Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Life from a rock?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over the last couple of centuries, science has had great success in explaining natural phenomena in terms of natural processes. For example, research and development efforts have given us automobile engines that are much more efficient than they were when cars first came on the scene. The science of biology has also exhibited tremendous advancement in probing the inner workings of the cells of life. Shouldn’t science continue this trend in searching for a natural explanation for the origin and development of life on Earth?

Why shouldn’t we assume that inanimate objects (atoms and molecules) in conjunction with natural sources of energy can create life? One reason is that our advancing knowledge of the biochemical activities within the cell has revealed a metropolis of mechanisms that far surpasses the functional complexity of anything else observed in the universe. We could plausibly continue to assume that life arose naturally if it could be demonstrated that natural processes systematically increase the information content of closed systems over time. But to persist in believing that nature can do something that contradicts natural law is not science, but a form of idolatry.

Prescientific peoples used to worship rocks or carved pieces of wood and declare, “My father!” But that practice became unfashionable well before the age of science. So then, it was thought that the Earth gave birth to life (exchanging a small rock for a large one). But scientists began to realize that even this was unlikely, so an appeal was made to the greater universe for the origin of life.1  With the advent of further understanding of the vast information content of biomolecules and the low probability of any sort of chance assemblage of such molecules within our universe, the size of the “rock” was enormously expanded to encompass multiple universes. How much bigger could it get? Does size even matter? Isn’t it all fraught with the same essential absurdity—calling a rock, “My father!”?

Perhaps we unconsciously ascribe fertility to the Earth, since out of its soil grow all of the plants that provide food for animals and for us. And yet the Earth would produce nothing without the seeds of the plants. One of biology’s “universal laws” (accredited to Rudolph Virchow) states, “Every cell comes from a pre-existent cell.”2 So, we look to the seed, and what do we find? A rich storehouse of information coded in the seed’s DNA. We find information as the source of the physical complexity of life; the Earth is just the environment in which the seed’s hidden information can be unfolded and activated.

From where does the information embedded within the seed come? Not from the Earth, nor from the stars, nor from the Big Bang origin of the physical universe.

Canceled Science, p. 212

The level of information found within a seed can only come from a mind so far above our own that to ascribe it to God is not a statement of religion, but of logic. As physicist Gerald Schroeder has said, “information…is the link between the metaphysical Creator and the physical creation. It is the hidden face of God.”3 

1. F. H. C. Crick and L. E. Orgel, “Directed Panspermia,” Icarus 19 (1973): 341-346.

2. Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001), p. 99.

3. Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth (Touchstone, New York, 2001), p. 49.

Comments
Relatd: So at the end of the day, your only apparent goal is not just supporting atheism but that man without God/gods is pure and more creative. Clearly that's not what I was saying. Clearly what I was saying is that many cultures have been creative and scientific, not just the Christian ones. And, arguably, the foundation of scientific thinking was laid down by the pagan Greek philosophers. And, arguably, once Christianity was on the ascendancy many of the skills and techniques that built Ancient Rome fell into obscurity. Why did the process of mummification disappear in Egypt? I'm not an Egyptologist so I can't answer that question authoritatively but I do know that because of generations of warfare internally and externally Egypt lost a lot of man power and money. You can see that when you compare the pyramids (tombs) and the tombs created for the later pharaohs. Eventually the Greeks came in and basically took over the country and they didn't embalm their dead as far as I know. Why did the Roman Empire fade away? Well, they probably overextended themselves during the early centuries AD and then there ended up being a lot of infighting between the rulers and ruling class. The empire split and started to shrink and was unable to fight off some of the incursions being made especially from the north east. The Christian church barely managed to hold on and they smartly sent out missionaries to covert the pagan hordes. But those missionaries didn't teach the converts mathematics or construction or building techniques. And what happened to the knowledge gained? Some of the knowledge was transmitted via written material but while that works for mathematics or philosophy and history it's not so good with painting and sculpture and architecture. With no strong central authority to collect taxes and spend money for large scale civic constructions and support for artisans and artists the skills faded and died. And then people were not taught to read and write by the monks and clergy. Alfred the Great is estimated to have learned to read in his 40s. Most medieval leaders spent most of their time on warfare and protected their territory or trying to collect more territory. Few nations or states had enough money or were at peace long enough to support much more that smaller scale efforts: some jewellery, some sculpture, some illustrated manuscripts. But big building projects? Large urban development? Not so much. I'm not saying it never happened but not like when the Greeks or Romans or Egyptians were in charge at their peaks. Not until the second millennium did the Gothic Cathedrals start to arise. Not until there were some rich centralised powers were artists paid large commissions to create (mostly ecclesiastical) works of art. Sure, by the time of Raphael the Catholic Church WAS the major building and artistically powerhouse of Europe. But that was well over 1000 years after it became the official religion of the Roman Empire.JVL
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
