that viewpoint you'd be much better off with the Bible than science.

Science is simply the discovery of God's creation. Science's ongoing investigations have been remarkably successful.

The bible has an unblemished track record, except when people use it for purposes for which it wasn't intended.

 

[marlowe007]

Thomas Gold's book is instructive. THE DEEP HOT BIOSPHERE. It would seem to "fit" that oil is produced by a combination of bacteria and other elements already in the earth. Life most likely "evolved" from this combination.

When certain "pea soup" inner earth contents (mainly hydrocarbons) are exposed to UV rays, they produce primitive proteins...the first DNA. This doesn't preclude God in any way.

I see the hand of God everywhere and that includes the soup. When that DNA, over time, forms new shapes and connections I see God at work.

Our DNA structure is basically a combination of simple sugars. Now, how in the hell do "simple sugars" in different combinations account for all that we see before us? The sugar in my coffee just sits there, but it's essentially the same.

Like they say, if you saw a fine Swiss Watch lying on the ground it would never occur to you that it had "spontaneously" assembled itself from nothing by sheer "chance".

 

[Darkness27]

When certain "pea soup" inner earth contents (mainly hydrocarbons) are exposed to UV rays, they produce primitive proteins...the first DNA. This doesn't preclude God in any way.

I see the hand of God everywhere and that includes the soup. When that DNA, over time, forms new shapes and connections I see God at work.

Most definitely. Evolution or abiogenesis being correct doesn't diminish the power, presence or control God has over His creation, it is merely the way He decided (in IMHO) to fulfill His will creating X.

Our DNA structure is basically a combination of simple sugars. Now, how in the hell do "simple sugars" in different combinations account for all that we see before us? The sugar in my coffee just sits there, but it's essentially the same.

Well, DNA is a little more than sugars, the backbone of DNA itself is composed of a sugar and phosphate backbone, with nitrogenous bases in the middle. And once you start talking about actual chromosomes in living organisms, you have to add in associated proteins like histones, methyl groups and so on.

Like they say, if you saw a fine Swiss Watch lying on the ground it would never occur to you that it had "spontaneously" assembled itself from nothing by sheer "chance".

I don't want to get too heavily into science in this thread, but that argument against evolution/abiogenesis is a non-sequitur as that is not an analogous comparison. We know that watches are made by people, and we know of no natural process that can make watches. Nor do watches reproduce, let alone with variation through a non-perfect replicating process. OTOH, we know life reproduces through a non-perfect replicating natural process and beneficial changes are preserved while negative changes are lost through natural selection.

I wouldn't even say atheistic evolution is done by "sheer chance", albeit much more chaotic than theistic evolution - yet the physical conclusions are the same.

 

[marlowe007]

I don't want to get too heavily into science in this thread, but that argument against evolution/abiogenesis is a non-sequitur as that is not an analogous comparison.

Just to clarify: I'm not arguing against abiogenesis, merely claiming that God's hand needed to be there to "animate" it.

Or perhaps He simply created the first Hydrogen atom and the rest is history...

 

[Phinehas2]

The issue of the swiss watch is not a non-sequitur. This isnt science so much as the philosophy of science.
We can observe that people make watches, we cannot observe evolution.
The point about the watch is that we wouldnt assume it just happened to come together if we didnt know people assembled watches.
We can justify some evolution of species in the fossil record and in the lab, but we can't justify evolution of Kingdom, Phylum, class or order, either in the lab or arguably in the fossil record, and this is where the watch ananlogy comes in.

 

[Darkness27]

Just to clarify: I'm not arguing against abiogenesis, merely claiming that God's hand needed to be there to "animate" it.

I disagree with the word "animate", only because vitalism has been disproved - there is no special property of life in a physical sense.

Or perhaps He simply created the first Hydrogen atom and the rest is history...

That would simply be antithetical to theism, and thus Christianity.

 

[Darkness27]

The issue of the swiss watch is not a non-sequitur. This isnt science so much as the philosophy of science.
We can observe that people make watches, we cannot observe evolution.
The point about the watch is that we wouldnt assume it just happened to come together if we didnt know people assembled watches.
We can justify some evolution of species in the fossil record and in the lab, but we can't justify evolution of Kingdom, Phylum, class or order, either in the lab or arguably in the fossil record, and this is where the watch ananlogy comes in.

Not really. We have good records of reptiles evolving into mammals from Synapsids, this would be at the class level. I'm not sure what you mean by "evolution of Kingdom". There is genetic evidence that Eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes (that is above the "kingdom" level and into Domains) with things like DNA in the mitochondria and cloroplast.

We observe evolution all the time, the only difference is how far are you willing use the observation to explain the unity and diversity of life. And quite frankly, there is no line that evolution can't cross as exhibited in the fossil record and genetic studies.

So how exactly is the watch analogy used in evolution and/or abiogenesis?

 

[callmeMurph]

I'm probably a little late to the conversation but I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Did life originate via natural processes as evolution is naturally driven, or did God create life without the use of natural processes?

I like the definition of Evolutionary Creation that Denis Lamoureux gives:

Evolutionary creation claims that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and
life through an ordained, sustained, and design-reflecting evolutionary process.

So as far as I'm concerned God ordains and sustains the evolutionary process. I think after that it leaves it up to science on how exactly life started.

I'm not sure about abiogenesis myself. I know what it is but I haven't really looked into the science behind it. I remember watching Case for the Creator where they said that a while back abiogenesis was pretty solid but recently it was proven that the methods they used were incorrect. I'm not exactly sure if I quite believe that but I could see how it is possible. I'd like to hear what scientists have been saying about it recently.

I don't really have a problem with life starting from abiogenesis or a special act of God. I think it would be a mistake to claim that it is impossible...we don't want to take the God of the gaps position...but at the same time I'm not really sure about it.