Problems with Naturalism: The Origin of Life

[Josh]

Originally posted 6/30/06:

ORIGIN OF LIFE ISSUES

The first 'problem' I'd like to consider is the Origin of Life. Though perhaps not technically an 'evolution' question in some regards (if evolution is the change we see in already living organisms), it certainly has bearing on the whole discussion.

The question really is, how can life arise from non-life?
We could investigate the philosophical issues that question raises, but for now, here's what I see as the scientific aspects of the current debate:

When it comes to the origin of life on planet Earth, Naturalism's lack of credible theories, (much less mechanisms) comes to the forefront.

Although it appeared in the 1950's that researchers were well on their way to unlocking the mystery of the origin of life, initial indications that life could have arisen in some sort of pre-biotic soup stalled and encountered dead-ends (think of all the initial hype and subsequent letdown following the Stanley-Miller experiment).

First off, the existence of such a pre-biotic soup at the time of life's first appearance on earth (3.86 billion years ago, I believe, is the latest) has been virtually ruled out. Not that such pre-biotic soup was ever shown to be bona-fide pathway to life (far from it), but researchers are now quite surprised at the incredible hostility of earth at the time of life's first appearance.

(This has led some researchers to study the existence of 'extremophile' lifeforms today, wondering, contrary to previous thought, if such hostile conditions might actually be a key ingredient to the origin of life.)

Other serious students of origin of life research have turned in desperation to the possibility that life arrived from outer space (via comet/ asteroid, or even via extra-terrestrial 'seeding').

Besides the "no-soup" problem, a deeper one is the shrinking window of time available for the origin of life. Originally, the model 'predicted' a vast amount of time in which stable conditions persisted, enabling random chemical reactions to "have their chance" (the vast amount of time increasing the statistical chance). But with the recent discovery that life appeared within just 40 million years of the earth's crust being molten, reportedly, the research has been floundering.

This doesn't go into the detailed biochemical conundrums involved in getting life from non-life that many have brought forward, but unfortunately that's too technical to replicate here and lies somewhat on the fringes of my own personal mental acuity. Seeing as how the more technical aspects of such debate tend to grind down to a "so-and-so says this" stalemate, I think it's best to stick with the plainer issues.

So, in summary, origin of life research, as far as I'm aware, has been one of the biggest disappointments of modern science, with "no soup" and "no time" being the biggest factors leading to the frustration and increased tendency of serious researchers to look to more and more exotic and far-fetched theories.

Now, I will grant something- being that we're talking almost 4 billion years ago, we must be fair and acknowledge that piecing this puzzle together (if indeed it does have a natural explanation) presents some amazing difficulties. But, far from the mechanism responsible for life arising from non-life being simple, elegant, and somewhat easily reproducable (the initial thought) we can arguably say that if there is a natural explanation, the odds against its occurance increase with each new discovery about earth 4 billion years ago.





Sorry for any rhetoric, but sometimes that's the fuel for good discussion (heh heh).

[hume]

Originally posted 6/30/06:

"Unfortunately that's too technical to replicate here and lies somewhat on the fringes of my own personal mental acuity. Seeing as how the more technical aspects of such debate tend to grind down to a 'so-and-so says this' stalemate, I think it's best to stick with the plainer issues."

Here, here. It's worth reminding ourselves now & then that we don't really know what we're talking about.

It seems the best we can hope for such a large and technical discussion is to come out of it slightly less clueless than when we went in.

That said, let me state that I know more about the History of 14th Century Romanian Iconography than I know about the Origins of Life in the Prebiotic Soup or Lack Thereof. In fact my cat knows nearly as much about either of those topics. So I have only one direct comment about Original Origins, which is to agree with you when you write that this is "perhaps not technically an 'evolution' question in some regards (if evolution is the change we see in already living organisms)." In particular for a Theistic Evolutionist, it seems the answer to the question, "how did the very first life come to exist" has little bearing on the question whether evolution is the best-evidenced and most plausible description of life's overall history. (Atheistic evolutionists need a specific kind of explanation here that theistic evolutionists don't.) The evidence in support of evolution is from subsequent eras (Darwin didn't hit upon his theory by analyzing prebiotic chemistry), and that evidence has to be dealt with on its own merits; the further we go back into the mists of time, the sketchier all of this becomes on both sides.


"Sorry for any rhetoric, but sometimes that's the fuel for good discussion (heh heh)."

