Origin of life

[fenwar]

Without assumptions scientific experimentation cannot take place. The idea is that by experimentation you can thoroughly test those assumptions, and if they disagree, you can revise your assumptions.

As I have said I am not "assuming the process happened without a guiding hand". Just as God designed the orbit and rotation of the earth so that we had a cycle of days, nights and seasons long before we even realised our planet was spherical, so he designed a complex and diverse array of living organisms long before we even knew what DNA was.

Genesis simply says "God separated the light from the darkness", not "God created a complex solar system of planets spinning on their axes while rotating around a central sun, which itself is moving throughout the galaxy..." etc.. 2,000 years on we have a much better understanding of exactly how God separated the light from the darkness.

Likewise for living things we are simply told "Let the earth bring forth vegetation", "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures", and so on. 2,000 years later we are still gradually getting to grips with the mechanism by which he achieved this.

The creationist alternative appears to be to assume that there wasn't a mechanism - that life was "spontaneously generated" at God's command. While I agree that this is perfectly possible, I believe that given the complexity that we know lies behind the words "God separated the light from the darkness", it is equally justifiable on a purely Biblical basis to believe that there was a complex process of creation as well.

Hope that makes sense

[edited to add "spinning on their axes"]

Edited July 14, 2005 by fenwar

[nebula]

The creationist alternative appears to be to assume that there wasn't a mechanism - that life was "spontaneously generated" at God's command. While I agree that this is perfectly possible, I believe that given the complexity that we know lies behind the words "God separated the light from the darkness", it is equally justifiable on a purely Biblical basis to believe that there was a complex process of creation as well.

Oh, I'm not a gainst the "mechanism" as you call it. It's the "life happened on its own" mentality that the evolutionist pull that I am opposed to.

Try using the words "created" and "designed" around an evolutionist - they don't like it! Anything suggesting of a Creator, they oppose.

That's my rant.

(But I agree in that I am one of the few who does not believe Gen. 1 was meant to be a modern scientific account of Creation.)

[Artemus Prime]

Agreed here Nebula, I consider myself a progressive creationist, rather than a direct creationist. (In other words, what you've stated here, that Gen. 1 was never meant to be a modern scientific account of Creation). Blessings,

AP

[Guest melo]

The creationist alternative appears to be to assume that there wasn't a mechanism - that life was "spontaneously generated" at God's command. While I agree that this is perfectly possible, I believe that given the complexity that we know lies behind the words "God separated the light from the darkness", it is equally justifiable on a purely Biblical basis to believe that there was a complex process of creation as well.

Oh, I'm not a gainst the "mechanism" as you call it. It's the "life happened on its own" mentality that the evolutionist pull that I am opposed to.

Try using the words "created" and "designed" around an evolutionist - they don't like it! Anything suggesting of a Creator, they oppose.

That's my rant.

(But I agree in that I am one of the few who does not believe Gen. 1 was meant to be a modern scientific account of Creation.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree with you assertion that evolutionists "don't like" those words. I think SCIENTISTS do use them because there is no scientific conclusion that leads to God did it. Just because we don't understand EXACTLY how life began or where it began does not lead them to simply say "God must have done it". Creationists think in this fashion and not scientists even if they are religious. If the data they have ends without the answer they don't just decide that God did it, they simply say they don't know.

Also, anyone can be an "evolutionist" or a "creationist" but in order to be a "scientist" you are supposed to put away your bias and deal with the facts instead of your preference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you serious? I hate to be blunt, but as a scientist I will say this: you could not be further from the truth. "Publish or perish" is the maxim, not "find the truth". I know academic scientists who publish results that contradict their previous results, and do so routinely. The more publications you have the more grant money you can apply for. The competition for grant money is very intense. Scientists are not the great, indifferent, "just the facts ma'am" types at all. They are as biased, or even more so, than most. Dogma is not just restricted to the Church. I don't just mean wrt evolution, I mean wrt whatever their pet project/life work is.

Do you remember the guy who won the Nobel prize in medicine because he correctly showed that a bacteria was the causal agent of ulcers, and that the expensive surgeries, meds, etc, were completely unnecessary? You would think the medical community would have embraced his work immediately. They didn't. He stepped on a lot of toes when he published that, and consequently alienated a lot of researchers who had millions in grant money to study ulcers. It took ten years before his work was accepted. Why? Because his experiments were difficult to replicate? No. Because a lot of careers and research programs, not to mention pharma drugs were invested in the status quo. Scientists are as petty, selfish, and dogmatic as any other group, and probably more so. Open-minded scientists exist in theory, more than in fact.

[nebula]

Scientists are as petty, selfish, and dogmatic as any other group, and probably more so.  Open-minded scientists exist in theory, more than in fact.

