Preliminary:
I am not a theist nor a creationist. I no longer conceive of a divine being outside of "his" creation, but something more mysterious and ineffable within all of life itself, something like a transcendent unborn infinite awareness as a ground of all that arises from it. What you label it as is secondary. It is both personal and impersonal. It contains all polarities and dualities and ultimately resolves all within it in a transcendent perfection, full of compassion and intelligence. I accept some may refer to this as a concept of "God", although it is less dualistic and not so simplistic as the usual theist take. It is a form of Monistic Idealism philosophically.
I accept without reservation the clear scientific evidence of the evolutionary process and wonder and delight in the sublime many different lifeforms.
I think the transendent awareness inherent in everything is a core aspect of that process. That is, that a transcendent consciousness or awareness is primal and not an add-on emerging from physical evolution. I cannot see how evolution could happen without some form of holistic interactive Awareness at work.
At the risk of a rather long post here is an excerpt on the design argument (non-creationist) and science "hard-to-believes", from an article in the Huffington Post by Rabbi Adam Jacobs. I found it a good read.
The full article is found here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/a-reasonable-argument-for_b_831185.html
Excerpt:
"Suppose you took scrabble sets, or any word game sets, blocks with letters containing every language on Earth and you heap them together, and then you took a scoop and you scooped into that heap, and you flung it out on the lawn there and the letters fell into a line which contained the words, 'to be or not to be that is the question,' that is roughly the odds of an RNA molecule appearing on the Earth." (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University)
Ask yourself, do you believe in the RNA molecule? Do you accept Dr. Shapiro's scrabble analogy as an actual possibility? Most people intuitively recognize that it's not a reasonable position to hold. Everybody knows that too many good hands at the blackjack table will get you kicked out of Vegas and that arguing to casino security that your three hours of consecutive 21s are theoretically possible will not be accepted as a valid defense. Nonetheless, these odds are what many are suggesting we accept. The resulting cognitive dissonance seems to have a negative effect on some of those making the argument:
"It is this combative atmosphere which sometimes encourages scientists writing and speaking about the origin of life to become as dogmatic and bigoted as the creationist opponents they so despise." (Dr. Andrew Scott, Chemist and science writer)
This inescapable conundrum is what has driven otherwise brilliant minds to concoct such exotic (and evidence-averse) theories as directed panspermia -- the notion that life was seeded on Earth by space aliens -- posited by Nobel Prize winning biologist Francis Crick and at times seconded by Richard Dawkins. The (unfalsifiable) multiverse theory is another example. At times these researchers, despite themselves, seem to grasp the sheer unlikelihood of the whole enterprise and start groping for the most unscientific of words to explain themselves:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick)
Amazingly, even Richard Dawkins has written that, "I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859." Why? Because in 1859 Darwin published his Origin of Species. But so what? This entire discussion is taking place outside of an evolutionary context. Evolution can only begin once we already have a dazzlingly complex, self-replicating, living cell with which to work. That -- the origin of that first cell, not what happened thereafter -- is the fundamental basis of disagreement between theist and atheist. I make that statement with a full awareness of the fact that scientists hypothesize the prior existence of "simple" self replicating molecules that led up to the emergence of the DNA based bacterium; but this just pushes the question back a step. There is no conclusive evidence that such molecules ever did, or could, spontaneously self-assemble on the prebiotic earth. Again, even Dawkins candidly admits regarding this notion that, "I don't know how [it started], nor does anyone else."
I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life. If there are no known naturalistic explanations and the likelihood that "chance" played any role is wildly minute, then it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that a conscious super-intelligence (that some of us call God) was the architect of life on this planet. Everyone agrees to the appearance of design. It is illogical to assume its non-design in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between Science and the Supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism ... for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin, Geneticist)
Originally posted by TaomanI posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life.
Preliminary:
I am not a theist nor a creationist. I no longer conceive of a divine being outside of "his" creation, but something more mysterious and ineffable within all of life itself, something like a transcendent unborn infinite awareness as a ground of all that arises from it. What you label it as is secondary. It is both personal and impersonal. It con nnot allow a Divine foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin, Geneticist)
Ba-dum, tish! But seriously folks....
Originally posted by LemonJelloAs I read through it, that line stuck out the most to me also.
[b]I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life.
Ba-dum, tish! But seriously folks....[/b]
Originally posted by TaomanThey do? It is? Might want to double check.
Everyone agrees to the appearance of design. It is illogical to assume its non-design in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
...and for the record, "panspermia" is the hypothesis that life exists elsewhere in the universe and may be distributed by comets or meteoroids. No X-files explanation necessary.
Originally posted by David CDid he say "panspermia" or "directed panspermia"? (I'm too lazy)
They do? It is? Might want to double check.
...and for the record, "panspermia" is the hypothesis that life exists elsewhere in the universe and may be distributed by comets or meteoroids. No X-files explanation necessary.
Also , how do you know that intelligent life couldn't have sent some of their genetic goodies on a comet? If you know what I'm getting at.
Originally posted by TaomanThis is, I believe, false. I find it highly unlikely that if Richard Dawkins has suggested that panspermia might be correct, that he did so due to an 'inescapable conundrum' - especially this particular inescapable conundrum that Richard Dawkins has written several books explaining a way out of.
This inescapable conundrum is what has driven otherwise brilliant minds to concoct such exotic (and evidence-averse) theories as directed panspermia -- the notion that life was seeded on Earth by space aliens -- posited by Nobel Prize winning biologist Francis Crick and at times seconded by Richard Dawkins.
Originally posted by twhiteheadStephen Hawkings basically admitted the existence of aliens.
This is, I believe, false. I find it highly unlikely that if Richard Dawkins has suggested that panspermia might be correct, that he did so due to an 'inescapable conundrum' - especially this particular inescapable conundrum that Richard Dawkins has written several books explaining a way out of.
1000+ saw a ufo in the middle of New York city late in 2010.
These are the two main feature stories on my ufo website.
Everything I've learnt about Dawkins has come from RHP. Good stuff, too
Originally posted by TaomanLet us first ask: if you threw out the scrabble letters and they all just happened to fall on the ground instead of flying off in random directions into space, then what is the probability of that? How come they all end up in a near uniform plane?
"Suppose you took scrabble sets, or any word game sets, blocks with letters containing every language on Earth and you heap them together, and then you took a scoop and you scooped into that heap, and you flung it out on the lawn there and the letters fell into a line which contained the words, 'to be or not to be that is the question,' that is roughly the od ...[text shortened]... meritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University)
Once we accept that a force is capable of resulting in organization out of disorder, we must also accept that any probability argument is flawed from the start if it doesn't take into account the possibility of forces and processes.
The claim in the OP is that the scrabble letters fell in random locations, and that the RNA molecules appeared with its parts in random locations. But almost nothing in nature is purely random, the laws of physics result in a combination of randomness and order. To assume that RNA is an exception is unfounded.
Now, what is the probability that any complex molecule can form? If you just take the order of atoms into account, the above probability argument would probably rule out the possibility of almost every large molecule in existence - including diamonds. What is the probability of getting 10 million carbon atoms in a row?