Which Came First?

[OrdinaryClay]

Lacking as they are they are workable in comparison to:

Something is either workable or not workable on its own standing. Workability is not a relative concept. None of them work.

"God did it"

(which is not an explanation but a lack of one, which is never a valid explanation)

It is only an invalid explanation for an atheist since an atheist a priori must exclude God. I'm a Christian hence I believe that God doing something is perfectly valid.

To be honest, I'm stunned I hear an argument like that on a Christian forum. God doing something is in fact an explanation. God gave His Son for our salvation, for example.

 

[metherion]

It is only an invalid explanation for an atheist since an atheist a priori must exclude God. I'm a Christian hence I believe that God doing something is perfectly valid.

To be honest, I'm stunned I hear an argument like that on a Christian forum. God doing something is in fact an explanation. God gave His Son for our salvation, for example.

God did it in this case is a LACK of explanation. Going "God did it" in this case means NOT looking for how it actually might have happened. Did God do it? As a Christian, I believe He did. The question of science is not... did God do it? It is HOW DID IT HAPPEN? If God did it, then science would be HOW DID GOD DO IT? The answer "God did it" to the question "How did God do it?" is a non-answer.

Metherion

 

[OrdinaryClay]

God did it in this case is a LACK of explanation. Going "God did it" in this case means NOT looking for how it actually might have happened. Did God do it? As a Christian, I believe He did. The question of science is not... did God do it? It is HOW DID IT HAPPEN? If God did it, then science would be HOW DID GOD DO IT? The answer "God did it" to the question "How did God do it?" is a non-answer.

In this case, no one is proposing we not continue to look for how God did it. No one is proposing we stop science. I encourage vigorous and honest science in all areas: cosmology and biology. The more vigorous we investigate the clearer the gaps will really become, and the fewer excuses an atheist will have in worshiping materialistic naturalism. Yes, I do believe gaps exist and the scientific evidence supports this.

In the case of abiogenesis atheists and many Christians make unfounded, and unscientific claims, so as to avoid any hint of Divine intervention. People jump through hoops to extrapolate beyond reason what we understand and what we can demonstrate about the origin of life. So, yes, I encourage real and honest science, but I will not sit back and pretend that science is more then it is.

Implicit in your response is that the only way God can work is through necessity (physical laws) and chance. It is almost as if some Christians are willing to limit God. They refuse to believe in miracles. I find this to be very sad personally but also alarming spiritually. This almost relegates God to a mental state, which He is not. God works both through providence and real actual miracles. What is the explanation for Christ's resurrection? It is a Divine unadulterated, bona fide, open and shut case of a physical miracle. We don't ask the question, hmmm ... so what is the scientific explanation of the resurrection.

 

[Mallon]

The more vigorous we investigate the clearer the gaps will really become, and the fewer excuses an atheist will have in worshiping materialistic naturalism. Yes, I do believe gaps exist and the scientific evidence supports this.

So at which point do you suggest we suspend further scientific investigation and just chalk everything up to miraculous intervention? I suspect we would have to be able to distinguish between genuine gaps in natural processes and gaps in our knowledge of those processes. How do we do that?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

So at which point do you suggest we suspend further scientific investigation and just chalk everything up to miraculous intervention? I suspect we would have to be able to distinguish between genuine gaps in natural processes and gaps in our knowledge of those processes. How do we do that?

We never give up. Newton thought he had discovered all there was to mechanics. He hadn't. On the other hand, we, as Christians, don't ignore science's failings despite massive amounts of human intellectual effort. An atheist will dig their heals in and determine that God could not have done it. They in effect become scientific apologists. Christians are not restricted in the same way.

 

[Mallon]

On the other hand, we, as Christians, don't ignore science's failings despite massive amounts of human intellectual effort.

What do you mean by this? You seem to be implying that we should give up trying to find scientific explanations after "massive amounts of human intellectual effort." Science certainly fails most of the time, but that's how it works. Falsification.
I don't understand what your point is.