JVL at 37, Have you read any books about the Mound Builders? My readings show that since the native people of North America lived nomadic lives, these mounds contained artifacts that imply they were discarded. So they were garbage dumps for indigenous people and no different from the massive hills built by modern people that contain broken artifacts from our current civilization. Have you read anything about native American beliefs? It's a bit more complicated than what you imply. Your philosophical outlook is "Look. Here are civilizations that did great things, so God - any version - is not required. Man, by himself, does not need God." Look up Aztec mythology. Get a copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Gods certainly dominated ancient life. Christianity exists in the present since it deals with things that actually happened since the foundation of the world.relatd
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: your references to Newton’s own words does not contradict the point that Dr Meyer made in the video, but instead reinforces it. Have you actually read what Newton wrote in the letter I linked to? Perhaps you should read ‘Newton’s own words’ more carefully with what Dr. Meyer stated in mind? Have you actually read what Newton wrote in the letter I linked to? The rest of your post is a dodge to the fact that you have no rational philosophical basis for doing science. Sorry, but ‘curiosity’ is certainly not going to get you out of your jam with having the right philosophical presuppositions for doing science. Well, apparently the ancient Egyptians and Greeks and Romans and Chinese and Muslims and Mayans and Aztecs had what it takes. Lest we forget the people who built Stonehenge and Göbekli Tepe. And there was those mound builders in pre-Christian North America. Some of the things those cultures created are still in existence. You can go see them. Strangely not a single one of those cultures was Christian and only one of them could be even considered People of The Book. But I guess we can just ignore all the stuff those people did because they didn't consider Jesus to be their own personal saviour. Seems a pity but that's what you're telling me. Yup, those heathen/pagan Greeks and Romans and Egyptians had no reason for building such lasting structures, for creating vast quantities of art, large amounts of literature . . . unless . . . unless they too had a philosophical outlook that also said there was some kind of order and reason for the world being the way it was. But, if that's the case then Christianity has no unique claim to provide that impetuous. It's a real puzzle. Unless you've already made up your mind. But my absence from the thread should not be taken to mean that I concede any further falsehood that JVL may try to repeat or claim. Did you actually read what Newton wrote?JVL
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
JVL at 33, So at the end of the day, your only apparent goal is not just supporting atheism but that man without God/gods is pure and more creative. Why did the process of mummification disappear in Egypt? Why did the Roman Empire fade away? And what happened to the knowledge gained? https://www.amazon.com/dp/0385418493 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0812972333 https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Philosophers-Medieval-Foundations-Science/dp/1848311508/ref=sr_1_1?crid=13HCZY1UU0S36&keywords=god%27s+philosophers&qid=1658951535&s=books&sprefix=god%27s+philosophers%2Cstripbooks%2C178&sr=1-1 https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1K3JT4GDQ66QT&keywords=how+the+catholic+church+built+western+civilization&qid=1658951586&s=books&sprefix=how+the+catholic+church+buil%2Cstripbooks%2C109&sr=1-1relatd
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Of final note, since I have many other things to do today I will comment no further on this thread. But my absence from the thread should not be taken to mean that I concede any further falsehood that JVL may try to repeat or claim.bornagain77
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
JVL your references to Newton's own words does not contradict the point that Dr Meyer made in the video, but instead reinforces it. Perhaps you should read 'Newton's own words' more carefully with what Dr. Meyer stated in mind? The rest of your post is a dodge to the fact that you have no rational philosophical basis for doing science. Sorry, but 'curiosity' is certainly not going to get you out of your jam with having the right philosophical presuppositions for doing science.
Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995 Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons?IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.theistic.net/papers/R.Koons/Koons-science.pdf Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature (that enabled the rise of modern science). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html The Christian Origins of Science - Jack Kerwick - Apr 15, 2017 Excerpt: Though it will doubtless come as an enormous shock to such Christophobic atheists as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and their ilk, it is nonetheless true that one especially significant contribution that Christianity made to the world is that of science.,,, Stark is blunt: “Real science arose only once: in Europe”—in Christian Europe. “China, Islam, India, and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology develop into astronomy.”,,, In summation, Stark writes: “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.” He concludes: “These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” https://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2017/04/15/the-christian-origins-of-science-n2313593 Intelligent Design as a “Science Stopper”? Here’s the Real Story – Michael Flannery – August 20, 2011 Excerpt: If the “ID is a science stopper” argument rests on weak philosophical foundations, its historical underpinnings are even shakier. The leading natural philosophers (what we would call “scientists” today) of the 16th through 18th centuries, the men who established modern science as we know it — Copernicus, Galileo, Vesalius, Harvey, Newton — would have considered the MN (Methodological Naturalism) dogma absurd and indeed rather peculiar. In fact, James Hannam has recently examined this issue in some detail and found that religion, far from being antagonistic or an impediment to science, was an integral part of its advance in the Western world (see my earlier ENV article on the subject). https://evolutionnews.org/2011/08/id_a_science_stopper_heres_the/ Is Religion a Science-Stopper? – REGIS NICOLL – OCTOBER 18, 2017 Excerpt: On the Shoulders of Giants Christians remained in the vanguard of scientific discovery well into the nineteenth century. Groundbreaking advances in electro-magnetism, microbiology, medicine, genetics, chemistry, atomic theory and agriculture were the works of men like John Dalton, Andre Ampere, Georg Ohm, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, William Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, and George Washington Carver; all believers whose achievements were the outworking of their Christian faith. Scientists in the truest sense of the word; these were investigators who doggedly followed the evidence wherever it led, approaching the gaps of understanding not with “God did it!” resignation, but with “God created it” expectation. https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/religion-science-stopper