Thank-you for pointing this out, Melo! And thank-you for expressing this so well.

[fenwar]

I know academic scientists who publish results that contradict their previous results, and do so routinely.

This is perfectly reasonable, and in fact necessary, in order to demonstrate that previous experiments were flawed in some way or that results are not as consistent as was previously thought.

It took ten years before his work was accepted.  Why?  Because his experiments were difficult to replicate?  No. Because a lot of careers and research programs, not to mention pharma drugs were invested in the status quo.  Scientists are as petty, selfish, and dogmatic as any other group, and probably more so.  Open-minded scientists exist in theory, more than in fact.

The same could be said of institutions such as ICR though; their careers and research programmes depend on funding from Christian bodies and they are effectively being paid to reach a pre-specified conclusion. I don't see how that is any different.

What is important is that eventually, that scientist's work was accepted. Just as the church eventually accepted Galileo's findings. If evolution is false, ultimately the scientific community will realise and accept this. If evolution is true, ultimately the creationist community will realise and accept this.

And if in 1,000 years we are still having this debate it will be because both sides are clinging to dogma and refusing to budge, regardless of the truth.

[nebula]

The point, though, was that scientists aren't as objectional and unbiased as everyone likes to think they are.

[Guest melo]

The point, though, was that scientists aren't as objectional and unbiased as everyone likes to think they are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The real point is that peer review weeds out the "I need this to be true to get my grant money" despite the unsubstantiated claims by Melo (as if everyone in the scientific community is full of BS) eventually theories are proven out to be true or false.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a perfect world peer review would weed out all of the nonsense. This is not a perfect world. I estimate that at least one third of everything published in scientific journals is rubbish, I have peers who think it is more like half. In any case when we read peer-reviewed journals we do so carefully. We read them carefully to judge whether the conclusions reached by the author(s) are valid. Your view is a little too trusting, and fairly naive. I never said all, but I do say a lot, and a lot more than people think, of what is published in scientific journals is not to be completely trusted. Faulty experimental design, specious reasoning, unsubstantiated conclusions are prevalent. You are clearly not a scientist, or you would know this. Why are you so willing to believe whatever a scientist says? Aren't scientists Human after all? Your faith in whatever scientists say is much like the blind faith you accuse Christians of having. Perhaps you should think a little more carefully about your position.

[yomotalking]

Thought this Thread was gonna close?

Yomo

[Guest melo]

The point, though, was that scientists aren't as objectional and unbiased as everyone likes to think they are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The real point is that peer review weeds out the "I need this to be true to get my grant money" despite the unsubstantiated claims by Melo (as if everyone in the scientific community is full of BS) eventually theories are proven out to be true or false.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a perfect world peer review would weed out all of the nonsense. This is not a perfect world. I estimate that at least one third of everything published in scientific journals is rubbish, I have peers who think it is more like half. In any case when we read peer-reviewed journals we do so carefully. We read them carefully to judge whether the conclusions reached by the author(s) are valid. Your view is a little too trusting, and fairly naive. I never said all, but I do say a lot, and a lot more than people think, of what is published in scientific journals is not to be completely trusted. Faulty experimental design, specious reasoning, unsubstantiated conclusions are prevalent. You are clearly not a scientist, or you would know this. Why are you so willing to believe whatever a scientist says? Aren't scientists Human after all? Your faith in whatever scientists say is much like the blind faith you accuse Christians of having. Perhaps you should think a little more carefully about your position.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You misunderstand, please reread the last sentence I wrote.

I never claimed to "believe whatever a scientist says" and if you would stop trying to prove me wrong you might actually realize that I agreed that not everything written in the scientific community is axiomatic but that in time, false conclusions are borne out.

Do you claim to be a scientist? Are you "objectional and unbiased"? Do you not begin your scientific exploration with the a priori that God is the cause of all things and work from there? At the end of the day, if you can find no scientific conclusion to your scientific exploration do you not consign the answer to "God did it"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I am a scientist, a molecular biologist. My scientific explorations have to do with more local phenomena, I do not ask the question "did God do this?" in my daily research. What I do could be described as the nuts and bolts of nucleic acid purification, rather than big picture stuff. My point however, still stands. You claim that intellectual reality declares that the existence of God is a dubious thing, and I am saying quite the opposite. You have indicated that is it intellectually more responsible to trust scientists, because after all, scientists have peer-review of the things they publish. Therefore, it must be more reliable than all that nonsense written in the Bible so many thousands of years ago.

I am saying that people are people, and you err to put total trust in the truth about the origin of the universe emerging from science, if in fact the evidence suggests that life as we know it emerging from a soup of amino acids and nucleotides is absolutely impossible.

You need to re-read my first post and answer it. Take me from the abiotic to the biotic. The ball is in your court.

Edited July 29, 2005 by melo