Topic: Relationship between abiogenesis and macroevolution... (Read 1612 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **on:** May 17, 2006, 08:34:41 PM »

Modern evolutionists are quick to distance the question of 'abiogenesis,' or how life started, with how it 'evolved.' THAT life got started is taken as a given, and the methods and procedures by which that life turned into all other life forms form an entirely separate area of inquiry.

Though I haven't scoured the primary historical sources concerning evolutionary theory, this seems to me to be a fairly new bent.

New or not, it seems ad hoc to me.

On the other hand, the idea that perhaps there was some 'thing' that started all life seems to have permitted some evolutionary biologists to start with a deistic understanding of God and move onto accepting other theistic views. Others, like Dawkins, still take abiogenesis as a given underneath the TOE, but are quite confident that a purely naturalistic explanation exists.

This doesn't seem reasonable to me. What about ya'll? If scientists labor for another 500 years and are no closer to providing any such explanation, shouldn't the obvious conclusion be that a non-natural explanation is warranted, or at least worthy of consideration? Or, in the same vein, if scientists successfully re-create full blooded complex living organisms in violation of the observed rule of 'biogenesis,' doesn't that in itself argue for a non-natural explanation, too? Ie, doesn't it seem as though scientists succeed or fail it argues for a non-natural explanation for the origin of life? And if one has begun to allow non-natural explanations, why not allow them to extend into evolutionary theories, too?

Copernicus can inform us all as to whether or not I am correct in stating that modern evolutionists treat abiogenesis as a separate area of inquiry and think that they are acting reasonably and rationally in doing so.

SML · « **Reply #1 on:** May 18, 2006, 01:24:39 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

This doesn't seem reasonable to me. What about ya'll?

It seems less than unreasonable.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #2 on:** May 27, 2006, 07:53:44 AM »

bump.

We have an either higher authority than Cop. We have Broken on another thread saying,

"The theory of evolution makes no claims as to how life originated. "

Which Harry concurred on. Bevets appears to be taking the matter to task there, so maybe this discussion is better left handled there.

Copernicus · « **Reply #3 on:** May 27, 2006, 02:24:00 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Modern evolutionists are quick to distance the question of 'abiogenesis,' or how life started, with how it 'evolved.' THAT life got started is taken as a given, and the methods and procedures by which that life turned into all other life forms form an entirely separate area of inquiry.

Though I haven't scoured the primary historical sources concerning evolutionary theory, this seems to me to be a fairly new bent.

No, this is not new. It is simply factually correct. Evolution could be true and abiogenesis false.

Why do religious fundamentalists continally make the claim that abiogenesis is a necessary part of evolution? That's not hard to figure out. They are aiming this disingenuous claim at other Christians. The idea is to associate evolution theory with atheism. Atheists clearly do believe in both evolution and abiogenesis. By linking evolution with atheism, fundamentalists hope to pry other Christians away from evolution theory. That's why it is important to try to jam together two separate issues.

Quote

On the other hand, the idea that perhaps there was some 'thing' that started all life seems to have permitted some evolutionary biologists to start with a deistic understanding of God and move onto accepting other theistic views. Others, like Dawkins, still take abiogenesis as a given underneath the TOE, but are quite confident that a purely naturalistic explanation exists.

What Dawkins believes is that evolution theory can be used to support the claim that abiogenesis took place. This is not the same as saying that abiogenesis is a part of evolution theory or is a "given underneath the TOE". It turns out that there are also Christians who believe that both abiogenesis and evolution are true but that God still intervenes to guide the direction of things. Neither evolution nor abiogenesis is incompatible with belief in God or even Christianity. What drives religious people to oppose the two theories is that they contradict the earlier expectations of believers that God explained both the origin of the species and the origin of life. They do not like the Laplacean rubric that God is "an unnecessary hypthesis". Nevertheless, many Christians have come to embrace scientific findings without seeing it as a contradiction of their religion.

Quote

...If scientists labor for another 500 years and are no closer to providing any such explanation, shouldn't the obvious conclusion be that a non-natural explanation is warranted, or at least worthy of consideration? Or, in the same vein, if scientists successfully re-create full blooded complex living organisms in violation of the observed rule of 'biogenesis,' doesn't that in itself argue for a non-natural explanation, too? Ie, doesn't it seem as though scientists succeed or fail it argues for a non-natural explanation for the origin of life? And if one has begun to allow non-natural explanations, why not allow them to extend into evolutionary theories, too?

It may be that God created life, and we will never confirm our hypotheses and suspicions about material origins. On the other hand, it may be that abiogenesis occurred, and we will still never confirm them. Lack of proof is not proof of lack. How often do Christians say this when atheists point out that there is no good evidence for God's existence?

Quote

Copernicus can inform us all as to whether or not I am correct in stating that modern evolutionists treat abiogenesis as a separate area of inquiry and think that they are acting reasonably and rationally in doing so.

To the best of my knowledge, that is true. Many believe that abiogenesis could have occurred by natural selection, but that is not the same as saying that abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** May 27, 2006, 02:52:45 PM »

"No, this is not new. It is simply factually correct. Evolution could be true and abiogenesis false."