Mwahahaha. You're raising a really good question: what's the appropriate use of rhetoric (that whole continuum from just-short-of-shouting to innuendo to wit) in honest discussion? I really dunno. On the one hand it's totally irrelevant and misleading to "win" an argument just by being "the last guy still talking" (or, "the last guy who hasn't left the room, and still sits there talking to himself ..."). I'm afraid I over-indulge on that count. Still (as you indicate) it has a function, adding some "heat and light" that helps make otherwise dry stuff seem more interesting ...

[Josh]

Originally posted 6/30/06:

Reading the Wikipedia article "Origin of Life", I think anyone will find that there is extremely little confidence in this field. Part of the problem (born out in some ways even by this article) is that one scientific field (bio-chemistry) will conclude "it couldn't have happened this way (A)", so it "must have happened this way (B)" and then another field (astro-physics) will flatly reject B, recommending A. When these two fields come together (which, unfortunately, is rare), then they end up with a lot of dead ends (as in the case of the ISSOL (International Yearly Origin of Life Conference) and more extreme theories. (See the articles on ISSOL in my previous post)

[Josh]

Originally posted 6/30/06:

Just out of curiousity- are you opening the door, from your own perspective, on the distinct possibility of a supernatural cause for the appearance of initial life on earth? How important is a thoroughgoing naturalism from Big Bang to present in regard to biological history to you, or at least to the paradigm you seem to most advocate?

[hume]

Originally posted 7/1/06:

Sure, door's wide open. "Thoroughgoing naturalism" isn't theistic, it's deistic at most.

Let me put it this way: when you throw a solid object and watch it fall, are you shocked that it went down instead of up? No, because you recognize an underlying set of physical causes; that's why it always happens the same way (or at least, you know from experience that it happens that way, and you also know that the physical world in general behaves consistently; it's not a bizarre, capricious place). You don't believe that every time it happens, God needs to step in and miraculously manipulate the object to get it to fall to earth. That said, you also do not take this belief to somehow reduce God's significance: on the contrary, you marvel that he invented such an extraordinary, complex reality governed by laws of physics, including gravity and so forth. And he continuously upholds the existence of all reality anyway.

In the creationism vs theistic evolution debate, the main point at issue is: how much of creation is like what happens when you throw a rock? Did God create a living world that's robust enough to "roll with the punches," or one that requires him to step in and fiddle with it, like a mechanic tuning up an old car? Note the word "requires" -- this is not a debate about whether God can or does intervene whenever and however he pleases; that's not up for question among theists.

In other words, I'm not willing to concede the high ground here. (I don't belong on said high ground, I'm just attempting to speak for a position that I think does belong there.) Because of the relentlessly atheistic and dehumanizing tone of much "pop evolution," a lot of Christians understandably view the whole idea as a distasteful or questionable option, even in its so-called theistic form. But really it's no more intrinsically problematic than Newtonian physics. In fact, it can increase one's admiration and respect for God *as creator* because it enhances the sheer marvel of his work. Look at the extraordinary capacities God has built in to even the humblest living things: talk about intelligent design! This is beyond intelligence, beyond genius. A species, like a mountain, is no barrier to the creative capacities of God.

One more commment -- just to get "biblical" on you (I'd like to try not to concede that either, tho I'm certainly not up to the task): standard Creationist views tend to explicitly appeal to so-called "common sense" (in the worst sense of that term) -- along the lines of, "you don't feel like a monkey, do you? Are you a monkey? I didn't think so." etc. This really isn't a biblical view of God's transcendance; the bible seems to be quite clear that God's methods of creation are his alone, and hardly likely to seem obvious to us:

"Does the clay say to the potter,
'What are you making?'
Does your work say,
'He has no hands'?

Woe to him who says to his father,
'What have you begotten?'
or to his mother,
'What have you brought to birth?'

This is what the LORD says ...
do you question me about my children,
or give me orders about the work of my hands?

It is I who made the earth
and created mankind upon it.
My own hands stretched out the heavens;
I marshaled their starry hosts ...

Truly you are a God who hides himself,
O God and Savior of Israel ...

For this is what the LORD says—
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited—
he says:
'I am the LORD, and there is no other.'"

