The origin of life

[iceaura]

I will ignore your ad hominem and failing to respond rationally.

That wasn't an ad hominem argument, it was a disparagement.

If you want to see what a vaguely laid out but still visible ad hominem argument looks like, read post 18.

Darwinian natural selection only applies to living organisms, not abiotic chemical compounds.

That's not true. Anything that produces copies of itself with variations, and is periodically culled, can evolve according to Darwinian theory.

 

[river]

I just watched a video on Rife .

the variations of bacterial life can caused by the food on which it feeds . the medium .

it is a fascinating video .

 

[exchemist]

This is more the issue - science is so closed-minded and prejudicial now that any hint of anything that extends or expands the areas of scientific investigation that are not approved by the philosophical naturalists, PN, of anti-theists is categorically dismissed, denigrated or excluded. ID is a perfect example, despite that anthropology, archaeology and psychology are scientific areas that require ID, the PN's strangle hold on science is hypocritical. The abject denial of PN's for the design of the universe and life shows the arrogance, blindness, prejudice and denial of many of the so-called scientists, who are supposed to examine objectively all natural phenomenon.

ID is not science, though. This is because methodological (not philosophical) naturalism is, and always has been, intrinsic to science, ever since its birth in its modern form at the Renaissance.

A moment's objective reflection shows why this is. If one observes a phenomenon in nature for which one cannot find a ready explanation, one has two possible courses:

1) one studies it, reports it and puts it aside until new observations and theories arise that might help to account for it, or

2) one declares it impossible to explain naturally and therefore God did it - a miracle, in short.

The second course is, inevitably, a science stopper. It encourages abandonment of the search for a future natural explanation. Where would we be today if science had believed this about the development of the eye? Or the bacterial flagellum? Or chirality? Research would have stopped and we would be no wiser. Whereas now we have explanations for two of these, and some exciting pointers towards the third. Science has worried away at these intractable phenomena and found (or is finding) explanations, given enough time.

For that reason alone, ID can never be science.

You are also quite wrong to claim that there is any sort of stranglehold of philosophical naturalists over science. It is true that there are many very vocal atheist scientists (Dawkins being possibly the most egregious - and in my opinion a bit silly about it) but there are also many scientists with varying degrees of religious faith. Methodological naturalism, however, is a requirement of science, because the purpose of science is to find natural, not supernatural, explanations.

As the trial judge in the Dover School Trial (Kitzmiller et al) put it: " Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a paradigm of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.[23]

That is obviously spot-on. The same can be read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism

I have to tell you that I, personally, actively despise ID, in a way that I do not despise creationists generally (though I consider them ill-informed). This is because ID is deceitful. It pretends to be science and not to be religious, when its sole purpose is social engineering to put God back into society (The Wedge document makes that very clear). This is not a scientific goal at all. So apart from the science-stopping nature of ID, which rules it out as a form of science in the first place, it stinks of deception and deviousness.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171101160756.htm

 

[Willamina Tyndale]

As a normal educated girl, I have no doubt that "life" arose tiny bit by tiny bit by natural means.
Everything is natural.
If there is a God, then she is natural too !

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As a normal educated girl, I have no doubt that "life" arose tiny bit by tiny bit by natural means.
Everything is natural.
If there is a God, then she is natural too !

Take the Universe.
Take away God.
Nothing changes.

 

[exchemist]

As a normal educated girl, I have no doubt that "life" arose tiny bit by tiny bit by natural means.
Everything is natural.
If there is a God, then she is natural too !

You raise an interesting point.

What, I ask myself, would science do if confronted by a "miracle"? It seems to me science would say, "here we have an event that disobeys previously assumed laws and processes. So clearly, there can be exceptions to those laws and processes, which we had never previously thought could be possible." In other words, by documenting the event, science would gradually accommodate it as part of nature. And then, of course, it would no longer be supernatural!