Etc.. etc.. etc.bornagain77
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: To emphasize, via Stephen Meyer, who has a PhD in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge (which is Newton’s Alma Mater), according to the best present scholarship available, “what seems to be the best view of Newton’s view is that he doubted the Athenation formulation of the trinity, with its reliance on Greek philosophical concepts like ‘substance’, but was trinitarian.” Clearly there are differing views on the matter. Again, I'll take Newton based on what he himself said in private to avoid persecution. Persecution from the Christian authorities who had terrorised Galileo before (was that encouraging science?) and people who Newton knew of for heretical beliefs. But as for you, and seeing that Newton can rightly be called the father of modern physics, I certainly can see no easy resolution for your ‘scientific atheism’, which is diametrically opposed to the essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions, which Newton held, and which lay behind the founding of modern science. I have never denied or side-stepped Newton's deeply held theological views. Again, I take him at his own words. I don't feel I have to 'resolve' anything. Lots and lots of science is done, even by Newton, without reference to a creator or design. Newton clearly thought the design was there, no question. He probably did feel motivated to find the design and the order he thought was put there by a creator. But there have been plenty of curious and outstanding scientists, past and present, who have not shared that view and their work is also important and, in some cases, foundational. It should be unnecessary to point out that Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Pythagorus, Hypatia, Hippocrates, etc were not Christians. I don't know about Fibonacci or Cardano or Descartes or Fermat or many of the pre-Newtonian scientists and mathematicians but I suspect many who came after him like Lebnitz, Legrange, Gauss, LaPlace, L'Hopital, Abel, Poincare, Cantor, Hilbert, Hardy, Ramanujan, Russle, Tesla, Edison, Maxwell, etc were far less devote. I left off Euler who did profess a deep faith but you'd never know that if you only read his mathematical work. Thus JVL, rather than being overly concerned with whether I believe Newton was orthodox, or heterodox, I think that your personal time could be much better spent on figuring out exactly why you yourself are not overly concerned that your atheistic worldview cannot provide the necessary presuppositions that are essential for ‘doing science’ in the first place? Because it's clear that all you need is a deep seated curiosity about how the world works to do science. The ancient Greeks and Romans and Egyptians showed that along with the Chinese and Muslims. Oddly enough, once the Christians took over science in the west stalled out for about a thousand years after that. That fact alone makes me question the necessity of Christian thought to motivate the development of scientific practices and thinking. All cultures who have had the stability and money to fund experimentation along with the desire to build things that are bigger and faster and more powerful have pushed the scientific boundaries. When the west became quite wealthy and rich compared to the rest of the planet they pushed the boundaries even more. The fact that they were Christian I think is coincidental. Have you been to Rome or Athens or Egypt and seen the things they built and constructed which are still extant? The Pantheon in Rome is a concrete dome that is nearly 2000 years old! Stonehenge was around 2500 BC!! And there are those pyramids. (I should also point out that the Mayans built incredibly large and difficult structures well before the Christians showed up.) The Christians came up with nothing like that for a millennium. They didn't immediately pick up from what the ancient cultures had done, they forgot all those skills and abilities for centuries. Just look at the early Christian art, it's childlike compared to what the Greeks and Romans had been making. Granted, in Rome and some of the surrounding areas some of the ancient building techniques were continued but were they improved upon or furthered? Not until the second millennium. That glaring defect in your own atheistic worldview, of not being able to ground science, is not a minor problem, but is definitely an ‘elephant in your living room’ defect which you ignore at your own peril, to the point of rendering anything else you may say about science pointless and absurd.. When the Christians finally had the time and inclination to pursue science they started where the ancient Greeks and Romans and Egyptians had been before. If anything, Christianity slowed down the progress of science. Just because your deeply held faith is central to your own values and morals and beliefs and practices does not mean that that is true for everyone else or for the many cultures whose accomplishments are still incredible and inspiring especially considering how many of them were built sometimes thousands of years before Christ was born and, in the case of Stonehenge and the Pyramids, before there was even an organised Jewish faith. I celebrate all the creative and hard working 'scientists' who have changed the world without trying to tie them to a particular theological view. Especially when they lived and worked before Christianity existed.JVL
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
chuck @6
It seems that every time I open this blog, there is one more piece of evidence that ID is inexorably evolving into a full- fledged religion…..