 

[philadiddle]

You are playing with words a bit. Evolution as in change through time does not specifically require life, but the ability to gain selective advantage and maintain that advantage does require life. A self replicating molecule still faces the big bad world of chemical thermodynamics. The essence of living evolution is the ability to "capture" the advantage of random change and then maintain that change despite deterministic pressure to lose it. Life does this via homeostasis, metabolism and replication.

You are claiming that the ability to gain a selective advantage is limited to life, and that it could not happen at the level of self replicating chemical systems. Here is an example of research where we directly observe self replicating molecules evolve, adapt, and compete.

Evolution In A Test Tube: Scientists Make Molecules That Evolve And Compete, Mimicking Behavior Of Darwin's Finches

I'm sure the first response to this will be "It was created intelligently in a lab." We don't observe this in nature anymore because the earth is already filled with life that would consume any such self replicating molecule, so we can only expect to study abiogenesis in the lab.

And here is yet another step in making a model for abiogenesis.

The New York Times > Log In

But here's what we need to remember. Even if abiogenesis is false, the pursuit of it has led to breakthroughs in abiotic chemistry and has increased our understanding of the natural world. Saying that it couldn't happen and therefore God did it gives us nothing beyond a teleological statement. No experiments can be done, no predictions can be made, and we don't find any way to increase our scientific understanding of the world. I.D. is the same type of reasoning that kept us in the dark ages for hundreds of years.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

What do you mean by this? You seem to be implying that we should give up trying to find scientific explanations after "massive amounts of human intellectual effort." Science certainly fails most of the time, but that's how it works. Falsification.
I don't understand what your point is.

I answered your question directly in the same small paragraph. I said explicitly we should not stop discovery or research. I even gave an analogy of where in physics we made a major discovery and we still accepted a newer and better explanation. Science should not stop. Science continues marching on. Scientists continue to work and try and discover. We should still fund science. We should still teach science. I don't know how clearer I can be.

My point is clear and I stated it in multiple ways multiple times. Some Christians are more willing to accept a faith based scientific explanation then they are willing to accept an explanation from God. The current abiogenesis speculations have no ability to explain the origin of life. To accept these as they currently exist is to accept something with no evidence. I can understand how an atheist would be lead to this impasse, but I don't understand how a Christian can.

 

[philadiddle]

My point is clear and I stated it in multiple ways multiple times. Some Christians are more willing to accept a faith based scientific explanation then they are willing to accept an explanation from God. The current abiogenesis speculations have no ability to explain the origin of life. To accept these as they currently exist is to accept something with no evidence. I can understand how an atheist would be lead to this impasse, but I don't understand how a Christian can.

It is not a faith based scientific explanation. It is a fact that as we go down through the layers of strata we find entirely different sets of organisms to have existed. It is a fact that each of these sets "leads" to the next set. There is a nested hierarchy supported by millions of transitional forms. It is a fact that based on the morphology of living organisms we can construct a tree of life that all living things fit into. It is a fact this tree also matches the tree we get from the fossil record. It's also a fact that over 99% of the organisms we know about are extinct. It's a fact that the tree of life we get from genetics also matches the fossil record and morphology. It's a fact that the distribution of life on the planet, biogeography, also matches that same tree. It's a fact that there are vestigal structures found in organisms that are best explained by evolution, such as blind moles who have non-functional eyes. It is a fact that we share non-functional genes with other animals, such as the defective GULO gene that we share with primates. It is a fact that non-functional genes continue to mutate and we can construct a tree of evolution from that as well. It is a fact that the tree we get from that also matches our fossil record, morphology, biogeography, etc.

All of these things are facts, and the theory of evolution is the best explanation for these things. The theory of evolution will never become a fact because it is an explanation of the facts, in the same way atomic theory will never be called atomic fact. The mechanisms that make up the theory of evolution are also based on facts. It is a fact that we observe speciation. It is a fact that mutations can cause beneficial traits for organisms (mutations such as insertions, deletions, gene shuffling, and duplication). It is a fact that we have observed new enzymes with new functions evolving in nature. The list goes on.