 

[Michael 345]

so any proposition that natural selection is relevant to pre-biotic organisms is absurd and any proposition that both DNA and proteins self-created randomly is also absurd

Ooooo cannot happen like that. Bring in the bloke with the big long white beard and his magic stick

He not absurd

so-called scientists, who are supposed to examine objectively all natural phenomenon.

Ummmm so called scientists who are supposed to examine objectively all natural phenomenon but then come to a conclusion that a totally unnatural phenomenon is responsible

Nice one

If there is a God, then she is natural too !

Good to see - whatever it is called today - spreading into the male bastion of the supernatural

You know you will have arrived when you get a female pope elected fair and square and not by deception
Even though the story itself is seen as fictional
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan

Ride Sally Ride

Go gittum

 

[timojin]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171101160756.htm

Before primordial mook they have to ask what is in the mook, mook is a mixture , so what are the components and then as how were the component made ?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Before primordial mook they have to ask what is in the mook, mook is a mixture , so what are the components and then as how were the component made ?

Yep. And it's "muck".

 

[Michael 345]

Yep. And it's "muck".

Actually I like mook better
Can you give it a definition and post it in the Word Forum?
Look forward to Collins adding it to their dictionary

 

[Qedlin Saltum]

That wasn't an ad hominem argument, it was a disparagement.

If you want to see what a vaguely laid out but still visible ad hominem argument looks like, read post 18.

That's not true. Anything that produces copies of itself with variations, and is periodically culled, can evolve according to Darwinian theory.

You cannot name anything that produces copies of itself with variations that is not alive, and, please do not claim the paltry level of complexity of inorganic molecules are capable of this, nor that abiotic organic molecules can do likewise. If they could, then why is there no primordial soup, why did Darwin not claim the same, and why, the supposed mechanism of natural selection requiring replication requires DNA, which never naturally selected itself into existence? This is the more recent desperate flailing about of naturalists who have no solution for the origin of life that is scientifically supported, so they have manipulated the principles and laws of reality to include non-existent, wishful, faith-based scientism mandates to try to solve the chaotic mess that exists.

 

[Qedlin Saltum]

ID is not science, though. This is because methodological (not philosophical) naturalism is, and always has been, intrinsic to science, ever since its birth in its modern form at the Renaissance.

A moment's objective reflection shows why this is. If one observes a phenomenon in nature for which one cannot find a ready explanation, one has two possible courses:
1) one studies it, reports it and puts it aside until new observations and theories arise that might help to account for it, or
2) one declares it impossible to explain naturally and therefore God did it - a miracle, in short.

This is not an objective reflection rather a scientism approved one as that is not provable scientifically and mandates metaphysically intellectual processes to properly evaluate. Reflecting all investigations of science to those limited to natural causes disallows your reflections. Philosophical naturalism denies, ignores and fails to investigate alternate propositions of non-naturally induced causes that have natural effects, e.g., the Big Bang, the existence of the laws of physics, forces and their fine-tuning, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness.

The second course is, inevitably, a science stopper. It encourages abandonment of the search for a future natural explanation. Where would we be today if science had believed this about the development of the eye? Or the bacterial flagellum? Or chirality? Research would have stopped and we would be no wiser. Whereas now we have explanations for two of these, and some exciting pointers towards the third. Science has worried away at these intractable phenomena and found (or is finding) explanations, given enough time.

None of this is scientifically limited, only ideologically limited by the pseudo-scientific belief system of philosophical naturalism.

For that reason alone, ID can never be science.

You are also quite wrong to claim that there is any sort of stranglehold of philosophical naturalists over science. It is true that there are many very vocal atheist scientists (Dawkins being possibly the most egregious - and in my opinion a bit silly about it) but there are also many scientists with varying degrees of religious faith. Methodological naturalism, however, is a requirement of science, because the purpose of science is to find natural, not supernatural, explanations.

This is not about religious convictions. If ID can never be science, then why are archaeology, anthropology, biomimetics, and psychology using it?