:)))))))))))))))) you clown ... says someone who BELIEVES in the most absurd / stupid/ ridiculous 'scientific' theory every developed ... developed by a bunch of romantics (biologists and other -logists) who have no idea what they talk about ... that is the reason why this theory is so absurd and ridiculous ... these people just talking nonsense because they are not qualified to comment on these things ... we hear the most absurd things a scientist can claim .... made-up stories .... just-so stories ... fairy tales ... on top of that, these people are always wrong ... we hear every day about new findings challenging decades-long Darwinian dogmas :)))))))) BUT OF COURSE ... HOW ELSE ... this is how it ends, when you have been telling just-so stories for 150 years ... ID or creationism at least makes sense unlike Darwinism .... Darwinism requires high level of faith :))))))))))martin_r
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
JVL again,
“Now there is a debate among scholars about,, Newton. He was a devout Christian of some kind. The question is. Was he an orthodox Christian who believed in the divinity of Christ and the trinity? Or was he more of an Arian, heterodox, Christian who believed in a transcendent God, but as some of our friends in Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, (also) believed that Jesus was created to be an agent of God in the world, and was the exemplar to man, but not fully defined?,, That’s the more common view of Newton’s theological position, but I’ve come to doubt it in recent years. I’ve been made aware of some scholarship by a historian of,, science named Thomas Pfizenmaier. In a seminal article called, “Was Isaac Newton an Arian?”. And what seems to be the best view of Newton’s view is that he doubted the Athenation formulation of the trinity, with its reliance on Greek philosophical concepts like ‘substance’, but was trinitarian. And therefore did believe in the divinity of Christ. I first got skeptical about this, (interpretation that Newton was non-trinitarian), when I saw that passage in the General Scholium, (of Newton’s “Principia’), which is a close paraphrase to the passage in Colossians. Which says, “In Christ all things are held together.”. (As well), He (Newton) wrote a lot on Messianic prophecy.” – Stephen Meyer – The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science – 52:47 minute mark – video https://youtu.be/ss-kzyXeqdQ?t=3167 Was Isaac Newton an Arian? (non-trinitarian?) – Thomas Pfizenmaier https://www.jstor.org/stable/3653988
To emphasize, via Stephen Meyer, who has a PhD in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge (which is Newton's Alma Mater), according to the best present scholarship available, "what seems to be the best view of Newton’s view is that he doubted the Athenation formulation of the trinity, with its reliance on Greek philosophical concepts like ‘substance’, but was trinitarian." You are right, Newton's views on the trinity "has nothing to do with your own beliefs or reasons for having them." And indeed, I believed that Newton was a heterodox Christian for years without being overly troubled by it, and thus was pleasantly surprised when Dr. Meyer pointed this recent scholarship on Newton's belief out. But as for you, and seeing that Newton can rightly be called the father of modern physics, I certainly can see no easy resolution for your 'scientific atheism', which is diametrically opposed to the essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions, which Newton held, and which lay behind the founding of modern science.
Michael Egnor: Judeo-Christian Culture and the Rise of Modern Science - July 23, 2022 https://evolutionnews.org/2022/07/michael-egnor-judeo-christian-culture-and-the-rise-of-modern-science/
Thus JVL, rather than being overly concerned with whether I believe Newton was orthodox, or heterodox, I think that your personal time could be much better spent on figuring out exactly why you yourself are not overly concerned that your atheistic worldview cannot provide the necessary presuppositions that are essential for 'doing science' in the first place? That glaring defect in your own atheistic worldview, of not being able to ground science, is not a minor problem, but is definitely an 'elephant in your living room' defect which you ignore at your own peril, to the point of rendering anything else you may say about science pointless and absurd..bornagain77
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: an atheist, blatantly ignores the fact that Newton’s Theistic views, whatever they might specifically be, are diametrically opposed to his atheism, and wants to attack Newton as a heterodox Christian. I'm not attacking Newton at all. I am merely pointing out that Newton, as he himself wrote, thought the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was a corruption of the original message. He said so himself and you can actually read his monograph because it's been digitised: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false The first paragraph alone makes his view clear. You can continue to deny that this is the case but you will have ignore something that Newton wrote and sent to a friend. I feel that it is respectful to represent him as he himself saw himself. I am well aware of Newton's deeply thought through theological beliefs and the fact that it is in opposition to my own views is not the point or why I brought up his documented anti-trinitarianism. I just thought it was interesting and wondered if, in the view of some of the commenters here, he would be considered a Christian today. Have you actually read what he wrote? Don't you think you should before you draw conclusions that may not be correct? This tactic reveals all we really need to know about JVL and his lack of intellectual honestly with himself and others. Anyone can follow the above link I provided and read what Newton wrote. Just read the first two, brief, pages and see what you think. Unless you're afraid of being shown to be incorrect. But anyways, and again, there are reasons to doubt that Newton was heterodox: I'll take the man at his own word(s) which he committed to paper (sixty-six pages worth) and sent to a friend. I would consider the man's own statements to be a better judge of his beliefs than anyone else's interpretations especially if those interpretations are based on public statements which, as has been made clear, were subject to scrutiny and possible prosecution if they were judged to be heretical. The title of the work is: An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture which he reiterates at the beginning of section II on page two. Admitting that Newton was an anti-trinitarian has nothing to do with your own beliefs or reasons for having them. It harms you not at all to acknowledge something that is clearly true. Unless . . . you can't bear having been wrong. In which case you have to defend your clearly incorrect position beyond the point of sensibility. Also, remember, that scholarly opinion of Newton's beliefs is NOT just based on this one document. It's a kind of smoking gun to be sure. I would suggest that anyone who cherry picks Newton's beliefs is at risk of drawing an incorrect conclusion and being accused of confirmation bias or trying to bend someone else's own beliefs to fit their own.JVL
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Ba77 at 25, The military has this technology but 5 to 10 years more advanced than what is available to the public. Just don't tell Russia or China.relatd
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
CD at 26, The game was rigged. Ah hah. Thanks for exposing the conspiracy. Feel free to publish The Wedge Document. Soon, you, yes you, will be living under a Theocracy... Gasp! "In February 2022, the Vatican released statistics showing that in 2020 the number of Catholics in the world increased by 16 million to 1.36 billion. That means that 17.7% of the world's population is Catholic."relatd