I would much prefer to see this statement in the context of history rather than put forward by blunt force. My readings indicate that the two were part and parcel and only recently got broken apart. But I have not systematically examined the point, which is why I couched it the way I did. Have you systematically examined the point?

"Why do religious fundamentalists continally make the claim that abiogenesis is a necessary part of evolution?"

Or, why do atheistic fundamentalists continually make the claim that abiogenesis is NOT a necessary part of evolution?

That's not hard to figure out. Abiogenesis is a loser for atheists, but evolution, they think, is a winner.

But this is really not the point of my post, Copernicus. The fact is that I acknowledged- and you affirmed- where evolutionists currently come down on the matter. If that is what I affirm as the context of the post, it can hardly be argued that I'm arguing against it.

Did you not understand the point of the post? I suppose I could re-state it. Or did you understand it but felt like addressing peripheals?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #5 on:** May 27, 2006, 02:58:19 PM »

This was not relevant at all to my post, but it is worth commenting on:

"Neither evolution nor abiogenesis is incompatible with belief in God or even Christianity."

That is factually false on a number of levels, especially if by the terms 'evolution' and 'abiogenesis' you refer to conclusions derived off of naturalistic methodologies that by assumption eliminate even the possibility of supernatural intervention. Not incompatible? What about flatly contradicts?

There are philosophical implications to evolution and Christianity in that Christianity views creation as created good but fallen and death a terrible ugly mark on that creation. That is flatly incompatible with the idea that God might use evolution.. natural selection, ie, selective DEATH, to create.

Abiogenesis and evolution may be compatible with the belief in God if you are a deist, but as atheists are very quick to point out when discussing whether or not this is a 'Christian nation' that deists weren't really Christian.

Broken · « **Reply #6 on:** May 29, 2006, 08:39:32 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"Neither evolution nor abiogenesis is incompatible with belief in God or even Christianity."

That is factually false on a number of levels, especially if by the terms 'evolution' and 'abiogenesis' you refer to conclusions derived off of naturalistic methodologies that by assumption eliminate even the possibility of supernatural intervention. Not incompatible? What about flatly contradicts?

There are philosophical implications to evolution and Christianity in that Christianity views creation as created good but fallen and death a terrible ugly mark on that creation. That is flatly incompatible with the idea that God might use evolution.. natural selection, ie, selective DEATH, to create.

Abiogenesis and evolution may be compatible with the belief in God if you are a deist, but as atheists are very quick to point out when discussing whether or not this is a 'Christian nation' that deists weren't really Christian.

So what do you think of the Vatican endorsing evolution?

Pope John Paul said in 1996:

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

So, SJ, was Pope John Paul not a Christian?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** May 29, 2006, 09:01:01 PM »

I think the Vatican is not behaving rationally.

I think the Vatican is not acting in a way that is compatible with Christianity.

On the other hand, to be precise, I did not say that you could not be a Christian and also endorse evolution (Can I presume we are talking 'macro' here?). I said to do so would not be compatible with Christianity, which is not the same thing.

The definition of 'Christian' has some wiggle room on the matter of mechanism. But not much.

You cannot maintain that God created everything 'good' and that Jesus overpowered the last enemy, 'death,' if death is also allowed to be God's mechanism for his 'good' creation.

Can the Vatican explain to us why if 'death' is so 'good,' Jesus had to defeat it?

Send them a note and see what they say.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #8 on:** May 29, 2006, 11:11:03 PM »

I accidentally said 'bad' when I meant 'good.' Half a chance people have read this already, so I wanted to alert any potential responders to the edit.

Broken · « **Reply #9 on:** May 30, 2006, 06:43:58 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

I think the Vatican is not behaving rationally.

I think the Vatican is not acting in a way that is compatible with Christianity.

On the other hand, to be precise, I did not say that you could not be a Christian and also endorse evolution (Can I presume we are talking 'macro' here?). I said to do so would not be compatible with Christianity, which is not the same thing.

Perhaps the Vatican would opine that it is you who are not behaving rationally.

From his statements, it is obvious that Pope John Paul concluded that evolution is quite compatible with Christianity. The Pope being the leader of a Church with a billion Christian followers, his opinion could possibly carry more weight than yours or mine.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #10 on:** May 30, 2006, 06:48:24 PM »

Are you sure you want to play it that way?

How hard would it be to find statements by the Pope that you would certainly object to? And which Pope? Is it really your view that the Vatican was right when it ostracized Galileo? Or do you set that aside in face of the one where it apologized? Doesn't that merely amount to you siding with the Pope only so long as it supports your point? And doesn't that basically reduce citing the Pope and the Vatican to nothing of value for our purposes?

I mean, really.

However, this is neither here nor there. If we return to the point of my post, my question had to do with how long and how intractable would the situation have to be before you said, "By golly, maybe the best explanation for abiogenesis really IS intelligent design?" 500 hundred years?

And if you think that evolution is compatible with Christianity, then it cannot be an obstacle for you becoming a Christian, then, can it?

What is stopping you, therefore, from being a Christian?