-- Isaiah 45:9-18

[Josh]

Originally posted 7/27/06:

I just want to say, after reviewing this thread, that I think the 'origin of life' question is really germaine to the the topic of evolution. It can't be divorced from 'subsequent evolution' by the thorough going naturalist. If it can't reasonably be determined that life arose through solely naturalistic means, then I think the door is much more open to seeing subsequent evolution as more than an unguided, random process.

[Josh]

I know this is an old thread, but I'm interested in hearing other feedback on this- especially the bolded part in the last post I made.

I see science's lack at providing a tenable theory on the origin of life a strong weakness of naturalism. If life arose from non-life through completely random, accidental means, then why is it so hard to reproduce the process synthetically... or even imagine the process

[moritz]

Feb 26, 2009 12:06:31 GMT -8 Josh said:

I see science's lack at providing a tenable theory on the origin of life a strong weakness of naturalism.

haha, you make it sound as if Christianity had a sound explanation (or tenable theory) of how life arose from non-life
So maybe you can fill me in: How did God do it? I'm sure you can explain physically, biologically and chemically how he could create everything out of thin air...
And now that we're at it: perhaps you want to explain me scientifically how a complex being like God could just be without coming into being. And how he can be transcendent to the universe, and how he can be three in one, and.... Muhahaha!

Here we have a classic error of category. Many believers think they actually have an answer to the question of the origins of life: "God made it". What they don't realize is that they haven't answered the question of how the least bit. Gee, there isn't even scientific evidence for God actually existing.
Believers are only giving a guess for the question of who or what did it. And not even in this respect they have an advantage over natural science, for those who believe in a random origin of life answer the same question with: "chance".
Your rationale that "If it can't reasonably be determined that life arose through solely naturalistic means, then I think the door is much more open to seeing subsequent evolution as more than an unguided, random process" is totally overhasty. Who says it won't ever be possible to determine it? Natural science is decoding the "blueprint of life" at full speed, I have no clue where you got the idea anyone in the scientific community was pessimistic about it. Just take a look beyond the nose of religious coverage and you'll see that there's one breakthrough after the other. Science of course takes time. But natural science is far ahead of any religious alternative, because they actually explore and don't just rely on faith.
Last but not least, let me point at your double standard: When I ask questions you can't answer about Christianity and its logic, you come along with things like "Gods ways aren't our ways and we can't understand his plan". But when science can't explain something (for the time being, yet working on it) you suddenly feel more confident. How's that?

[Josh]

Oh so tempting, mo. Looks like we relit the fire.

But first I've got to prepare my lesson for Sunday.... it's a little more complicated of a teaching than usual this week.

[Josh]

Mo wrote:

haha, you make it sound as if Christianity had a sound explanation (or tenable theory) of how life arose from non-life
So maybe you can fill me in: How did God do it? I'm sure you can explain physically, biologically and chemically how he could create everything out of thin air...

Christians aren't claiming that the way God created the first life is currently knowable to humans. However, the existence of a omnipotent creator is certainly a tenable theory on the origin of life. But to the Materialist/ Naturalist it should only be a matter of time and further discovery until such things are known. The problem is that as more and more discoveries are made, the mystery deepens and the odds get worse. The more that is discovered, the more impossible it seems for life to have arisen naturalistically.

This has driven many scientists to speculate that life couldn't have arisen on earth, given the conditions. Thus the popularity of panspermia theories [life arrived on earth on an asteriod from a planet which had conditions presumed to be able to explain the origin of life)... and even theories of directed (read alien) panspermia.

Mo wrote:

And now that we're at it: perhaps you want to explain me scientifically how a complex being like God could just be without coming into being.

Complexity has nothing to do with it- though I sense you're hinting at Dawkin's 747 analogy, for which I still have yet to write a review (spring break, maybe?)

Mo, do you believe in a series of infinite regressions? An uncaused cause makes a whole lot more sense.

Only things that come into being (like the universe) need a cause.

Mo wrote:

And how he can be transcendent to the universe

Even naturalists believe that there are things transcendant to the universe, at least ones who dabble in multiverse theory. Right?

Mo:

Here we have a classic error of category. Many believers think they actually have an answer to the question of the origins of life: "God made it". What they don't realize is that they haven't answered the question of how the least bit.

It's not an error of category. It's a statement that we know the agent but we don't know the process, very similar to what naturalists would say, except that the naturalist expects to find the mechanism, the Christian doesn't necessarily (though the Christian does think that the mechanism is rational)

Mo wrote:

Gee, there isn't even scientific evidence for God actually existing.