As the trial judge in the Dover School Trial (Kitzmiller et al) put it: " Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a paradigm of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.[23]

That is obviously spot-on. The same can be read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism

There is nothing wrong with starting with purely natural causes and effects, but the increasing list of non-naturally produced causes and effects in the universe - Big Bang, origin of life - warrant an open-minded scientific approach. The trial judge was deceived to believe the closed-minded restriction of science, which began from Christian principles, prospered in Christian-cultured countries and produced the great founders of science from the perspective of better understanding God's creation using science. Science is God's invention, discovered by humans, to better understand all creation, not limit it to only natural phenomenon. This restriction is the goal of those who refuse metaphysical reality, with the resulting effect of denying God because many do not want to think there is anyone greater than themself.

I have to tell you that I, personally, actively despise ID, in a way that I do not despise creationists generally (though I consider them ill-informed). This is because ID is deceitful. It pretends to be science and not to be religious, when its sole purpose is social engineering to put God back into society (The Wedge document makes that very clear). This is not a scientific goal at all. So apart from the science-stopping nature of ID, which rules it out as a form of science in the first place, it stinks of deception and deviousness.

Very self-deceptive - any proposition that something must be designed and cannot be arbitrarily or randomly created implies there is a designer will arguably have possible religious implications, but no religion is endorsed, even though the highest level of interpretive conclusions of virtually all scientific discovery regularly goes beyond science into philosophy, metaphysical reality, religion and belief system, all of which are outside of science.

The active intent of many scientists to limit science to reject God is the wishful obedience to the Lewontin Mandate. We will prove there is no God, besides, we hate him.

 

[Michael 345]

even though the highest level of interpretive conclusions of virtually all scientific discovery regularly goes beyond science into philosophy, metaphysical reality, religion and belief system, all of which are outside of science.

OKkkk

So which out of all scientific discovery DON'T go beyond science into philosophy, metaphysical reality, religion and belief system ?

I'm guessing they stay scientificity but I have no idea which ones they are so I wait to be enlightened

The active intent of many scientists to limit science to reject God is the wishful obedience to the Lewontin Mandate. We will prove there is no God, besides, we hate him.

Really? And here is little ol me thinking science was out to work out how the Universe works and all the time they are in truth out to get the pope

Does the pope know about this dastardly plot? Is 007 on the case? What about the Muppets? Always had my suspicions about them. They are so open about a pig and a frog what else do they know which disproves Darwin evolution?

 

[iceaura]

You cannot name anything that produces copies of itself with variations that is not alive, and, please do not claim the paltry level of complexity of inorganic molecules are capable of this, nor that abiotic organic molecules can do likewise.

Nonsense. All kinds of crystals and clays generate copies of themselves and seed distant areas with them, whirlpool and convective structures routinely spin off daughters, even things like ripples and windblown ephemera will repeat and duplicate over large areas. These copies will exhibit or mirror their mother structures chirality, btw (you asked). At the non-crystalline molecular level beyond clays and sunlit or thermal powered organics you have been linked (above) to "autocatalytic" compounds, which can produce nearly pure enantiomers - both organic and inorganic exist. There exist also loops and chains of reinforcing duplication - multistage sequences over time that can easily end up spreading themselves or their products widely unless blocked or stopped.

The issue in this is not so much duplication/reproduction of increasing complexity (that's a given, basic physical laws), but selection and combination as it occurred - not what was possible, which is almost anything, but what actually happened or was most likely. And an entire planet to play it out.

Btw: the chemical complexity of the pre-biotic world is difficult to imagine these days, because that stuff is now food and other targets for active and ubiquitous living beings, but not to forget: The warm surface of this planet now is completely covered in digestion modules searching for any undefended chemical complexity that gets even a feeble start. What it was covered by before these thoroughly destructive little beings got going is anybody's guess at the moment, but it was without a doubt complex and varied and structured in ways we can hardly imagine.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Actually I like mook better
Can you give it a definition and post it in the Word Forum?
Look forward to Collins adding it to their dictionary

Sorry, but the term "primordial ooze" is more cogent. "Muck" makes me think of politics.