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
JVL, an atheist, blatantly ignores the fact that Newton's Theistic views, whatever they might specifically be, are diametrically opposed to his atheism, and wants to attack Newton as a heterodox Christian. This diversionary tactic reveals all we really need to know about JVL and his lack of intellectual honestly with himself and others. But anyways, and again, (and apart from his biased wikipedia citation), there are good reasons to doubt that Newton was heterodox:
“Now there is a debate among scholars about,, Newton. He was a devout Christian of some kind. The question is. Was he an orthodox Christian who believed in the divinity of Christ and the trinity? Or was he more of an Arian, heterodox, Christian who believed in a transcendent God, but as some of our friends in Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, (also) believed that Jesus was created to be an agent of God in the world, and was the exemplar to man, but not fully defined?,, That’s the more common view of Newton’s theological position, but I’ve come to doubt it in recent years. I’ve been made aware of some scholarship by a historian of,, science named Thomas Pfizenmaier. In a seminal article called, “Was Isaac Newton an Arian?”. And what seems to be the best view of Newton’s view is that he doubted the Athenation formulation of the trinity, with its reliance on Greek philosophical concepts like ‘substance’, but was trinitarian. And therefore did believe in the divinity of Christ. I first got skeptical about this, (interpretation that Newton was non-trinitarian), when I saw that passage in the General Scholium, (of Newton’s “Principia’), which is a close paraphrase to the passage in Colossians. Which says, “In Christ all things are held together.”. (As well), He (Newton) wrote a lot on Messianic prophecy.” – Stephen Meyer – The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science – 52:47 minute mark – video https://youtu.be/ss-kzyXeqdQ?t=3167 Was Isaac Newton an Arian? (non-trinitarian?) – Thomas Pfizenmaier https://www.jstor.org/stable/3653988
bornagain77
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Pater Kimbridge/12 There is a lot of approach-avoidance happening in the ID world. Maybe even enough for a good social psych dissertation. But it's never been a big secret, that the Christian God would win the day. The game was rigged from the start. Presently we see what I call God of the Gaps 2.0--updated to exploit the latest mysteries in science while trying to keep the pews from emptying out completely. You can have your science and eat it too...........chuckdarwin
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Relatd, so quantum entanglement is no longer 'spooky' in your book? Well golly gee whiz, thanks for clearing that up. Geez.bornagain77
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
WJ Murray @3 You're right that this was not the most academically rigorous statement, but it achieved the objective of stirring up some commentary. However, I would hope that negative ad hominem comments would be replaced with comments that address the stated content. Is there a vast amount of complex specified information resident within a seed? Can natural processes produce the complex functional biochemistry representative of that information? If so, where is this seen (outside of the focus of the discussion--namely living things)? If natural causes cannot accomplish something, is it not logical to assume that a super-natural (or metaphysical) cause is responsible? To ascribe this to "God" is a reasonable conclusion, but the term, "God," could be taken as shorthand for some being intelligent and capable enough to accomplish the outcome. Any further thoughts?Caspian
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Ba77 at 21, They figured it out. It is no longer "spooky" or anything like that. Bigger and better quantum computers are coming. https://www.ibm.com/quantum The quantum, meaning sub-atomic, interactions occurring in living things is being figured out as well. Artificial photosynthesis, for example. https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2021/Q2/soaking-up-the-sun-artificial-photosynthesis-promises-a-clean,-sustainable-source-of-energy.html Scientists brainwashed by years of "evolution," meaning God did not do it, can't see certain things because the brainwashing prevents it. Those who are starting to figure things out, while still believing God did not do it, are making some progress. Take molecular switches that regulate cell processes. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-022-00407-0relatd
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: As to the claim that Newton was heterodox: It's pretty clearly supported by reading what he actually wrote:
As well as rejecting the Trinity, Newton's studies led him to reject belief in the immortal soul, a personal devil, literal demons (spirits of the dead), and infant baptism.[15] Although he was not a Socinian, he shared many similar beliefs with them.[15] They were a unitarian Reformation movement in Poland. A manuscript he sent to John Locke in which he disputed the existence of the Trinity was never published.
Newton's work of New Testament textual criticism, An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, was sent in a letter to John Locke on 14 November 1690. In it, he reviews evidence that the earliest Christians did not believe in the Trinity.
Newton's view on 1 John 5:7
Using the writings of the early Church Fathers, the Greek and Latin manuscripts and the testimony of the first versions of the Bible, Newton claims to have demonstrated that the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one", that support the Trinity doctrine, did not appear in the original Greek Scriptures. He then attempts to demonstrate that the purportedly spurious reading crept into the Latin versions, first as a marginal note, and later into the text itself. He noted that "the Æthiopic, Syriac, Greek, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic versions, still in use in the several Eastern nations, Ethiopia, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Eastern European Armenia, Georgia, Muscovy, and some others, are strangers to this reading".[5] He argued[6] that it was first taken into a Greek text in 1515 by Cardinal Ximenes. Finally, Newton considered the sense and context of the verse, concluding that removing the interpolation makes "the sense plain and natural, and the argument full and strong; but if you insert the testimony of 'the Three in Heaven' you interrupt and spoil it."[7] Today most versions of the Bible are from the Critical Text and omit this verse, or retain it as only a marginal reading. However some will argue that the verse is not a later corruption.[8]
Newton's view on 1 Timothy 3:16
Newton argued that, by a small alteration in the Greek text, the word "God" was substituted to make the phrase read "God was manifest in the flesh" instead of "which was manifested in the flesh".[n 1] He attempted to demonstrate that early Church writers in referring to the verse knew nothing of such an alteration.[9] This change increases textual support for trinitarianism, a doctrine to which Newton did not subscribe.[10][11] There is evidence that the original Greek read '??' but was modified by the addition of a strikethrough to become '??' (see the excerpt from the Codex Sinaiticus, above). '??' was then assumed to be a contraction of '????.' The biblical scholar Metzger explains, "no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (?) supports ????; all ancient versions presuppose ?? or ?; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading of ????."[12] In other words, Bible manuscripts closest to the original said 'who' and not 'God' in verse 16.