What do you think we're discussing on these science/ faith boards? Did you mean "proof" or "evidence"?

Mo wrote:

But natural science is far ahead of any religious alternative, because they actually explore and don't just rely on faith.

Any scientific exploration/ research that is done well isn't done on behalf of naturalism or religion, it is done on behalf of truth. There isn't a competition.

Mo wrote:

Last but not least, let me point at your double standard: When I ask questions you can't answer about Christianity and its logic, you come along with things like "Gods ways aren't our ways and we can't understand his plan". But when science can't explain something (for the time being, yet working on it) you suddenly feel more confident. How's that?

In the case of there being things we as finite creatures don't understand about God, this is of course what one would expect from a scientific perspective. God, by definition, must be largely unknowable.

My beef against naturalism (and I note you're putting words in my mouth by saying when science can't explain something*) here is not that there are things they can't explain, but that there are theories they hold (especially about the origin of life) that grow increasingly doubtful the more evidence that piles up.

*This is not a battle between science and religion but between naturalism and the religious perspective.

[moritz]

Mar 1, 2009 20:13:12 GMT -8 Josh said:

Christians aren't claiming that the way God created the first life is currently knowable to humans. However, the existence of a omnipotent creator is certainly a tenable theory on the origin of life.

Tenable, is it? The only tenable thing about the God-hypothesis is that it is unfalsifiable. With passages like “my ways aren’t your ways and my thoughts aren’t your thoughts” (my paraphrase) the Bible eludes from human logic. Add-ons like God’s supposed omnipotence which allows him to do whatever he pleases against every natural law seal the isolation from scientific approaches. In other words, it is impossible to dismiss the God-hypothesis. This unfalsifiability however makes the God-hypothesis scientifically useless.

Mar 1, 2009 20:13:12 GMT -8 Josh said:

The more that is discovered, the more impossible it seems for life to have arisen naturalistically.

I honestly don’t know where you got that from. I already speculated in my last post on this thread, that you are receiving your information from religiously motivated news coverage. Cause what I’m reading over here is pointing in the total opposite direction. As you might have heard, this year would have been Darwin’s 200th birthday. Because of this the media where I come from are focussing more than usual on the question of the origins of life. Not a day goes by without articles about scientific breakthroughs which not only confirm the theory of evolution but also reflect the scientific optimism concerning the piecing together of the puzzle of life. I haven’t read a single pessimistic view. I remember you speaking of naturalism finding itself in total crisis some years back during our e-mail discourse. Just take a look at Professor Dawkins and say it again. I don’t think you can hold that position.

Especially when we consider the speed in which science advanced in the last couple of years, I think your position is way overconfident. It’s been quite a while from the “creation of Adam” until the deciphering of the human genome, you know? Give it a couple more years. I for one am positive we’ll both live to see the day in which humans will be able to simulate the spark that generates life from no-life and calculate whether it can happen by chance or not. Don’t forget that I’m not generally opposed to the idea of an intelligent designer. I’m just very opposed to Yahweh being this designer .

Mar 1, 2009 20:13:12 GMT -8 Josh said:

Mo, do you believe in a series of infinite regressions? An uncaused cause makes a whole lot more sense.

Josh, quite frankly, I don’t believe that a complex being like God can exist uncaused. No way. That makes no sense to me at all. But please, go ahead and explain to me how this is supposed to be physically possible.

In this particular question human knowledge reaches its borders in my opinion. I can’t fathom what you are trying to sell me (and I have my doubts that you actually can). An infinite regression makes just as much sense or nonsense, though it is easier for me to imagine (like a circle). So I think your assertion that “an uncaused cause makes a whole lot more sense” is pretty random.

Mar 1, 2009 20:13:12 GMT -8 Josh said:

Even naturalists believe that there are things transcendant to the universe, at least ones who dabble in multiverse theory. Right?

I don’t know. Go ahead, explain how it works.