Broken · « **Reply #11 on:** May 30, 2006, 11:27:52 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Are you sure you want to play it that way?

There is no "playing" about it, SJ.

Pope John Paul's endorsement of evolution is a matter of record. One rather prominent Christian scholar who thinks evolution is compatible with Catholicism at least. Furthermore, the Vatican Astronomer said this spring that evolution alone should be taught, not intelligent design.

Quote

Is it really your view that the Vatican was right when it ostracized Galileo? Or do you set that aside in face of the one where it apologized?

Has it occurred to you that the Catholic Church may have learned that it's attempt to suppress science over the last half-millennium was not the best decision? And that the Church may not see science as the threat it once did? That science and religion are in fact compatible?

Quote

Doesn't that merely amount to you siding with the Pope only so long as it supports your point? And doesn't that basically reduce citing the Pope and the Vatican to nothing of value for our purposes?

How does my opinion factor into this? You said Christianity is not compatible with evolution. I pointed out a rather significant Christian who disagrees with you. Them's the facts.

If you think the Pope "adds nothing of value" to a discussion of Christianty, fine. You Christians sort it out.

Quote

However, this is neither here nor there. If we return to the point of my post, my question had to do with how long and how intractable would the situation have to be before you said, "By golly, maybe the best explanation for abiogenesis really IS intelligent design?" 500 hundred years?

Personally, I don't think we will be able to answer the abiogenesis question until we can send probes to other stars. And patiently wait for the answer to come back. Maybe 500 years.

Meanwhile, the abiogenesis experiments are teaching us a lot about RNA and self-assembling bio-molecules.

Quote

And if you think that evolution is compatible with Christianity, then it cannot be an obstacle for you becoming a Christian, then, can it?

No, it is the Christians who insist they are incompatible that are the obstacle.

Quote

What is stopping you, therefore, from being a Christian?

I was raised Christian, so it is part of my culture. But it is too stuck in the past for me. The Bible has many good moral lessons, and many that are wildly out of date. It would do Christianity some good if it evolved a bit itself.

Also, Christianity, like many religions, insists it is the one true path to God. I don't buy that. How can anyone claim to know there is only one path or why one path is right for everyone?

If there were holy men, people of God, who said they had no idea what God was, but they were trying to find out, maybe I would join.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #12 on:** May 31, 2006, 07:58:38 AM »

"Pope John Paul's endorsement of evolution is a matter of record."

Gosh. I didn't know that this was being disputed.

"Has it occurred to you that the Catholic Church may have learned"

Sure, but I'm not so dense as to measure 'learning' merely by how well it conforms to my own view.

"How does my opinion factor into this?"

You are choosing what one pope said and not others.

"You said Christianity is not compatible with evolution. I pointed out a rather significant Christian who disagrees with you. Them's the facts."

And I also said why. Searching for any hint that you addressed that... nope... you skipped it. Various popes have said all sorts of things.

"If you think the Pope "adds nothing of value" to a discussion of Christianty, fine. You Christians sort it out."

Thanks. I appreciate that. That's a good idea you got there.

"Personally, I don't think we will be able to answer the abiogenesis question until we can send probes to other stars. And patiently wait for the answer to come back. Maybe 500 years."

:) So, in other words, for all practical purposes, its unfalsifiable.

"No, it is the Christians who insist they are incompatible that are the obstacle."

But the Pope is a significant Christian, in charge of a church a billion strong. Isn't your point that I, lowly sntjohnny, am a minority?

"Also, Christianity, like many religions, insists it is the one true path to God. I don't buy that. How can anyone claim to know there is only one path or why one path is right for everyone?"

You seem to know only enough about Catholicism to make you dangerous.

You are right, of course, in your statement about 'Christianity' insisting it is the one true path- and it does have a justification for that- but the Roman Catholic Church has plenty of room for people of your position.

Google Gaudium et Spes, for example.

So, let's see. Catholics think evolution is compatible with Christianity. Catholics are open to the idea that there are many ways...

We've knocked off two possible objections to 'Christianity' (although, as this hints, you've really only knocked off objections to catholicism, but hey). Tell me again why you are not a Christian Catholic? It seems to fit your requirements.

Author Topic: Relationship between abiogenesis and macroevolution... (Read 1612 times)

Anthony Horvath

Relationship between abiogenesis and macroevolution...

SML

Re: Relationship between abiogenesis and macroevolution...

Anthony Horvath

Relationship between abiogenesis and macroevolution...

Copernicus

Re: Relationship between abiogenesis and macroevolution...

Anthony Horvath

Relationship between abiogenesis and macroevolution...

Anthony Horvath

Relationship between abiogenesis and macroevolution...

Broken

Relationship between abiogenesis and macroevolution...

Anthony Horvath

Relationship between abiogenesis and macroevolution...

Anthony Horvath

Relationship between abiogenesis and macroevolution...

Broken

Relationship between abiogenesis and macroevolution...

Anthony Horvath

Relationship between abiogenesis and macroevolution...

Broken

Relationship between abiogenesis and macroevolution...

Anthony Horvath

Relationship between abiogenesis and macroevolution...