Response

Posted by Carlos on July 09, 1998 at 11:44:17:

In Reply to: My beliefs & the case against abiogenesis. posted by Robert O'Brien on July 09, 1998 at 03:16:49:

Robert O'Brien said:

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.

I could make the same statement about abiogenesis, which you dismiss below: What is important to me is that We exist, not how the first replicator came to be. You evade the question of the origin of God by saying that He has always existed; does your scientific mind retreat into mysticism here?

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).

Wow - I've never been an archenemy before. I hope you are engaging in hyperbole here - I don't consider anyone my enemy, though we may disagree on a great many things. A clarification: the "live and let live" attitude to Libertarians only extends to those actions which do not harm another's person or property. Who is the arbiter of your standard of morality? God? His messengers? If so, whom might they be?

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).

Abiogenesis is a daunting problem - no question - and I am certainly no expert. The main reason I find it convincing is that the existence of an omniscient being strikes me as being even more unlikely. I assume you have read the Talk Origins FAQ on the subject - I have no further light and knowledge beyond that.

3) The probability of such an event occurring 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 am not a mathematician, but I believe the odds you are quoting refer the probability of the spontaneous formation of DNA, or of a cell. Scientists who believe in abiogenesis do not believe that occurred - but that an admittedly unknown precursor replicator formed. Highly improbable - perhaps. Is God more probable? Read The Improbability of God by Richard Dawkins for more on this.

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. 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.

Recent work by Stuart Kauffman and others (see his book At Home in the Universe : The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity) suggest that, in fact, order can proceed from chaos. What about Einstein? I just finished a biography on him (Einstein: A Life by Denis Brian), and he was certainly no theist (a pantheist, but not a theist).