Newton did not publish these findings during his lifetime, likely due to the political climate. Those who wrote against the doctrine of the Trinity were subject to persecution in England. The Blasphemy Act 1697 made it an offence to deny one of the persons of the Trinity to be God, punishable with loss of office and employment on the first occasion, further legal ramifications on the second occasion, and imprisonment without hope for bail on the third occasion. Newton's friend William Whiston (translator of the works of Josephus) lost his professorship at Cambridge for this reason in 1711. In 1693 a pamphlet attacking the Trinity was burned by order of the House of Lords, and the next year its printer and author were prosecuted. In 1697 Thomas Aikenhead, an eighteen-year-old student charged with denying the Trinity, was hanged at Edinburgh, Scotland.[16] The dissertation was published in 1754.
Newton clearly, but privately, was an anti-trinitarian. It's very clear. He said so himself but did not tell many people because of his fear of prosecution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_ScriptureJVL
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
"quantum entanglement is no big deal" Well, the decades of experimentation, and very angry debate between physicists, over quantum entanglement, i.e. over 'spooky action at a distance', certainly begs to differ. As well, you do also realize that man-made quantum computers are no where near the sophistication of the 'quantum computing, and/or quantum 'searching'', that we are witnessing in life do you not? i.e. protein folding,, DNA search problems, etc.. etc.. ??bornagain77
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Seversky at 19, You are a singular... uh... singular... uh... let me get back to you on that. - OR - In this case, I can replace, ha, ha, ha, with groan, groan, groan.relatd
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Relatd/16
By the way, quantum entanglement is no big deal. Humans have built quantum computers. Unitarians are not Christians per se. You can have any beliefs and join.
Perhaps Unitarians believe the three parts of the Trinity are quantum-entangled into single entity.Seversky
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
As to the claim that Newton was heterodox:
"Now there is a debate among scholars about,, Newton. He was a devout Christian of some kind. The question is. Was he an orthodox Christian who believed in the divinity of Christ and the trinity? Or was he more of an Arian, heterodox, Christian who believed in a transcendent God, but as some of our friends in Jehovah's Witnesses believe, (also) believed that Jesus was created to be an agent of God in the world, and was the exemplar to man, but not fully defined?,, That's the more common view of Newton's theological position, but I've come to doubt it in recent years. I've been made aware of some scholarship by a historian of,, science named Thomas Pfizenmaier. In a seminal article called, "Was Isaac Newton an Arian?". And what seems to be the best view of Newton's view is that he doubted the Athenation formulation of the trinity, with its reliance on Greek philosophical concepts like 'substance', but was trinitarian. And therefore did believe in the divinity of Christ. I first got skeptical about this, (interpretation that Newton was non-trinitarian), when I saw that passage in the General Scholium, (of Newton's "Principia'), which is a close paraphrase to the passage in Colossians. Which says, "In Christ all things are held together.". (As well), He (Newton) wrote a lot on Messianic prophecy." - Stephen Meyer - The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science - 52:47 minute mark - video https://youtu.be/ss-kzyXeqdQ?t=3167 Was Isaac Newton an Arian? (non-trinitarian?) - Thomas Pfizenmaier https://www.jstor.org/stable/3653988
Of related note, Newton was also NOT a Deist as some atheists have tried to claim.
