Intelligent Design Origin Of Life

But IS there a theory of the origin of life?

Spread the love

At The Big Conversation Paul Davies and Jeremy England discuss whether we need a new theory for how life began (June 25, 2021). But do we really have any such theory now?

Two leading voices in Origins of Life research, Paul Davies and Jeremy England, discuss whether a new understanding of physics could be the key to unlocking the mystery of how life first emerged. But where does this leave the concept of God as creator? England, who is an orthodox Rabbi, and Davies, who describes himself as agnostic, talk about the implications for religious belief.

If life’s beginning was a historical event rather than a natural law, it may never be possible to recover the exact sequence of steps. That would be true no matter what we believe about anything else about the universe.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips – origin of life What we do and don’t know about the origin of life.

11 Replies to “But IS there a theory of the origin of life?

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    As I understand it, no, we do not have a theory of the origins life yet. We don’t have a theory of the origins of the Universe either, so there’s plenty to keep physicists, chemists, biologists, etc busy for many years to come. Creationists, of course, already know how it all happened so there’s not really much for them to do apart from sit there and look on amused while science struggles to come up with scientific explanations.

  2. 2
    Jack says:

    Seversky: we do not have a theory of the origins life yet…. Creationists, of course, already know how it all happened

    Who is “we?” ID proponents (I don’t know what “creationists” do, I’m not one) make a non-god-of-the-gaps abductive argument as to the origin of the functional complexity of the DNA/Ribosome coded-information replicator system, given known resources, timeframe, chance and necessity: something with great undertstanding and foresight put it together. It is a falsifiable hypothesis, and as with any hypothesis and forensic analysis, this hypothesis could end up being wrong. It’s the best hypothesis going so far. By a long way.

  3. 3
    AaronS1978 says:

    Again Sev
    I present to you the appendix which for many years evolution did it and it had no function

    This is exactly you’re god of gaps complaint

    Your sarcastic remark falls upon deaf ears because amazingly enough nobody really thinks that way except for maybe a select few people

    You’re strawman needs to be dumped in the trash bin and lit on fire

    But I guess you can keep refusing it if it makes you feel better

  4. 4
    AaronS1978 says:

    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/07/england-davies-honesty-if-not-agreement-on-the-origin-of-life/

    Also this is a good read especially the last portion of it when they ask Davies about why he still had faith that there was such a principal in the universe

    You’ll find it’s very biased and it’s exactly the same thing you accuse everybody who supports idea of

  5. 5
    ET says:

    There is a better chance of having Stonehenge arise via geological processes than showing life arose via naturalistic processes.

    We may not know exactly how an intelligent designer did it, obviously because it is beyond our capability. But there isn’t any doubt an intelligent designer did it. And now we get to work to figure out the answers to the other questions.

  6. 6
    martin_r says:

    the origin of life research …

    just another example of Darwinian fraud.

    Based on what was discovered so far, an ACCEPTABLE scientific consensus would be that some intelligent agency did it (no need to mention God). This would be acceptable and reasonable to teach in schools.

    But no, Darwinian fraudsters prefer UNACCEPTABLE RIDICULUOSLY ABSURD scientific consensus, which IGNORES everything what humans learned so far. E.g. that systems where thousands of working parts working together for a purpose are ALWAYS a result of intelligent agency. There is not a single SCIENTIFIC evidence that it could be otherwise (that some unguided natural process did it)

    PS1: another Darwinian fraud is the ‘god-of-the-gap’ argument. Darwinists infested the whole world with this rhetoric … it is like saying, give us (scientists) more time and we will prove that cellphones self-designed and then self-assembled…

    PS2: are Darwinists not concerned, that after 150 years, there is a zero progress in origin-of-life research? any idea why ? :))))

  7. 7
    martin_r says:

    Seversky, JVL & Co.

    let me remind you of another fact in regards to origin of life research:

    “Let’s assemble the Dream Team. Let’s assume that the world’s top 100 synthetic chemists, top 100 biochemists and top 100 evolutionary biologists combined forces into a limitlessly funded Dream Team. The Dream Team has all the carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids and nucleic acids stored in freezers in their laboratories… All of them are in 100% enantiomer purity. [Let’s] even give the team all the reagents they wish, the most advanced laboratories, and the analytical facilities, and complete scientific literature, and synthetic and natural non-living coupling agents. Mobilize the Dream Team to assemble the building blocks into a living system – nothing complex, just a single cell. The members scratch their heads and walk away, frustrated…

    So let’s help the Dream Team out by providing the polymerized forms: polypeptides, all the enzymes they desire, the polysaccharides, DNA and RNA in any sequence they desire, cleanly assembled. The level of sophistication in even the simplest of possible living cells is so chemically complex that we are even more clueless now than with anything discussed regarding prebiotic chemistry or macroevolution. The Dream Team will not know where to start.

    The Dream Team will not know where to start.

    The Dream Team will not know where to start.

    The Dream Team will not know where to start.

    The Dream Team will not know where to start.

    The Dream Team will not know where to start.

    (Don’t forget, in order to design a cell, you need that thousands of parts working together for a purpose)

    So i don’t understand, what do you Darwinists e.g Seversky actually expect ?

    How this problem could be ever solved by pouring and mixing some chemicals together (to simulate unguided natural process) ? Then what ? Thousand of parts will start working together for a purpose ? What are you trying to prove??? It is like in some mental hospital …

    (as you can see above, even if you have all the needful parts securely stored in lab’s freezers, SCIENTISTS DONT KNOW WHERE TO START IN ORDER TO CREATE THE SIMPLEST CELL, or to create SIMPLES ANYTHING! )

  8. 8
    aarceng says:

    There are several theories for the origin of life.
    But there’s no PLAUSIBLE theory for the origin of life.

  9. 9
    Marfin says:

    Sev- Sev you have been on this site long enough and have been involved in enough discussions to have come to the realisation of just how incredibly ,incredibly, incredibly , complex , life is, and the conditions they are required to get life started must have been astronomically rare.
    So give us your thoughts on how it got started, and tell us why you believed it could not have been intelligently designed.

  10. 10
    BobRyan says:

    It is fascinating just how arrogant atheists are. Rather than humble themselves and admit the possibility of vastly superior intelligence, compared to man, they believe that man limited understanding of the universe is enough to declare they are right about their beliefs. If man cannot figure out how it happened, it can never be something more intelligent than themselves involved in anything.

    All the evidence supports a vastly superior intelligence than man. Life cannot arise from no life by chance. No law of physics could have arisen by accident. Energy cannot be created, yet it exists.

  11. 11
    Marfin says:

    Sev- At least by his lack of response, Sev is admitting that life could have been intelligently designed.

Leave a Reply