Mar 1, 2009 20:13:12 GMT -8 Josh said:

It's not an error of category. It's a statement that we know the agent but we don't know the process, very similar to what naturalists would say, except that the naturalist expects to find the mechanism, the Christian doesn't necessarily (though the Christian does think that the mechanism is rational)

That’s pretty much what I’ve said. The error of category is that Christians think they are one step further than naturalists and hence in a position from which to strike at naturalism. Big mistake.
Here is the crux: The believer says God did it, the naturalist says it happened through a chain of unintentional natural causes. They both have a hypothesis (not a theory in the scientific sense, far from it). Scientifically speaking, they are both required to substantiate their hypothesis with empirical evidence. For the time being science hasn’t delivered the necessary results to confirm either hypothesis. The fact, that naturalists don’t know how the ignition works is hardly evidence for the truth of the theistic hypothesis. Cause this can easily be turned around. And if the believer argues that his hypothesis needs no scientific confirmation, he’s applying double standards.

Mar 1, 2009 20:13:12 GMT -8 Josh said:

What do you think we're discussing on these science/ faith boards? Did you mean "proof" or "evidence"?

We are discussing the supposed evidence. I haven’t seen any evidence for the truth of Christian claims on this board. Before you faint it might be helpful to define evidence. My dictionary offers various translations that go from “proof” to the mere “hint”. When I use the term evidence I speak of forceful indications (I used to think it meant proof back in the day when we first met). I haven’t come across forceful indications for theism in general or Christianity in particular. An example I remember ad hoc is our morality debate. To you the existence of morality was compelling evidence for the existence of God. I however argued coherently (imo) how the existence of morality can be explained logically without the supernatural. So what was the worth of your evidence? If something can be explained naturalistically as well as theistically it doesn’t really lead us in any particular direction. That’s not what I call evidence. And this goes for everything we have discussed. I don’t remember a single incident in which you brought something to the table I couldn’t plausibly argue against and that could be considered evidence for your cause. I have in the past and I repeat to invite you to bring on the compelling stuff you always talk about. I have seen no evidence for the existence of God on this board. Or, if you want to accuse me of semantic distortion, I say the evidence you provided for the theistic cause was at best lousy.
I love you though

Mar 1, 2009 20:13:12 GMT -8 Josh said:

Mo wrote:
"But natural science is far ahead of any religious alternative, because they actually explore and don't just rely on faith."

Any scientific exploration/ research that is done well isn't done on behalf of naturalism or religion, it is done on behalf of truth. There isn't a competition.

That’s right, but that wasn’t my point. My point is that natural science doesn’t content itself with a hypothesis. The hypothesis has to be tested and substantiated until it can either be discarded or turned into a full grown scientific theory.
Christian ratio as I stated above hedged itself from scientific approaches. Faith requires neither evidence nor proof. All this “aletheia-truth-seeking-stuff” is a jugglery which is well documented in our discourse. You and others have already several times retreated to the refuge of the unfalsifiable. I don't mean to be harsh. But I speak the truth and you know it.

Mar 1, 2009 20:13:12 GMT -8 Josh said:

My beef against naturalism (and I note you're putting words in my mouth by saying when science can't explain something*) here is not that there are things they can't explain, but that there are theories they hold (especially about the origin of life) that grow increasingly doubtful the more evidence that piles up.

I didn’t want to put anything into your mouth. You wrote “I see science's lack at providing a tenable theory on the origin of life a strong weakness of naturalism”. You spoke of science’s lack at providing a tenable theory while Christianity had a tenable theory. That’s what I referred to.

On the rest of your comment: I notice you are being more careful now. I appreciate that.
If somebody holds on to a questionable hypothesis, that’s one thing. But as you know very well scientists don’t automatically hold the same position and agree about everything. To dismiss the entire possibility of naturalistic explanation because of the stubbornness of some would be as if I dismissed Christianity because of the particular belief of some Christians*. I haven’t heard of a naturalistic consensus regarding the origin of life. And I think naturalism remains persuasive. The theory of evolution shows fairly well that complexity can develop through a natural process. Hence the hypothesis that the beginning of that process is possible without supernatural intervention as well is evident. Your point that recent findings show that a naturalistic mechanism for the origin of life is impossible or improbable contradict virtually everything I get to hear from the scientific community.

You’ve introduced earlier in this thread some kind of puzzle analogy. I think that’s a good choice. We are dealing with a puzzle of a size we can’t oversee. Zillions of pieces. We have already pieced some of them together but we’ve only gotten started. Some pieces are missing, others don’t seem to fit. But I’m convinced every piece has it’s place. Until we manage to piece the puzzle at least so much together, that we can identify the picture (perhaps never), we will have to be patient and careful with conclusions. As I said, I recommend patience and am positive that trailblazing results are awaiting us.


