Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?

by JimmyPage 85 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sizemik

  Precisely. He really does not emphasize process. But as a naturalist and a Botanist, he well knows that any science needs the riggor of proof and an established repeatable process for verification. That is his main intent (even though I feel he does not succeed) in explaining the "delusion" of god by some means, either the moth suicidal instinct, memes or whatever. . . . Etude

  Thank you for conceeding that . . . but now you've widened the issue . . . it doesn't change the fact that the quote you used did not mean what you claimed. He not only doesn't emphasis process . . . he simply doesn't mention it at all. You can still make your point without language manipulation . . . the very thing you highlighted.
• 

  Etude

  bohm: Absolutely correct! HOWEVER (excuse for raising my voice), it DOESN'T mean that we can't have a clue about where life came from; that we can't at least determine where it DIDN'T come from; that for lack of evidence we MUST choose the most likely outcome.

  I feel there is a better argument for the non-existence of God than for the existence of God. But that doens't automatically afford me the right to conclude the opposite: that God does not exist when because Science can somehow prove it or explain it. It may be true, but I have no way of knowing it presently. I fell that science will definitively answer the question some day. But until then, I must remain as Paul Davies who said:

  "When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as “given” — imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You’ve got to believe that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour."

  As he matured, he realize that our acceptance of the "laws" of physics require the a similar type of faith that a theist requires for his belief in God. There is a reason for that. That statement is positively abhorent to people like Dawkins. However, I've have yet to see an attempt by Dawkins to challenge Davies on that account.
• 

  prologos

  sorry to have generalized on the stable species, I was referring to that "extinct" fish known only in fossils, stone imprints, that turned up in fishermen's nets in south africa. extinction of course in not change for the better. The amber record shows a relatively stable situation in some species too. The idea of the earth beeing seeded by life from space still leaves the question of its beginning somewhere else. of course our minds are limited, but thinking of and in the material world requires work, knowledge, it requires a maker, shaper to make sense. like I said: to my mind it would give greater glory, credit to God to have created flexible, adapting, evolving, morphing species rather the "fixed model for eternity"version of fundamentalist thinking. GREAT DICUSSION not to be had at the kh.

  an episode if you have time to read: we bought a computer recently: salesman a very attentive listener. A stunning galaxy was the screensaver on the disply model. my question to him: thats a great picture. what do you think did that galaxy, universe create itself? Sm:--- yeah it came by itself. I asked: do you sell any items in this store that make themselfs ? sm: no, they are factory produced. me: Isnt the universe greater, more intricate than---? and i did not proffer a "creation" book to spoil that good moment.
• 

  Etude

  sizemik: My contention is (and I fail to see language manipulation) that Dawkins credibility as a scientist or at least as an expert on the subject he purports to write about should be (must be) more than litany of point for or against something. You missed that his point in writing "The God Delusion" is not just to show that God is a delusion but why Natural Selection has endowed us with something that appears damaging and that we have absolutely no need for. That idea of proof is what he calls "The Darwinian Imperative". So he DOES attempt to address process, at least in this case although unsuccessfully in my opinion, but fails to do it in other areas. For example, he makes a good case in the mention of "irreducible complexity". It caused me to do some research which ended up supporting him. However, the Dawkins' statement I cited about our reason for being is not my manipulation of language. It is verbatim.
• 

  bohm

  Etude: I agree on your first count, we must choose the more likely option. currently that is in my oppinion abiogenesis here on earth.

  he realize that our acceptance of the "laws" of physics require the a similar type of faith that a theist

  I noticed that is not what he said in the quote, can you perhaps point me to somewhere where he actually claim that?

  Furthermore, can you perhaps explain why faith in something noone has ever reliably observed is the same as believing what everyone reliably observe all the time is the most plausible guess as for what holds true tomorrow?
• 

  StopTheTears

  

  Evolution Teaches That Humans are Animals, So Bestiality is Ok!
• 

  bohm

  someone call the asylum, they are missing one.
• 

  cofty

  Evolution Teaches That Humans are Animals, So Bestiality is Ok!

  Here is a thought experiment....

  Imagine StopTheTears holding the hand of her mother who is holding the hand of her mother who is holding the hand of her mother who is..... right back for thousands of generations.

  As we walk along the line it would be impossible to detect any difference from one generation to the next. In any one generation there would be more variation among members of that generation than between one generation and the next. Nevertheless, we would gradually become aware of change. We would begin to notice that we were looking at creatures that appear more primate than human.

  Along the way we would also have noticed lots of other lines leading back in different directions which all come to an end before they reach back to 2012. These lines all went extinct.

  Eventually we would arrive at an individual who lived approximately 6 million years ago who was the last common ancestor of both humans and chimps. We have lots of fossils of individuals who wre contemporaries of the individuals in StopTheTears' family line.

  At this individual we turn and follow a separate line until we arrive at a modern day chimp.

  The evidence in the fossil record and more importantly in the DNA of StopTheTears proves beyond all reasonable doubt that this is more than a thought experiment. It is a description of reality.
• 

  Etude

  bohm: I apologize for inferring that the faith in the laws of physics according to Paul Davies is the same to what the apostle Paul subscribed to. My bad. What Davies contends is "that science has its own faith-based belief system", not that its faith-based system is the same as that of theists.

  He feels that for the most part scientific "faith" has been verified. But all of that has happened without much questioning of the laws themselves. His question is:

  "But where do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do?"

  For him, this is how it goes:

  "The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.”

  That is highly unsatisfactory to me and apparently to him. Attempts at explanations and not just mere acceptance (scientific faith) of the laws of Physics and the proposals for a frame work that can contain their existence, such as the Anthropic Priciple, remain just as unsatisfactory. Here's his quote:

  "The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse."

  Finally he states: "Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith— namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence."

  Sorry for insinuating that the scientific faith Davies speaks of is like the theists' faith. But, if you read about him, you'll conclude that he's no intellectual slouch, hence why (in my opinion) Dawkins doesn't take him head-on. His reasons for needing answers (and by inference our unqualified acceptance of the laws of physics) includes that "there has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them". He's referring to a process which is responsible, at least in this universe, for the rise of Abiogenesis, Evolution and Natural Selection. It's difficult to justify what happened without explaining how it happened. That's how you get from A to B.
• 

  bohm

  Etude:

  For him, this is how it goes:

  "The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.”

  That is highly unsatisfactory to me and apparently to him. Attempts at explanations and not just mere acceptance (scientific faith) of the laws of Physics and the proposals for a frame work that can contain their existence, such as the Anthropic Priciple, remain just as unsatisfactory.

  Honestly, i have a hard time making heads and tail of how you use that quote. All scientist of repute i know of answer: "we do not know" to that question and i think with good reason. So why is that "mere acceptance (scientific faith)" a good way to summerize that? Perhaps we simply do not know yet?