The scientific explanation is based on observed fact, predictions, empirical evidence, and continued testing and scrutiny.

Now, please explain to me what role faith has in the theory of evolution.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

You are claiming that the ability to gain a selective advantage is limited to life, and that it could not happen at the level of self replicating chemical systems. Here is an example of research where we directly observe self replicating molecules evolve, adapt, and compete.

This demonstrates that RNA enzymes in vitro can be selected against/for. It shows that given the right chemical and thermodynamic conditions along with artificially maintained homeostasis some RNA enzymes react more favorably. This says nothing about abiogenesis. There is a huge leap from this to life in the wild. It was really doing nothing more then taking a reaction that we already know exists in cells and then creating a completely artificial environment and letting it play out in a way we knew full well would happen.

I'm sure the first response to this will be "It was created intelligently in a lab."

In fact, artificially engineered conditions are a long way from a wild occurrence. This is basic science. We can fabricate all kinds of polymers in the lab, but nobody claims this is proof they occur in the wild.

We don't observe this in nature anymore because the earth is already filled with life that would consume any such self replicating molecule, so we can only expect to study abiogenesis in the lab.

You are making a scientific statement. As such you should back this up. Truth is, it is a bald claim on your part. In the world of life we see just the opposite. We see a huge menagerie of life from very, very primitive to the very, very complex. All have found a niche. Why is it only the most simple can not find a niche in the biosphere. Burden of proof lies on your shoulders. If you want to use science then you can not pick and choose what you want to use and what you don't want to use.

And here is yet another step in making a model for abiogenesis.

This is ancient news. They were talking about these same ideas at the beginning of the last century. Lipid sphericals are an interesting natural observation that have yet to be shown to have any significance in the area of origin of life work. Of course this does not stop people from championing them as if they were some holy grail of the OOL. A real living membrane is much more then a capsule.

From the article ...
"If biology is an inherent property of matter, why have chemists so far been unable to reconstruct life, or anything close to it, in the laboratory?"

But here's what we need to remember. Even if abiogenesis is false, the pursuit of it has led to breakthroughs in abiotic chemistry and has increased our understanding of the natural world.

Fine. I never said don't do science. Do science. I encourage, support and want it funded and done with no presuppositions. This has no relevance as to whether abiogenesis is valid or not - IOW a red herring.

Saying that it couldn't happen and therefore God did it gives us nothing beyond a teleological statement.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen. I'm saying science is saying, so far, it couldn't happen. I'm following the evidence. Those who say abiogenesis can happen are not.

Giving us teleological evidence is deep and profound. Are you not a Christian? Do you not believe that there is teleological meaning in the world and universe. A true teleological statement is every bit as profound as any scientific statement.

No experiments can be done, no predictions can be made, and we don't find any way to increase our scientific understanding of the world.

You have been listening to one side exclusively, I presume. Explanations for historical natural events are often not falsifiable. Plausible explanations are given and weighed. The best explanation is usually accepted. For example, no experiment can be done based on the current theories of why the Cambrian Explosion occurred. Good ideas and theories are provided. Some geological evidence is verifiable and corroborates some of the assumptions in the theories. In the end we have no idea and can not prove why the Cambrian Explosion occurred. We will never really know. It is still science to seek and understand the Cambrian Explosion. ID does make predictions in the same manner an argument for a theory of why the Cambrian Explosion occurred.

You should read The Signature in the Cell. Meyer does a good job of explaining this.

I.D. is the same type of reasoning that kept us in the dark ages for hundreds of years.

I don't think you understand what ID is. Can you explain to me what it is? (Hint: I would not rely on wikipedia as it is heavily biased)

 

[Mallon]

My point is clear and I stated it in multiple ways multiple times. Some Christians are more willing to accept a faith based scientific explanation then they are willing to accept an explanation from God.