*As you know Christianity is the umbrella term for a short list of primary belief and a vast array of secondary beliefs. The same goes for naturalism. What do you think?

[Josh]

I didn’t want to put anything into your mouth. You wrote “I see science's lack at providing a tenable theory on the origin of life a strong weakness of naturalism”. You spoke of science’s lack at providing a tenable theory while Christianity had a tenable theory. That’s what I referred to.

Sorry about that. Originally (above) I said "Naturalism's lack" and I should have kept with that. Science is neutral. This is a question of supernaturalism vs. naturalism.

Plenty to respond to. I'll be back when I've got a chance.

[Josh]

With passages like “my ways aren’t your ways and my thoughts aren’t your thoughts” (my paraphrase) the Bible eludes from human logic.

It is a purely rational, logical argument that humans would not be able to understand all of God's ways. It would be self-evidently illogical to suppose that finite creatures could completely understand an infinite creator. Finite creatures can't even fully understand/comprehend the universe, and won't ever be able to.
Reality itself will always elude human logic. Get used to it, Mo.

Add-ons like God’s supposed omnipotence which allows him to do whatever he pleases against every natural law seal the isolation from scientific approaches. In other words, it is impossible to dismiss the God-hypothesis. This unfalsifiability however makes the God-hypothesis scientifically useless.

First off, omnipotence is not an "add-on". It is synonomous with the very concept of God. As I've said before, what we are debating when we are debating the existence of God is the existence of that being of which no being greater can be imagined.

The "God-hypothesis" may be able to escape complete disproof, but it cannot escape the prepoderance of evidence. This is especially true of religions which make claims that bear on history (and perhaps science) in some way.

Not a day goes by without articles about scientific breakthroughs which not only confirm the theory of evolution but also reflect the scientific optimism concerning the piecing together of the puzzle of life

Throw some out and we'll discuss their merits.

So, Mo, I'm curious how to make the best use of time here. To narrow discussion, do you believe in Earthly abiogenesis (like would you give it a 90% plausibility)?

[moritz]

Mar 3, 2009 21:01:28 GMT -8 Josh said:

It is a purely rational, logical argument that humans would not be able to understand all of God's ways. It would be self-evidently illogical to suppose that finite creatures could completely understand an infinite creator. Finite creatures can't even fully understand/comprehend the universe, and won't ever be able to.
Reality itself will always elude human logic. Get used to it, Mo.

Totally missing the point.

1. (I think I've said this before): I have no problem with the assumption that there are things we don't and can't understand. All the other way around, I believe that myself. This assumption is the basis of my agnosticism.
2. My point is that Christianity isn't presenting a scientific tenable theory:

"Theorizing is the explanatory part of science. Scientific theories are abstract statements about why and how* some portion of nature (including human social life) fits together and works. However, not all abstarct statements, even those offering explanations, qualify as scientific theories (...). Abstract statements are scientific only if it is possible to deduce from them some definite predictions and prohibitions about what will be observed."**

*Italic accentuation in the original, bolded parts my emphasis.
** Stark, Rodney. 2004. Exploring the Religious Life. Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

=> What is happeneing here is that you are striking out at a scientific discipline from an unscientific safety zone. Christianity is lacking a scientific theory on the how-question just as much as does naturalism (at this point). In other words: you are asking naturalism to provide what you yourself can't provide.

The basic assumption of naturalism, that life emerged without a supernatural cause is just as plausible as the assumption that life has been created. If you want the former to prove its assertion, you better prove your assertion too. The Theory of Evolution (the best established theory on the development of life, with an ever increasing record of evidence in its favor, acknowledged even by Pope John Paul II (!)) gets along perfectly without supernatural causes. This should be enough reason to logically assume the possibility of a non-supernatural (read: a natural) ignition too. If you want to dispute this, you have to bring on more than religiously biased, pseudo scientific ID-propaganda.

Mar 3, 2009 21:01:28 GMT -8 Josh said:

The "God-hypothesis" may be able to escape complete disproof, but it cannot escape the prepoderance of evidence.

Yes it can. And it effectively does. As I said, I have pointed out logical fallacies in the Christian construction in our discourse, which have been disputed and opposed but ultimately indirectly acknowledged by pointing to the scripture passages I quoted above. Every time somebody throws the "my ways aren't your ways" quote at me, he is actually saying: "It might appear illogical (or contradictory) to us with our limited human capacities, but I trust that it is actually very logical and possible in the divine sphere." This is escaping the preponderance of evidence in full cry, and you know it. It is an appeal to an unexplored and unexplorable logic. There's no getting around that.