 

[exchemist]

OKkkk

So which out of all scientific discovery DON'T go beyond science into philosophy, metaphysical reality, religion and belief system ?

I'm guessing they stay scientificity but I have no idea which ones they are so I wait to be enlightened



Really? And here is little ol me thinking science was out to work out how the Universe works and all the time they are in truth out to get the pope

Does the pope know about this dastardly plot? Is 007 on the case? What about the Muppets? Always had my suspicions about them. They are so open about a pig and a frog what else do they know which disproves Darwin evolution?

...especially seeing as some popes have been interested patrons of science. (The pope actually has his own Vatican observatory).

No, this is a mad conspiracy theory.

By the way, have you ever heard of the "Lewontin Mandate"? Sounds to me like an airport novel by Robert Ludlum.

 

[Michael 345]

By the way, have you ever heard of the "Lewontin Mandate"? Sounds to me like an airport novel by Robert Ludlum

Or Dan Brown
Just read his latest. Some good ideas. Bit of a weak ending. Waiting on the movie

The pope actually has his own Vatican observatory

Is he looking for god? or perhaps a sign? pope also has twitter and if god got a account we all would be better off

 

[exchemist]

Or Dan Brown
Just read his latest. Some good ideas. Bit of a weak ending. Waiting on the movie



Is he looking for god? or perhaps a sign? pope also has twitter and if god got a account we all would be better off

I think it is just that popes have historically tended to be quite learned people and for much of history were like princes and kings so, like kings (e.g. Charles II and the Royal Society), they felt being patrons of the science was their duty. And don't forget also that many religious people find the intricate wonder of the physical world - of creation, as they would say - is an awe-inspiring sign of God. The majesty of the universe is quite impressive to anyone with an aesthetic sense, regardless of their metaphysical worldview.

 

[exchemist]

Very self-deceptive - any proposition that something must be designed and cannot be arbitrarily or randomly created implies there is a designer will arguably have possible religious implications, but no religion is endorsed, even though the highest level of interpretive conclusions of virtually all scientific discovery regularly goes beyond science into philosophy, metaphysical reality, religion and belief system, all of which are outside of science.

The active intent of many scientists to limit science to reject God is the wishful obedience to the Lewontin Mandate. We will prove there is no God, besides, we hate him.

You do not address either of my main points, namely that:

1) philosophical materialism is quite different from methodological naturalism, and it is only the latter that is required in science, or
2) ID cannot be science, as it calls for the abandonment of the scientific enterprise, for any phenomenon deemed - by ID - to be due to "design".

(Design by the way is a useless concept, scientifically, as there is no objective definition that can be used to determine whether or not a thing is "designed". Typically, structures in nature look "designed" to those who are ignorant of the science underlying the phenomenon.)

As for "self-deception", can you point what exactly this self-deception consists in? Of course science does not, and never has, "endorsed" religion: that is not its job. In fact, the avoidance of reliance on religious doctrines and other ideas that do not have a basis in physical observation, was and is a defining feature of science. This is simply part of the scientific method. There is no "self-deception" in that, surely? Or are you saying there is?

P.S. You will have to explain This "Lewontin Mandate" thingie. I've never heard of it.

P.P.S. I saw your comment, on this site: https://scienceandbelief.org/2017/09/29/making-sense-of-reality-a-scientists-journey-into-theology/ , on the extract from McGrath's book "Enriching ourVision of Reality", which refers to the ideas of Prof. Charles Coulson.

It might interest you to know that Coulson, whose lectures in quantum chemistry I attended at Oxford in the early 70s (he died in 1974), was at one time chairman of the Methodists' Conference. He indeed saw no conflict between science and religion. But equally he would never have made the error of seeking supernatural explanations in chemistry or quantum physics. He, like everyone, applied methodological naturalism in his scientific work.