Well, if we're going to do good science, as you clearly advocate, then we can't accept appeals to magic or to the authority of some holy book. Science requires that any explanation for some phenomenon appeal to natural, repeatable observations. Theories concerning abiogenesis and the RNA world may not be right or even fully formed, but they are the best science we have available, and so we hold on to them (read Kuhn's work on the structure of scientific revolutions).
It doesn't make sense to advocate the continued practice of science while denigrating those who push the boundaries of the field for not yet having fully-formed models. This is how science works. It's an iterative process.

 

[Smidlee]

I.D. is the same type of reasoning that kept us in the dark ages for hundreds of years.

The dark ages was not really "dark" especially for science/tech. (children often see their parents/past generations as more stupid/in the dark.) That's just a title we give that time period. We could as easily call the 20th Century the dark ages with two Great Wars including inventing WMD like nukes.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

It is not a faith based scientific explanation. ...
Now, please explain to me what role faith has in the theory of evolution.

Are you intentionally cross talking? Are you intentionally misdirecting the conversation? We are not talking about evolution. We are talking about abiogenesis. You know this full well. It is obvious when I referred to a "faith based explanation" I was referring to the current collection of abiogenesis theories.

 

[philadiddle]

Are you intentionally cross talking? Are you intentionally misdirecting the conversation? We are not talking about evolution. We are talking about abiogenesis. You know this full well. It is obvious when I referred to a "faith based explanation" I was referring to the current collection of abiogenesis theories.

I missed the mark I guess but the point remains. We know that we evolved based on the facts. We know that the earth is older then the oldest fossils (obviously). Life must have begun and natural processes are the only possible scientific explanation. There have been many different proposed explanations for the origins of life, but all are geared towards abiogenesis.

In other words, the universe began, then formed into it's current state, then the earth formed, then life got here. Most of that story is based on factual evidence. The part where we've worked out the least details is abiogenesis. It doesn't take faith to know that it happened. That's only puzzle piece that science can accept to fit into that space.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Well, if we're going to do good science, as you clearly advocate, then we can't accept appeals to magic or to the authority of some holy book.

ID does not require an appeal to the Bible ( which I hardly consider "some holy book") or magic (which is not what miracles are - btw). You fabricate a false choice. You can do good science and pursue vigorously all lines of exploration, and still admit the study of the design inference as a valid form of scientific endeavor.

Science requires that any explanation for some phenomenon appeal to natural, repeatable observations. Theories concerning abiogenesis and the RNA world may not be right or even fully formed, but they are the best science we have available, and so we hold on to them (read Kuhn's work on the structure of scientific revolutions).

You misunderstand the formation of evidence in the case of historical rare events. See my comparison to the theories offered to understand the Cambrian Explosion (there are other examples). I don't think you understand what ID is to be honest. Can you describe it?

I fully understand the operations of the scientific method. I also understand that science regularly and routinely accepts a current best explanation even while searching for better ones. Again you offer a false choice. I'm not suggesting we dump them. I'm suggesting we be intellectually honest with ourselves and call them what they are. It is at least good to see you are not following the irrational line of many others by making absurdly bold claims for the current set of abiogenesis speculations. BTW - Not only are they empty speculations now, they are making virtually no progress in their understanding of how abiogenesis could have worked. In fact, the current revolution in cell molecular biology is highlighting how little we know ever more.

It doesn't make sense to advocate the continued practice of science while denigrating those who push the boundaries of the field for not yet having fully-formed models. This is how science works. It's an iterative process.

I don't denigrate anyone for pursuing or pushing the boundaries of science(this is clear from my posts). I highlight the rampant misinformation many perpetuate about ID, and I point out the incongruent positions they hold.

While science iterates over solutions it also accepts the current best explanation. There is no reason whatsoever a design argument can not be held until a better one is constructed and evidence is built for it.