It would be appropriate if you stopped argueing once and for all that Christianity is an evidence-based belief. The best historical "evidence" Christianity can provide (if at all) is that the historic figures the Bible referrs to actually existed. But the existence of a person is no evidence for the truth of this person's claim in any way.

Mar 3, 2009 21:01:28 GMT -8 Josh said:

Throw some out and we'll discuss their merits.

Why don't we start with the continuation of our God Delusion discussion?

Mar 3, 2009 21:01:28 GMT -8 Josh said:

To narrow discussion, do you believe in Earthly abiogenesis (like would you give it a 90% plausibility)?

Josh, I have no elaborated belief concerning the ignition of life. Sorry. This might not be satisfying for you, but I see no sense in filling gaps of knowledge with belief***. The best I can do is tell you this: I do think it is possible that life emerged from non-life in a natural process determined by factors we don't know yet but which are principally accessible. I also think it is possible that we have been created. I don't think we know anything about the creator though.
Anyway, as I already stated two times, the Theory of Evolution gives sufficient reasons to support the hypothesis of a natural cause for life in my opinion. The fact that the Theory of Evolotion itself generates many new questions and riddles is immanent to science and by no means a weakness. When Copernicus changed the history of astronomy with the heliocentric world view (around 1509), he didn't answer the question of how planets and moons can stay in their orbits. It took almost 180 years till Newton came up with gravity and gravity itself remains an unsolved riddle to the present day. What do we learn here? Science requires patience. Overhasty actionism and conclusions are futil and unwise.
The entire history of science shows how many times overhasty people (both believers and scientists) had to readjust their arguments in the light of new evidence. I for one take this as a lesson in caution.

***As a matter of fact, a accuse religions of unreasonably filling gaps of knowledge with guesses, assumptions and beliefs.

I hope you'll reply to this post and also to the last post (of which you ignored big parts). Don't worry about the time it will take, I'm patient. In fact, I have a lot of responding to do myself (in the Peter-Paul-thread, the temple-whipping-thread, the Islam-thread, etc. etc. Sometimes I can't help thinking you are starting new threads [or digging out old ones] just to keep me unfocussed - you little rascal )

[Josh]

OK Mo, I'm sitting up with my sick six year old for the third night in a row, and so have nothing better to do than get back to this post

1st off, for the record, YOU are the resident little rascal and don't forget it!

2. My point is that Christianity isn't presenting a scientific tenable theory:

"Abstract statements are scientific only if it is possible to deduce from them some definite predictions and prohibitions about what will be observed."

Perspectives on evolution and the origin of life based on the Bible can indeed make definite, testable scientific predictions and prohibitions.

But first, we've got to define which Christian perspective on origins we're talking about here.

In my opinion, your criticism is very valid of the "young earth" position which always uses it's trump card of the "appearance of age" as a way out of being backed into a scientific corner. I haven't seen a testable, falsifiable "young earth creationist" model.

However, the other two major Christian perspectives on origins can put forward testable models.

Progressive creationism (which accepts an old earth and the current consensus on the fossil record, but maintains that God created each individual species by fiat, ex nihilo miracle) predicts that the more we learn about biology and the physics of the early earth, the more improbable both the theory of evolution between species and the idea of common ancestry will become.
Predictions would also include:

1.Life appeared early in Earth’s history **
2.Life appeared under harsh conditions **
3.Life miraculously persisted under harsh conditions **
4.Life arose quickly **
5.Life in its minimal form is complex **
6.Increasing evidence that other hominid species aren't precursors of modern humans (which is what we've been seeing)


Directed theistic evolution (which accepts an old earth, the fossil record, and common ancestry, but maintains that evolution happened only by the direct, miraculous intervention of a creator) predicts that the more we learn about biology and the physics of the early earth, the more improbable the theory of undirected, chance-based evolution will become.

Naturalistic theistic evolution**(which accepts naturalistic evolution, but kicked off by a Creator- either a) at the beginning of the universe or b) at the initial creation of life). Position Bwould predict that the more we learn about the biology and the conditions of the early earth, the more improbable the theory of abiogenesis will become. Position A, like all the theories above, would put it's apologetic energies into the prediction that the more we find out about life and the universe, the more fine-tuned the parameters for the existence of life will become.