Newton’s Rejection of the “Newtonian World View”: The Role of Divine Will in Newton’s Natural Philosophy - (Davis, 1991) Abstract: The significance of Isaac Newton for the history of Christianity and science is undeniable: his professional work culminated the Scientific Revolution that saw the birth of modern science, while his private writings evidence a lifelong interest in the relationship between God and the world. Yet the typical picture of Newton as a paragon of Enlightenment deism, endorsing the idea of a remote divine clockmaker and the separation of science from religion, is badly mistaken. In fact Newton rejected both the clockwork metaphor itself and the cold mechanical universe upon which it is based. His conception of the world reflects rather a deep commitment to the constant activity of the divine will, unencumbered by the "rational" restrictions that Descartes and Leibniz placed on God, the very sorts of restrictions that later appealed to the deists of the 18th century. Newton's voluntarist conception of God had three major consequences for his natural philosophy. First, it led him to reject Descartes' version of the mechanical philosophy, in which matter was logically equated with extension, in favor of the belief that the properties of matter were freely determined by an omnipresent God, who remained free to move the particles of matter according to God's will. Second, Newton's voluntarism moved him to affirm an intimate relationship between the creator and the creation; his God was acted on the world at all times and in ways that Leibniz and other mechanical philosophers could not conceive of, such as causing parts of matter to attract one another at a distance. Finally, Newton held that, since the world is a product of divine freedom rather than necessity, the laws of nature must be inferred from the phenomena of nature, not deduced from metaphysical axioms -- as both Descartes and Leibniz were wont to do. It is indeed ironic that such a theologically interesting story should remain largely unknown among theologians, not to mention other scholars. Even the late Richard S. Westfall, the leading Newton scholar of our time and a keen student of Newton's theological views, mostly failed to see the relevance of Newton's theological views for the content of his natural philosophy (science). Much scholarship on Newton hitherto has been dominated by the "conflict" school of historiography, growing out of the Enlightenment, according to which religion and science are bitter opponents that cannot possibly influence one another in positive ways; relations of the sort detailed here have gone unnoticed, for they have been inconceivable. In this essay, however, we see the degree to which Newton himself was not an Enlightenment person -- not a "Newtonian," as that term is typically understood. http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm
Further notes:
February 2022 - Seeing that the 'divine will' of God, (sustaining the universe in its continual existence), played such an integral part in Newton’s ‘science’, (and although modern science has certainly come a long way since Newton first started the Scientific Revolution), let’s just simply say that Newton would be very pleased to see the recent closing of the “freedom of choice” loophole within quantum mechanics, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/isaac-newtons-whole-career-we-are-told-was-a-pursuit-of-the-divine/#comment-746449 “If you have missed Newton’s Theism you have missed everything” Stephen Meyer - - Wrong Again: Neil deGrasse Tyson Misrepresents Legacy of Sir Isaac Newton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgohHoK9mQo Isaac Newton’s life was one long search for God - (February 2, 2022) - Marcelo Gleiser Excerpt: Although we correctly learn in schools that Newtonian physics is a model of pure rationality, we would dishonor Newton’s memory if we overlooked the crucial role God plays in his Universe. It may be true that to understand Newton’s scientific achievements we can neglect the more metaphysical side of his personality. But that is only half the story — for Newton saw the Universe as a manifestation of the infinite power of God. It is no exaggeration to say that his life was one long search for God, one long search for communion with the Divine Intelligence, which Newton believed endowed the Universe with the beauty and order manifest in nature. His science was a product of this belief, an expression of his rational mysticism, a bridge between the human and the Divine. https://bigthink.com/13-8/isaac-newton-search-god/ Isaac Newton: His Science and Religion - Stephen D. Snobelen Excerpt: At this point Newton launches into a majestic description of the God he found in Nature and Scripture. This Being, Newton begins, “rules all things, not as the world soul but as the lord of all. And because of his dominion he is called Lord God Pantokrator”. Then follows an account of God’s eternity and omnipresence that is shot through with biblical language. Newton’s God is sovereign over time and space. This twofold sovereignty, Newton suggests, ultimately underpins all things in time and space: “All the diversity of created things, each in its place and time, could only have arisen from the ideas and will of a necessarily existing being”. … At the end of the explicitly theological section of the General Scholium Newton writes: “This concludes the discussion of God, and to treat of God from phenomena is certainly a part of experimental philosophy” (changed to “natural philosophy” in the 1726 third edition of the Principia). Thus for Newton discussions about God and design are not to be kept separate from natural philosophy, but rather are integral to it. - Snobelen https://isaacnewtonstheology.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/newton-in-science-religion-and-society.pdf
bornagain77
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Jerry at 13, Read the Bible.relatd
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
By the way, quantum entanglement is no big deal. Humans have built quantum computers. Unitarians are not Christians per se. You can have any beliefs and join.relatd
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
Of note: This video, via Discovery Institute, was just uploaded,
Challenge to Origin of Life: Energy Harnessing (Long Story Short, Ep. 7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMl5RinuAlw
bornagain77
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
Relatd: It’s God, the Christian God. Interestingly enough, I recently found out that Isaac Newton was a anti-trinitarian. From Wikipedia:
Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity,[146] with one historian labelling him a heretic.[147] By 1672, he had started to record his theological researches in notebooks which he showed to no one and which have only recently been examined. They demonstrate an extensive knowledge of early Church writings and show that in the conflict between Athanasius and Arius which defined the Creed, he took the side of Arius, the loser, who rejected the conventional view of the Trinity. Newton "recognized Christ as a divine mediator between God and man, who was subordinate to the Father who created him."[148] He was especially interested in prophecy, but for him, "the great apostasy was trinitarianism."[149] Newton tried unsuccessfully to obtain one of the two fellowships that exempted the holder from the ordination requirement. At the last moment in 1675 he received a dispensation from the government that excused him and all future holders of the Lucasian chair.[150] In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin.[151] In 1999, historian Stephen D. Snobelen wrote, "Isaac Newton was a heretic. But ... he never made a public declaration of his private faith—which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unraveling his personal beliefs."[147] Snobelen concludes that Newton was at least a Socinian sympathiser (he owned and had thoroughly read at least eight Socinian books), possibly an Arian and almost certainly an anti-trinitarian.[147] The view that Newton was Semi-Arian has lost support now that scholars have investigated Newton's theological papers, and now most scholars identify Newton as an Antitrinitarian monotheist.