Posted by Robert O'Brien on July 09, 1998 at 03:16:49:
In Reply to: Abiogenesis posted by rpcman on July 02, 1998 at 14:12:21:
: I noticed on the RfM board that someone said: The truly stupid are those persons who subscribe to abiogenesis. That asinine conjecture (championed by many of our lesser brethren in the scientific community) is a far greater fantasy than any that might exist in the theist community.
: I haven't really studied the subject much, but let's compare the theories to see which is the 'greater fantasy'.
: Biblical Theism: Man is created out of thin air (or dust if you like the Chapter 2 version). Woman is also created out of thin air (or the first man's rib if you like the Chapter 2 version better). Since man is made in God's image--God too must have been created out of nothing at all.
: Behe Theism: Man (and everything else more complicated than say RNA) is created by evolution. An intelligent designer created these "irreducibly complex" items out of thin air or by some other supernatural means. This supernatural being's origin is still not explained. It is probably safe to say that this incredibly powerful and complex deity came into being from nothing at all.
: Deism: A supernatural being creates the universe. It is probably safe to say that this incredibly powerful and complex deity came into being from nothing at all.
: "The truly stupid" in the scientific community: Organic self-replicators came into being from a primordial soup.
: Which of the above is most plausible and why? Which of the above 'conjectures' is most 'asinine' and why? Are there any other possibilities which are more believable?
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).
Okay, that's all enough of my personal beliefs. Now, on to abiogenesis. The timing of this "debate" is fortunate for me in that I am going to be giving a persuasion speech in my speech class about abiogenesis. I am going to be arguing against it, of course. The other day I spoke with a biology professor at my University about abiogenesis (more for my speech than this debate). He was very kind in that he told me the problems with the theory (or rather, with the models that are used to explain it) even though he (obviously) believes in the abiotic origin(s) of life and I made it clear that I would be arguing against said theory. I also made it clear to him, though, that I'm not a Creationalist and that I deplore anti-science sentiment. The following are the problems with abiogenesis that I gathered from our conversation (as well as other sources):
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.
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.
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).
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. Order does not proceed from chaos without an outside agent or (nonconservative) force at work. I saw some posts here to the effect that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle dispels the belief in an ordered universe (and, consequently, God). That is so much hogwash! Even the Uncertainty Principle conforms to _mathematics_. Heisenberg and his colleagues (such as Niels Bohr) certainly weren't of that opinion. Heisenberg, Bohr, and Schrodinger et al were theists to the last (odd how all the greatest thinkers have been theists, isn't it?) If I'm wrong (which I'm not) concerning the existence of God, then at least I'm in good company.
Well, that's all for now.
Robert O'Brien
Paladin of Truth--Forever Battling the Evils of Atheism, Human Secularism, Libertarianism, et al.