By the way, based on the evidence available, I'm currently a proponent of either progressive creationism or directed theistic evolution.

I think the evidence is currently strongly against a naturalistic origin of life and naturalistic evolution, though there is some good evidence for common ancestry.

*I'm trying to remember a more accurate title for this position.

**www.reasons.org/origin-life-predictions-face-evolution-vs-biblical-creation


OK, gonna take a quick break.

[Josh]

The basic assumption of naturalism, that life emerged without a supernatural cause is just as plausible as the assumption that life has been created. If you want the former to prove its assertion, you better prove your assertion too.

The idea that life came from non-life and that information came from non-information is definitely not as plausible as life and information coming from an intelligence.

What is happeneing here is that you are striking out at a scientific discipline from an unscientific safety zone. Christianity is lacking a scientific theory on the how-question just as much as does naturalism (at this point). In other words: you are asking naturalism to provide what you yourself can't provide.

Neither may have a "scientific theory of the how-question", but the theist has a rational philosophical argument- a transcendant, intelligent, Creator could create life and information. The naturalist does not- life and information can't come from non-life and non-information as far as we know.

I also think it is possible that we have been created

Based on what evidence?

I don't think we know anything about the creator though.

Mo, there are many arguments you make that I think are reasonable, but this one just kills me everytime. How it is you can't concede that a creator reveals something about itself in its creation I will never understand. But we've beaten that dead horse many a time on other threads.

The fact that the Theory of Evolotion itself generates many new questions and riddles is immanent to science and by no means a weakness. When Copernicus changed the history of astronomy with the heliocentric world view (around 1509), he didn't answer the question of how planets and moons can stay in their orbits. It took almost 180 years till Newton came up with gravity and gravity itself remains an unsolved riddle to the present day. What do we learn here? Science requires patience. Overhasty actionism and conclusions are futil and unwise.

I agree, but you're mischaracterizing my argument. New mysteries and conundrums aren't in and of themselves evidence against a theory, but increasing amounts of dead ends and contra evidence are.

Earlier, Mo wrote:

The Theory of Evolution (the best established theory on the development of life, with an ever increasing record of evidence in its favor, acknowledged even by Pope John Paul II (!)) gets along perfectly without supernatural causes. This should be enough reason to logically assume the possibility of a non-supernatural (read: a natural) ignition too. If you want to dispute this, you have to bring on more than religiously biased, pseudo scientific ID-propaganda.

I have serious doubts about the "increasing record of evidence in favor of naturalistic evolution". I see increasing challenges. Furthermore, your logic here is similar to me saying that if there's good evidence for a supernatural cause for the big bang, then that's extra evidence for a supernatural cause for life. Would you agree with that?

[steve]

Hi boys,

I'd like to throw in my two cents here. I admit I haven't gone around and taken a gallup Pole, but it sure seems like most evolutionist these days are in favor of a guiding life force as an assistance to the evolutionary process.

Here's why I think that:

Pure naturalistic evolutionary theory has alway had one problem: the mechanisms: Gene flow, Genetic Drift, and natural selection.
All of these mechanism adequately describe how species in and of themselves can vary. In fact, they can be observed and tested with great success. But in all of these, we are speaking of microadaptions within a kind, and are unable to apply these models to large changes or huge complexity developments. The kind of changes of which I am speaking are, for example, the development of organs. Can you imagine how an eye or an ear could develop from a lower lifeform? There would need to be thousand of stages in between where the developing organ would be functionless and thereby present a characteristic which would be selected out. Such a development would require some "help" and would be working against the only three evolutionary mechanisms available. Early on, it was thought that if one had enough time, such a progression was possible. One was comforted by the sheer enormity of the time scale and the assurance that given enough time, such a thing would happen. But in the absence of any trace of an idea how such a jump could occur, some naturalist comforted themselves with the phrase "punctuated equilibrium" (Gould and Eldridge). It's the idea that drastic changes occured suddenly within a population. This means the a bird hatched and egg and a zebra popped out. (Moritz, please forgive my exaggeration.) Applying a nice long scientific sounding name doesn't help us evade the fact that this idea is no better than magic. I'm of the opinion that this conundrum is the reason why many naturalist have wandered over to the life-force camp. I don't actually know anyone right now who believes in pure naturalistic evolution, but perhaps I'm living in a cave. I need to get out more.