[147][152] Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "So then gravity may put the planets into motion, but without the Divine Power it could never put them into such a circulating motion, as they have about the sun".[154] Along with his scientific fame, Newton's studies of the Bible and of the early Church Fathers were also noteworthy. Newton wrote works on textual criticism, most notably An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John.[155] He placed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at 3 April, AD 33, which agrees with one traditionally accepted date.[156] He believed in a rationally immanent world, but he rejected the hylozoism implicit in Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza. The ordered and dynamically informed Universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason. In his correspondence, Newton claimed that in writing the Principia "I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity".[157] He saw evidence of design in the system of the world: "Such a wonderful uniformity in the planetary system must be allowed the effect of choice". But Newton insisted that divine intervention would eventually be required to reform the system, due to the slow growth of instabilities.[158] For this, Leibniz lampooned him: "God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion."[159] Newton's position was vigorously defended by his follower Samuel Clarke in a famous correspondence. A century later, Pierre-Simon Laplace's work Celestial Mechanics had a natural explanation for why the planet orbits do not require periodic divine intervention.[160] The contrast between Laplace's mechanistic worldview and Newton's one is the most strident considering the famous answer which the French scientist gave Napoleon, who had criticised him for the absence of the Creator in the Mécanique céleste: "Sire, j'ai pu me passer de cette hypothèse" ("Sir, I didn't need this hypothesis").[161] Scholars long debated whether Newton disputed the doctrine of the Trinity. His first biographer, David Brewster, who compiled his manuscripts, interpreted Newton as questioning the veracity of some passages used to support the Trinity, but never denying the doctrine of the Trinity as such.[162] In the twentieth century, encrypted manuscripts written by Newton and bought by John Maynard Keynes (among others) were deciphered[64] and it became known that Newton did indeed reject Trinitarianism.[147]
Now, I don't know much about such things so I'll just ask: Was Newton a Christian in the same way you are? Would you consider his 'god' the same as yours? (I realise this has nothing to do with God being the creator but I thought it was an interesting theological point of discussion. I am familiar with the Unitarian church and I always wondered if they should be considered Christians . . .)JVL
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
The truth keeps slipping out
The truth that there is a creator has become obvious. It’s no longer slipping out. It’s out. Someone else who is in denial. Where do they come from? Now how can we learn more about this creator? That would be the intelligent questionjerry
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
CD at 6 I know, right? It's like, embrace, deny, embrace, deny. The truth keeps slipping out.Pater Kimbridge
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
CD at 6, Oh no! A religion. Can't have that. Seriously, the odds of life by chance have gone beyond any reasonable, scientific interpretation. And so evolution, as described in Biology textbooks, did not happen. So even though ID, the science, does not describe the "intelligence," individual people can. It's God, the Christian God.relatd
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
What is so devastating to Darwinian presuppositions with the (empirical) finding of pervasive quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement within molecular biology, is that quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, and especially with the falsification of 'hidden variables', simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum coherence and/or entanglement that is now found to be ubiquitous within biology.
Not So Real - Sheldon Lee Glashow - Oct. 2018 Excerpt: In 1959, John Stewart Bell deduced his eponymous theorem: that no system of hidden variables can reproduce all of the consequences of quantum theory. In particular, he deduced an inequality pertinent to observations of an entangled system consisting of two separated particles. If experimental results contradicted Bell’s inequality, hidden-variable models could be ruled out. Experiments of this kind seemed difficult or impossible to carry out. But, in 1972, Alain Aspect succeeded. His results contradicted Bell’s inequality. The predictions of quantum mechanics were confirmed and the principle of local realism challenged. Ever more precise tests of Bell’s inequality and its extension by John Clauser et al. continue to be performed,14 including an experiment involving pairs of photons coming from different distant quasars. Although a few tiny loopholes may remain, all such tests to date have confirmed that quantum theory is incompatible with the existence of local hidden variables. Most physicists have accepted the failure of Einstein’s principle of local realism. https://inference-review.com/article/not-so-real “hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize. John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it. How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?” per Jimfit
Whereas on the other hand, the Christian Theist readily does have a beyond space and time cause that he can appeal to so as to explain quantum entanglement, and/or quantum information that is now found to be ubiquitous within life. And indeed, Christians have been postulating just such a cause for a few thousand years now. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
It is also important to realize that quantum information, unlike classical information, is physically conserved. As the following article states, In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time - 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
The implication of finding 'non-local', (beyond space and time), and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created nor destroyed), quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have fairly strong empirical evidence indicating that we do indeed have a transcendent, metaphysical, component to our being, a “soul”, that is, in principle, capable of living beyond the death of our material/temporal bodies. As Stuart Hameroff succinctly stated in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe - Oct. 19, 2017 - Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” - Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - video (5:00 minute mark) (of note, this video is no longer available for public viewing) https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/
Personally, I consider these recent findings from quantum biology to rival all other scientific discoveries over the past century. Surpassing even the discovery of a beginning of the universe, via Big Bang cosmology, in terms of scientific, theological, and even personal, significance. As Jesus once asked his disciples and a crowd of followers, “Is anything worth more than your soul?” Verse:
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
Of supplemental note, long before DNA, and the information therein, were even known about, and/or discovered, Christianity was on record claiming that life had an 'author'.
Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
Also of additional note:
Einstein himself may not have personally believed in life after death, (nor in a personal God), but Special Relativity itself contradicts Einstein and offers stunning confirmation that Near Death Testimonies are accurate ‘physical’ descriptions of what happens after death, i.e. going to a ‘higher timeless/eternal dimension’, i.e. heavenly dimension, that exists above this temporal realm. December 25, 2021 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/50-christmases-later/#comment-743334
bornagain77
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply