Posted by Chris on July 10, 1998 at 10:53:46:
In Reply to: My beliefs & the case against abiogenesis. posted by Robert O'Brien on July 09, 1998 at 03:16:49:
: Here are my beliefs:
: 1) I believe in a Supreme Being.
: 2) I believe that the Supreme Being created us and all other life forms via the evolutionary process.
: 3) I believe that He takes an active but "behind the scenes" role in governing our planet.
: 4) I believe that He is subject to the laws of the universe.
: 5) I believe in miracles. However, I believe that what we (i.e., believers) refer to as miracles are actually a higher manifestation of the laws of the universe, not a violation thereof (yes, I realize I sound like a "TBM" here).
: 6) I believe that God works through a myriad of world religions (not necessarily through all, though, and to varying degrees).
: 7) I also believe that God works through the hearts of good people everywhere, whether they believe in Him or not (everything good belongs to God).
: 8) I believe in an afterlife.
: 9) I do not believe in the Trinitarian concept of God, nor do I believe Jesus Christ was divine. I do believe, however, that he had a divine calling.
: 10) I agree with Islam when it emphatically states that God is God alone. Whether or not He is one of a "race" of Gods is not clear to me, nor do I consider it vital to know one way or the other.
: 11) I do not have a set belief as to whether God or the "Big Bang" came first. What is important to me is that He exists, not how He came to be. I will admit, though, that I am more inclined to believe that God has always existed.
: 12) I interpret the Bible and other scriptures liberally, as opposed to literally. I do not, however, believe in or advocate "liberal" morality (such is the province of my archenemies, the "live and let live" libertarians).
Well, that's fine Robert, but dogmaic articles of faith are the antithesis of honest intellectual inquiry. You are sure to get some guffaws from your audience if you begin your persuasion speech in this manner. I can just see it: drum-roll..."Introducing, the Paladin of Truth, Rooooobert OOOOO'Briennnn!"
Anyway, from my education as a biologist, my contact with other scientists, and from what I have read on abiogenesis, I would say that your information is correct.
: 1) There is nothing (and I do mean nothing) that scientists have encountered that is both simple enough to be our first "ancestor," yet complicated enough to replicate itself (at which point natural selection would prevail).
: 2) What proponents of abiogenesis lack is an "intermediate form/organism." This supposed organism must be in between inorganic molecules--which generally have no tendency to replicate themselves (even when they do "replicate," such as in a crystal, there is no variation in that process, hence no natural selection)--and complex organisms like ourselves. Even the "simplest" organisms of today are incredibily complex, and cannot be accounted for at the "beginning." This professor said that he and his colleagues have _faith_ that such an organism can be found, but, as of yet, have no evidence to that end.
You are correct. Are you familiar with the replicating clay hypothesis of Cairns-Smith? If it could be demonstrated, I think it would go a long way towards satisfying the requirement of an inorganic system that reproduces with variability and therefore evolves.
: 3) The probability of such an event occuring is astronomical. Being a mathematician, I can safely say that with the estimates I have seen thus far, you couldn't even imagine the number of lives you'd have to live to count to such an enormous number. More than a few scientists (who obviously reject abiogenesis) have speculated that there is not enough matter in the universe for abiogenesis to occur (anywhere). The usual retort to this is: "Well, we are here, so that's the proof!" Well, I find such an argument hokey at best. We are here, but that does nothing in the way of supporting abiogenesis. If you really believe we are that 1 in 1x10^58 chance, then go ahead.
I don't find that satisfying either, because it short circuits the scientific process. If every problem, every nagging mystery, could be silenced by invoking a hokey "Boy are we lucky! That's just the way it is!" then there wouldn't be any scientific investigation. I see the invocation of, "God did it!" to have the same effect, so I'm not satisfied with that either. :) On the other hand, either one of them could be true, and IMO, abiogenesis is more probable. (Please don't slice off my liberal, humanistic, dogma-doubting head with your vorpal greatsword).
: 4) With the RNA model (as I recall), there is a problem of needing two molecules/organisms/processes to get things "rolling." As I remember, this professor said that there used to be a problem with needing three molecules (or whatever) but that has since been reduced. In any event, as I gathered from our talk, they have the "Chicken and the Egg" problem on their hands (with this particular model and at this point in time, at least).
: 5) The conditions of the earth that they (biologists et al) propose is not conducive to any form of life (or the beginnings thereof) as we know them. Of course, we don't even know what the earth was like back then. RNA is fragile, and it is difficult to imagine how such a molecule could survive to "reproduce." In fine, the proposed conditions of the primordial earth present a big problem for all the models (i.e., you need the right "stuff" in the atmosphere to promote "life", but you also need some heavy-duty protection for that life to keep it that way).
Personally, I think that real breakthroughs will come when/if forms of life are discovered on other planets. What atmospheres are/were present there? What kind of molecules make up the extra-terrestrial life forms? Is life abundant in the universe, or were we, if fact, a great accident after all?
: 6) In a somewhat unrelated vein, I believe that the undeniable fact that nature and the laws of the universe conform exactly to the laws of mathematics is strong evidence that there is a Supreme Being behind it all.
I don't see how one follows from the other. Since we have no control universe to compare our's to, it is pretty empty to appeal to a hypothetical universe WITHOUT design. What would a universe look like if it didn't follow laws of nature?