 

[philadiddle]

While science iterates over solutions it also accepts the current best explanation. There is no reason whatsoever a design argument can not be held until a better one is constructed and evidence is built for it.

What explanation does ID offer? How did the intelligent designer make the flagellum? Maybe I'm ignorant of the inner workings of ID, but it seems to me that it can be summed up as "Things are complicated, the chances of some things happening is small, there is information in life, therefore it was designed. The designer made these things by....well, a miracle? I dunno, there isn't really a theory here."

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Life must have begun and natural processes are the only possible scientific explanation.
...
The part where we've worked out the least details is abiogenesis. It doesn't take faith to know that it happened.

It does take faith. Science only works on evidence. You can not borrow evidence from evolution or cosmology to assume that all the gaps will be filled. That is by definition unscientific.

Do you believe in physical miracles? Do you believe that Christ was physically raised from the dead?

That's only puzzle piece that science can accept to fit into that space.

What evidence do you have that science can provide a causal explanation for all events of the universe? You have none. You believe this based on faith in past science success, but there is no scientific reason whatsoever to assume that science can provide all casual answers.

 

[philadiddle]

It does take faith. Science only works on evidence. You can not borrow evidence from evolution or cosmology to assume that all the gaps will be filled. That is by definition unscientific.

God made every other area of science into a system that works via natural causes. Why do you think He's so incompetant that He can't do the same with abiogenesis? Evidence tells me that God made a universe that can carry out His will via natural processes. There is no reason to think that abiogenesis should be any different.

Do you believe in physical miracles? Do you believe that Christ was physically raised from the dead?

Yes

What evidence do you have that science can provide a causal explanation for all events of the universe? You have none. You believe this based on faith in past science success, but there is no scientific reason whatsoever to assume that science can provide all casual answers.

I don't believe that everything has a cause, therefore science can't provide a causal explanation for everything.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

What explanation does ID offer? How did the intelligent designer make the flagellum? Maybe I'm ignorant of the inner workings of ID, but it seems to me that it can be summed up as "Things are complicated, the chances of some things happening is small, there is information in life, therefore it was designed. The designer made these things by....well, a miracle? I dunno, there isn't really a theory here."

You're kidding me right?? All this criticism you have levied against Meyer and ID and you don't understand what it is. That is very unscientific behavior. What would you say to a YEC if they told you they never took the time to understand what common descent was. Please take the time to read and understand what it is. I will then be glad to debate, discuss and answer questions, but any responses run the risk of more cross talk. You still may not agree but at least you can genuinely discuss the pros and cons.

Start here ...
Center for Science and Culture - Challenging Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Promoting Intelligent Design

It you have some math in your background you can go here ...
Design Inference Website: The Writings of William A. Dembski

I would strongly recommend Meyers book.
Signature in the Cell

BTW -ID makes no claims of miracles, though a Christian would logically infer this, it is not required at all as part of the argument.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

God made every other area of science into a system that works via natural causes. Why do you think He's so incompetant that He can't do the same with abiogenesis? Evidence tells me that God made a universe that can carry out His will via natural processes. There is no reason to think that abiogenesis should be any different.

Oh, please. God is not incompetent. I said multiple times that I follow the evidence. If the evidence says God used providence I accept providence via natural laws. If the evidence says miracles I accept miracles. I don't a priori reject miracles.

There is no evidence that abiogenesis occurred via natural processes not on earth or in space. The evidence is building that we are, in fact, plain and simply a one shot deal in the universe.

Yes

Good. God Bless!!

I assume you also accept that He performed many miracles in His ministries. I also assume you accept miracles as possible today.

Why is it so difficult to believe in the possibility that the creation of the first living organisms on this lonely planet was in fact a miracle? We have building evidence that abiogenesis is not a product of necessity or chance.

I don't believe that everything has a cause, therefore science can't provide a causal explanation for everything.

What do you believe was uncaused?