Why naturalism is irrational (page 2)

Shining One

LOL...When's the last time you heard a scientist explaining "the origin of the human soul"?

SNG

LOL...When the premise of naturalists is that 'no supernatural exists', they do in fact deny the origin of the human soul. The very premise of naturalism is the denial of God and sometimes the denial of a 'first cause'. They make a case against Deism on the insistence that 'intelligent design' is not possible!
Rex

Shining One

Elsewhere,
Please don't try that argument. Its another example of internet 'scholarship'. Deal with the assertions of Henry Morris in the article.
Rex

joelbear

who designed god. if humans had to be designed how much more so would a billion times more complex organism have to be designed

why would a creator, create an empty universe.

we are in his image and we create constantly and fill up every available space with creation.

AlmostAtheist

Please don't try that argument. Its another example of internet 'scholarship'. Deal with the assertions of Henry Morris in the article.

To what assertions do you refer? I read in several places that science doesn't know how life originated. And I read that the Bible has an explanation. But what assertions were made that could be addressed and discussed?

Dave

kilroy2

just in this one part of this feeble argument, that naturalism can not explain the existence of the human soul, this is a classic case of begging the question, the poster also used arguing from authority. there are many other flaws in his line of reasoning but this is enough to show he is an idiot

Shining One

Dimroy,
If the article is so feeble perhaps you can refute it?
Rex

Elsewhere

Sorry, but personal attacks will win you no brownie points. Stick to the topic and answer my question. Who created the creator?

If your hypothetical creator did not need to be created, then something vastly more simple than a creator most certainly could have emerged without a creator.

You attempted to answered the greatest question in the history of humanity with one word...

Q: How did we get here and where did life come from.
A: God

I suspect you could answer my vastly more simple question with one word too...

Q: Who created the creator?
A: ???

tetrapod.sapien

Irrational Naturalism (#201)

by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

he can't be much of a Ph.D if he titles his essays thus.

so. is Henry Morris a Geologist, Paleontologist, Biologist or an Anthropologist? No. He's a Civil Engineer, and professor of such. he founded the ICR, an openly xian fundamentalist society for the subversion of american school childrens minds.

he also believes that geologists are wrong about the age of the earth, but that it's less than 10 000 years old. even fundy Ph.Ds can have fun!

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/morrish.html

here is a quote i found interesting:

Two years after The Genesis Flood hit bookstores, Morris and nine other like-minded scientists founded the Creation Research Society, dedicated to established scientific support for the Genesis creation story. Seven years later, Morris moved to

whoopie!

Abstract

"Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind" (Job 12:9-10).

regular, non-delusional scientists may laugh at the fact that he has a scripture as his abstract. and what else can i say? "rightly so"?

i also cannot tell where his "abstract" end, and the rest of the essay starts. he must not do this very much. here is the right way from wiki:

I n journal articles, research papers, published patent applications and patents, an abstract is a short summary placed prior to the introduction, often with different line justification (blockquote) from the rest of the article, used to help readers determine the purpose of the paper. While the length of the abstract varies by field of study, it is typically a paragraph in length (3-5 sentences), and never more than a page.

perhaps if you had provided a link to the orginal article, it would be clearer? i bet it would. but then if you learned to use the quote feature on the site rex, all your posts would be easier to read, and henceforth easier to chop up and serve in my stir fry.

okay, so for those of you following along, this is where grampy henry's abstract ends and his "argument" begins.

One of the most disturbing attitudes of most evolutionists is their insistence on naturalism as the premise for explaining everything from the origin of the cosmos to the origin of the human soul. The fact is that total naturalism is quite devoid of real explanatory power for almost anything.

one of the most disturbing attitudes of most "evolutionists", i find, is that they are way too easy going on jack asses like morris.

fact: evolution does not deal with the origin of ANYTHING, but rather biological diversity.

not a fact: "The fact is that total naturalism is quite devoid of real explanatory power for almost anything."

the real fact is that it has a solid track record of explaining things way better than the bloody bible does! and herein is a major implicit assertion that led to this obvious dishonest description: he assumes that the bible is better. he assumes that because some dip-shit 2400 years ago came up with genesis, and science has not yet detailed how the universe came to be, that then genesis must be the default explanation, which is of course 100% right. um, no, it's a total load of crap, sorry. if you don't like it, then just pretend no one said anything. it doesn't however change the facts.

Except for the origin of the universe itself, the most difficult development would have to be the origin of life. Just how could non-living chemicals on the primeval earth transmute themselves into some kind of living and replicating cell?

non sequitur, strawman, mis-application of the english language, and argument from ignorance.

what are we made of rex and morris? okay, cells. what are cells? chemical factories. what are chemicals made of? molecules. what are molecules made of? atoms. what is everything in the universe made of? atoms and molecules. ergo, what is life on earth made of? atoms, molecules, chemicals and cells.

in a morbidly funny sort of way, i like how morris does not define cell here, or what he means by it. this is dishonest of him, since cells are chemical factories, and yet he calls chemicals "non-living" and "cells" living. he should just stick with civil engineering.

Evolutionists will usually admit that they don't know how this happened. For example, the cosmologist Paul Davies admits their utter ignorance on this vital subject:

It's a shame that there are precious few hard facts [he might just as well have said there are none] when it comes to the origin of life. . . . Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously or-ganised themselves into the first living cell.1

well well! what do we have here? a misquote by a cretinist? so this quote is some how supposed to show the following:

cosmologists are evolutionists.
evolutionists are dishonest.
evolutionists are remotely concerned with origins (evoriginist anyone?)
"spontaneous organization" into a full blown cell is the only way it could possibly go.
since evolutionists and i guess cosmologists say they don't know, then genesis must be right!

since no one, including creationists like rex and morris, can actually show conclusively how life originated on the planet earth, i will go with the honest cosmologists who admit it, rather than the cheap explanations of xian fundamentalists or islamic fundamentalists or jewish fundamentalists, or any other unsupported extraordinary explanation that involves tricked out jesus-magic.

Evolutionists still place great faith in the famous Miller-Urey experiments of a generation ago, which showed that some amino acids could be synthesized from hydrogen-rich ammonia, methane, and water. But amino acids are not alive, and no one has ever generated life in a test tube. Most evolutionists have stopped trying altogether. An article in the journal Evolution several years ago noted that:

it seems to me that being honest and saying that we don't know how it happened, does not invlove any faith at all. mmmm...yup.

and thanks for pointing out that amino acids are not "alive". however, the amino group of one type of amino acid will react with the carboxylic acid group of another, forming a peptide bond. long chains of peptide bonded amino acids (100+ amino acids) are reffered to as protiens. and guess who the work horses of "living" cells are? yes, that's right, protiens like enzymes. perhaps morris should stick with civil engineering, and give up the bible based bio-chemistry.

. . . most hypotheses about the origin of life from nonliving matter lie outside the main body of evolution theory. For example, the contents of volume 54 (2000) of Evolution comprise 192 primary research articles, but not one that concerns the origins of life.2
That statement could probably apply just as well to the 2001-2004 volumes.

well, i must say that you and morris have me here, rex. ha ha, just kidding.

again, this is a factual sentence. origins are outside the body of evolutionary theory. so WTF is the f-ING GODDAMN PROBLEM?!

you creationists keep bringing up origins like it should be included in the theory of evolution, or you wish it were. the obvious thing that you and he are much much too dense to "get", is that because the theory of evolution does not contain workable hypotheses on the origin of life on earth, it does not automatically make the genesis account, or any other dung beetle god explanation the obvious answer either!

But if the naturalistic origin of life is not part of the worldview of evolution then why do they insist that it be taught dogmatically in our schools? If the possibility of special creation or intelligent design cannot even be mentioned as a possibility (a policy on which they insist), then why cannot the tremendous odds against the naturalistic origin of life at least be mentioned?

yet another dishonest strawman. biologists and other scientists do not say that any hypothesis of the origin of life should be taught in schools, let alone dogmatically. if origins are touched on in science classes, then it should be approached via scientific methodology (hence the title "science class") and not via pseudo-scientific methodology which involves praying to the lord jesus before reading the book of genesis. sounds like a gas.

if the science teacher is a xian, which many are disgustingly enough, then they are already talking to the kiddies about jehovah and genesis, regardless of policy. so, when it comes to lying for jesus, you and morris win!

anyways, it is obvious, thanks to our old friend of scientific method, parsimony, that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe is much more likely, given the track record, the number of assumtions involved in the explanations, and the general idiocy of the creationism proponents.

For a long time it was believed that life arose in the primeval soup. But that idea has been largely abandoned and most evolutionists now believe life originated in the rocks and minerals of the early earth. For example, Robert Hazen, of NASA's Astrobiology Institute, in the lead article in a recent issue of the journal Elements says:

In this issue of Elements, four of the most creative minds in origins research present their original insights on the geochemical origins of life. Each author has studied the field in depth, and each has come to an inescapable conclusion: rocks and minerals must have played a pivotal role in the transition from the blasted, prebiotic Earth to the living world we now inhabit.3

wow! what a brilliant thing to refference! another factual sentence taken completely out of context! the governing body must learn well from this morris guy.

Nevertheless, Hazen has to conclude that:

Scientists are still far from understanding the ancient, intricate processes that led to the origin of life.4

another factual sentence taken out of context. but even out of context it is pretty obvious that the bio-chemists are the honest ones here, and the young earth creationists have nothing better to offer than the book of genesis and some quotes that demonstrate the intellectual honesty of scientists.

in other words, rex, in case you are not following me here: just because bio-chemists do not know how life began conclusively does not mean that:

they never will
that jebus did it.

The journal in which these studies appeared is a relatively new journal, sponsored by several important geo-chemical and mineralogical societies. Like the writers in most other scientific journals, these scientists are all committed to a naturalistic evolutionary origin of life, even though they all -- one by one -- admit they don't have a real clue as to how it happened. But they seem sure that it could not have been in the primeval soup. So it must have been in the rocks and minerals.

i must give it to morris, he is excellent at stating the obvious. of course, there is no real point here. if pressed he would probably say:

"well, obviously, god did it!"

and when pressed further as to how god came about, he would probably point the heathen to the clear fact that the bible says that god has always existed, and so he must have always existed!

For example, George Cody, of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, tries to discuss certain geochemical processes which conceivably might generate organic-type reactions which could lead to primitive metabolism. For example:

Natural transition metal sulfide minerals can promote a broad range of organic reactions, either catalytically or as reaction participants.5

But then he says:

Whether and how this chemistry may have aided the emergence of life remains a mystery.6

He had already noted, in beginning his article, that:

At present there is no completely satisfactory theory for the origin of life.7

it is really quite humourous that these are the only references he has in his "essay". he gets these quotes of bio-chemists and cosmologists saying that they really do not understand how the universe originated, and presents them like this is some sort of glaring truth that evil scientists do not know what the hell they are talking about. however, morris, of course, knows just precisely what he is talking about with regards origins because it read it in the bible! thanks morris! dumbass mo-fo!

A number of biochemists have been suggesting for several years that the first life forms must have been RNA. James Ferris speculates on how this might have happened. But then he says:

Biochemistry is too complicated to replicate from generation to generation without a reliable mechanism to pass on genetic information. In all known lifeforms, that mechanism depends on the double-stranded molecule DNA and its close relative, the single-stranded RNA, or ribonucleic acid. But there's a catch: You need DNA to make proteins, but you need proteins to make DNA. Which came first?8

ha ha ha! this guy is talking out his jesus blow hole! as i explained above, protiens are chains of amino acids. DNA is not required to make protiens. however, when conception takes place, DNA translates it's code into protiens (read: uses protiens as a tool).

it's also a non issue. even if DNA made protiens, it wouldn't matter which came first, OR that it even approaches logic that jesus did it all.

Despite this enigma, Ferris still believes that prebiotic reactions somehow generated RNA and that mineral and metal-ion catalysis was absolutely essential in the process. Another writer in the symposium also admits that:

it's a hypothesis. if he believes in it, then it's because it's his hypothesis. it still doesn't mean that's how it happened. however, i do like the explanation better than the prebiotic soup hypothesis.

. . . understanding the chemical beginnings of life poses major challenges. How could the first self-replicating and energy-supplying molecules have been assembled from simpler materials that were undoubtedly (sic) available on the early protocontinents? Most scientists abhor spontaneous generation, much less the wave of a magic wand from God or the inheritance of living organisms from outer space.

. . . The chemical steps that led to life on Earth remain a matter of intense speculation.9

another fascinating reference from morris! more scientists saying that they're still speculating as to how it all happened. this of course doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution, although creationists would love the general public to think so.

The final article in this symposium was written by Professor Cairns-Smith of the University of Glasgow. He is believed to have been the first scientist to suggest that life arose from clay minerals (an idea which led some progressive creationists to suggest that this would somehow confirm the Genesis record that God formed Adam from dust!) and is considered to be the prime authority in this particular field. But he is not much help in this study, mainly pointing out how complex the problem is.

i would prefer an honest scientist to a bible salesman.

For an organic chemist, it is humbling to think about bacteria because these supposedly simplest of organisms are amazingly good at doing organic chemistry. They can put together molecules requiring many steps in their making. Difficult, often huge molecules such as proteins are churned out, thousands of different kinds of them, each a characteristic constellation of some thousands of atoms and with every atom connected up just so.10

i know! awesome, hey?!

And just how could such phenomena get started?

i don't know, but i bet your answer is going to come from your jesus-book!

Surely there must have been a prolonged or intensive evolution through natural selection to have brought such machinery into existence.11

that would be the economic explanation, yes.

And that explains it?

no. like all the brilliant references in this "essay" point out, we have not explained it yet. but don't worry, the rapture won't be coming in your lifetime either, or ever for that matter. at this point i am wondering if morris has much reading comprehension at all.

The real answer is creation.

this is an extraordinary, unparsimonious claim.

now that i have taken the time out of my evening to demonstrate what an assinine twit henry morris (and rex by extension) is, please PROVIDE YOUR PARSIMONIOUSLY ANALYZED, EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE FOR CREATION IN GENERAL. THEN PLEASE PROVIDE THE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD AND NOT MANS. AND THEN THE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE THAT THE GENESIS ACCOUNT IS THE WAY THAT LIFE ORIGINATED ON EARTH. AND THEN PROVIDE YOUR EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT JESUS CREATED ALL BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.

it would seem with the amount of energy these jackasses put into creationism for idiocy programs, that they have some crazy ass evidence up their sleeves. let's see what henry morris, Ph.D in Civil Engineering has to offer us in the way of evidence for the genesis based origin of life on earth:

The patriarch Job said long ago that God is the key to all mysteries, "In whose hand is the soul [or `life'] of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind" (Job 12:10). With particular respect to mankind and the human body -- the most complex "living thing" of all, the psalmist has said, "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Psalm 139:14). To try to explain the origin of life without acknowledging God is entirely irrational, no matter how many degrees and scientific articles a scientist can claim.

this is not scientific evidence. this cannot be accepted by the scientific community. and it's dishonest considering the secular historicity of the bible.

The prophet Jeremiah preached that those people of Israel who had abandoned God to worship some pagan idol ought to be deeply ashamed, "Saying to a stock, Thou art my Father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: . . ." (Jeremiah 2:27).

this is a veiled threat. very WTS-esque.

this is not scientific evidence. this cannot be accepted by the scientific community. and it's dishonest considering the secular historicity of the bible.

If it is shameful to think sticks and stones can generate life, is it not just as irrational to attribute it to rocks and minerals? It was the apostle Paul who said concerning the pagan scholars who try to substitute "Nature" or some image depicting natural processes for the real Creator: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22).

this is what some people with what is known as a brain like to call rhetoric followed up by a scripture. a la WTS!

this is not scientific evidence. this cannot be accepted by the scientific community. and it's dishonest considering the secular historicity of the bible.

Only the Living God can create life! "In Him was life; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4).

this is not scientific evidence. this cannot be accepted by the scientific community. and it's dishonest considering the secular historicity of the bible.

Endnotes

1. Paul Davies, "Born Lucky," New Scientist (vol. 179, July 12, 2003), p. 32.

2. Michael F. Antolin and Joan M. Herbers, "Evolution's Struggle for Existence in America's Public Schools," Evolution (vol. 55, December 2001),

p. 2381.

3. Robert M. Hazen, "Genesis: Rocks, Minerals, and the Geochemical Origin of Life," Elements (vol. 1, June 2005), p. 135.

4. Ibid., p. 137.
5. George D. Cody, "Geochemical Connections to Primitive Metabolism," Elements (vol. 1, June 2005), p. 143.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid., p. 139.

8. James P. Ferris, "Mineral Catalysis and Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalyzed Formation of RNA," Elements (vol. 1, June 2005), p. 146.

9. Joseph V. Smith, "Geochemical Influences on Life's Origins and Evolution," Elements (vol. 1, June 2005), p. 151.

10. A. Graham Cairns-Smith, "Sketches for a Mineral Genetic Material," Elements (vol. 1, June 2005), p. 157.

11. Ibid., p. 161.

11 references to articles that state the obvious. 11 references that basically show that scientists are being honest and not trying to trick the general lay public into thinking that they have all the answers to the origin of the universe.

* Dr. Henry Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.

professor of hydraulic engineering at virginia poly-tech who set up his own web site called the institute for creation research. whoopie!

and here folks, is the motivation behind all these gratuitous obstacles thrown in the way of scientific progress:

If the first Adam is not real,” Morris argued, “then neither is the second Adam real and there is no need of a Savior.” - Henry Morris

i know henry, it's a big scary, chaotic world. and you have invested a lot in your literal bible worldview, so why start being honest now?

TS

hooberus

another fascinating reference from morris! more scientists saying that they're still speculating as to how it all happened. this of course doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution, although creationists would love the general public to think so.

tetrapod, you may be interested to know that evolution can indeed include the origin of life, for one example: prominent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson wrote:

"The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems." - opening sentence chapter 2 "The Meaning of Evolution" 1949)

tetrapod.sapien

hooberus,

there were quite a few things that biologists used to think that generally they don't anymore. that was 1949. i am not aware of many modern evolutionary biologists who consider origins a problem of evolutionary theory any longer. when you think about the theory of evolution, it is obvious that it's all about bio-diversity in explanatory power. origins, really, don't have anything to do with bio-diversity.

origins are indeed an area of hypothetical speculation in the community of cosmology and bio-chemistry. if a creationist thinks it's a "problem for science", then they are not looking at the rafter in their own eye.

you are, of course, free to provide me with the names of any who do. i would be curious to know who, and why.

ts

Why naturalism is irrational

Share this